P E R S O N A L I T Y:

F U R T H E R   N O T E S

The I Ching and Temperament

I recently found myself reading a copy of the Chinese book known as the I Ching. (My copy is the version with concordance and translated by Ritsema and Karcher, published in 1995 by Barnes and Noble Books.) This is a text that in different forms for several thousand years has been used for divining a person's future based on the random fall of 49 sticks or three coins. The patterns of the objects are interpreted by consulting the I Ching to describe the 64 possible variations.

Although I discount the mystical powers attributed to such things, it seemed to me as I read that there was something familiar about this system of self-understanding. Despite the encrustation of complexity over the years, at its core the I Ching appeared to be founded on observations about human personality. I wondered: Was there any link here to temperament theory?

At the center of this Eastern system of knowledge is a simple distinction between "yin" and "yang." Just as we associate certain complementary characteristics to the Sensing and iNtuitive preferences, the qualities of yin and yang are widely understood as having distinct characteristics.

Yang is the active principle, the concept of motion, of thrust and drive, of forming goals and progressing toward them. Yang is change, newness, destruction of what is to create what might be. In ideas, yang imposes.

Yin is the opposite of yang. As yang is identified with action, yin is held to carry the concepts of structure, of boundaries and limits, of the specific and the understood. Yin builds fixed forms, and it concentrates and consolidates what is in the present. In ideas, yin adapts.

To me, the descriptions of yin and yang sound very much like my descriptions of attitudes toward the unknown and the known. On the one hand is yang, the change-seeking principle; on the other hand we have yin, the structure-seeking principle. This correlation is admittedly subjective... but I find it strongly suggestive. It seems to me that human nature (which is what all these concepts are trying to describe) has remained extremely consistent across time and distance. So why should two different systems for understanding human nature not share some descriptive features?

If this can be accepted, then what becomes interesting is the possibility of a difference in Eastern and Western characters. While in Westerners the fundamental attribute of temperament appears to be one's choice of Sensing or iNtuition (concrete vs. abstract, world vs. self), it would seem that the key difference between persons in the East is between "action" and "structure," or yang and yin, and that an abstract or concrete style of communication is a secondary concern at best.

Perhaps someone will find this interesting enough to investigate further. Meanwhile, there turned out to be other apparent similarities between the I Ching and temperament theory.

The I Ching incorporates the principles of yang and yin in its system of "lines." The opened ("--- ---") and whole ("-------") lines represent yin and yang, respectively. It then added two variations on these lines in the concept of "transformation." An open line may transform into a whole line; this is represented by the image "---X---". And a whole line may transform into an open line, respresented by "---O---".

At some point in its development, it was perceived that this system could be viewed as a cycle. Starting with yang in its "youngest" form ("-------"), this was held to be the potential for action, and related to the season of spring. As young yang transformed over time, becoming extreme yang in its gradual transition into yin, it became actual action ("---O---"), such as that in the summer growing season.

The new, young yin ("--- ---") was seen as the time for beginning to consolidate one's goods, the potential structure of the autumn harvesting season. And the period of actual structure ("---X---") in which yin has matured to its fullest expression was considered the season of winter's trial, when energies are concentrated and held in check.

The completed pattern, then, could be represented as a looping circle, or in a matrix read clockwise starting from the upper left quadrant:

Does this not resemble the diagram of "opposite" temperaments? Consider: Spring, the young yang time of new activity, is held by the I Ching to be described as "potential action." This sounds to me much like the NF's idealism, full of ideas and passion to begin new things. And it's hard not to see in the SP Artisan's restless activity the extreme yang fullness of "actual action" in the long days of summer when there is work to be done.

Likewise, the Guardian SJ concern with property and with conserving resources against hard times to come is reflected in the "potential structure" of young yin, of autumn's harvest and storage. Finally, the extreme yin quality of "actual structure" so necessary in the difficult winter may be seen in the Rational NT's intense focus on efficiency and self-sufficiency, on reducing incoherent data to fundamental principles.

I may be reaching here, seeing correspondences where none exist merely because I wish to see them. Still, I can't quite shake the feeling that buried underneath all the pseudo-science complexity of the modern I Ching there is a kernel of truth about human nature. If that is so, then perhaps temperament theory has another small piece of supporting evidence to stand alongside invocations of Galen's "four humours."

Thinking Styles and Temperament

While doing a Web search on temperament styles, I noticed an intriguing comment in a paper on the Web titled " Thinking styles and accessing information on the world wide web".

The relevant bit states:

    Sternberg & Lubart (1991a) proposes that there is a link between
    intellectual (or thinking) style and creativity.  Truly striking levels
    of creativity are associated with global and legislative thinking styles
    compared with local executive thinking styles.  Individuals with a
    global legislative thinking style prefer relatively large abstract issues,
    ignoring details.  They prefer the task of creating, formulating, imagining
    and planning.  Individuals with local styles prefer concrete problems
    requiring detailed work and tend to be pragmatically oriented.  They prefer
    implementing and applying ideas or plans of others.

These descriptions sound to me very much like a recognition of temperament, in particular of NTs and SPs. (I further note that these two styles are "opposites" in my model, something the Sternberg and Lubart reference appears to be describing as well.)

The University of Sydney paper clearly distinguishes between "local" and "global" styles as being "concrete" and "abstract," respectively--which is precisely the Sensing/iNtuitive split highlighted by Myers-Briggs, Keirsey and myself. Now, assuming I'm adequately understanding what's meant by "legislative" and "executive," I think we can construct another diagram, this one fitting the Sydney paper's concepts into the Keirsey temperament model:

I haven't yet been able to study the Sternberg and Lubart reference cited, but when I do, I'll note any relevant information here.

Temperament and Organizational Cultures

In his classic work on organizational patterns and behaviors, Understanding Organizations, Charles Handy describes his concept of organizational cultures. Specifically, he suggests that there are four (there's that number four again!). In this he notes that he is following a paper by R. Harrison, "How to Describe Your Organization," Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct., 1972.

First, Handy states forthrightly that organizations have discernable cultures, or internal process expectations, and that these cultures are derived from the attitudes of those who lead organizations. As Handy puts it: "Not all cultures suit all purposes and people. Cultures are founded and built over the years by the dominant groups in an organization." If that's so, then shouldn't organizational cultures reflect temperament?

Handy lends support to an answer of "yes," suggesting that four particular kinds of organizational cultures exist. As named by Harrison, they are: Power, Role, Task, and Person. The very names are suggestive of the four temperaments, but let's look at each more closely.

Power Culture

The Power culture is defined by personal control over subordinates. It rewards risk-taking, and minimizes security and bureaucracy in favor of mobility and personal responsibility. It is a highly entrepreneurial style, but this can also mean occasionally wasting resources on risky schemes that fail to pay off. Such an organization tends to suffer from span-of-control problems as it grows beyond a certain small size. At the personal level, some people find this culture abrasive, and don't enjoy the highly competitive atmosphere. But such organizations can be highly effective as long as they are small enough to be nimble, and the individual at the center of things is skillful and motivated. An example of a group likely to demonstrate a Power culture would be virtually any Sales team.

Role Culture

The Role culture, as its name suggests, tends to view the world in terms of fulfilling carefully defined requirements. In this kind of culture, process is king. There may be an overall goal, but that goal will be reached by making sure that every task is done by the book, and every interaction is defined by a paragraph in a manual of "policies and procedures." This kind of culture excels at maintaining and conserving, but is ill-equipped for innovating or exploiting. It can have great difficulty responding to changes in its environment, whether challenges or opportunities. The Role culture favors security over risk-taking, and steadiness over creativity. It tends toward bureaucratic inertia, but generally won't shock shareholders, either. Most organizations that grow to have many thousands of participants tend to become Role cultures. A Role culture can be found in larger organizations whose products rely on economies of scale, or which are near monopolies--government agencies being a prime example.

Task Culture

The Task culture is goal-oriented. If there is only one job requirement, that requirement will be "competence." Although each part of the whole is expected to be effective, this culture places a high value on teamwork. Indeed, as new tasks are perceived, new teams will be formed to address those tasks, leading to a highly flexible and innovative organization. With less emphasis on power derived from position or from force of personality, a Task culture is most adaptable to changes in its environment. But its emphasis on expert power can also mean an extremely challenging workplace, where competence is required and must be demonstrated regularly. This focus on ends can produce a workplace that seems chaotic and personally contentious; for those comfortable in such an environment, extraordinary productivity can be achieved. Probably the best examples today of a Task culture are computer game development companies.

Person Culture

The Person culture exists to facilitate personal interactions. If there is a goal for such a culture, it is likely to be harmonious interpersonal activity. As long as the organization fosters this atmosphere, the individuals who comprise that organization will stay; when time or size changes the environment, the participants will simply leave. "Power," which in some form drives the three other cultures, simply doesn't apply to an organization that exists only so long as its individual members freely interact to create that organization. For this reason the Person culture is rarely found intact in the business world, which survives by meeting external requirements for products or services. Instead, this kind of organization serves only the internal requirements of the group. It emerges as persons get together voluntarily to enjoy each other's company. Prime examples of such an organization today are the on-line chat rooms and discussion groups.

Having examined the four cultures in Handy's terms, I find it very difficult to avoid seeing obvious correspondences with Keirsey's four temperaments. The correspondences (addressed in detail below) look to me like this:

Power and the Artisan

Handy's Power culture sounds very much like an organization put together by one of Keirsey's Artisans. The more extraverted Artisans in particular seem to be highly entrepreneurial, starting their own businesses with lots of hands-on control. As time passes, however, most SPs find that running a business is much less fulfilling than starting one. The maintenance of a thing, which is more a Guardian's forte, can be boring to an Artisan almost to the point of pain. This echoes attitudes found in a Power culture, where responding on-the-fly to new challenges and opportunities is far more rewarding than doing "the same old thing" day after day. As with Artisans, a Power culture emphasizes mobility, not to achieve any particular goal but simply because it's enjoyable to demonstrate grace in responding to challenges and opportunities.

Roles and the Guardian

I can't imagine someone familiar with temperament theory reading a description of the Role culture and not immediately being reminded of the Guardian temperament. Both the culture and the temperament are described as being focused on process rather than goals, on maintaining rather than innovating or exploiting, and on impersonal standards rather than voluntary personal associations. The resistance to risk-taking in a Role culture is particularly revealing; it fits nicely with the Guardian's strong preference for security and the comfort of the well-understood, for making sure that the things which need to get done are seen to properly.

Tasks and the Rational

As with Guardians and the Role culture, Rationals seem to be perfect representatives of the Task culture. Much of the literature concerning Rationals is clear on their insistence that respect must be earned by demonstrated competence, that authority (Power) or rules (Role) or "getting along" (Person) are immaterial compared to "getting the job done right." In many ways, the Task culture is also a culture of experts. Individuals are expected to have knowledge of their fields that extends well beyond simple repetitive functions; in a Task culture they will be expected to innovate, and to work with other innovators to achieve the organization's larger goals. This is what the Rational lives for!

Persons and the Idealist

If there is a natural organization for the Idealist, it must be the Person culture. The Idealist can appreciate the energy of the Power culture, but the constant competitiveness and willingness to manipulate people make it hard for the NF to enjoy him- or herself. Nor will an Idealist feel comfortable for very long in Task or Role cultures, where personal interaction is either ignored or frowned upon. Given that an NF believes that what matters most is the quality of his or her relationships, and that the Person culture is explicitly dedicated to experiencing those personal relationships, an Idealist is likely to feel most confortable in some kind of Person culture. Given the relative rarity of such cultures in the business world, it is likely that the great majority of Idealists will find more satisfaction in their personal lives and projects than they do at work.

Conclusion

It's tempting to conclude that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the four organizational cultures of Harrison and Handy and the four temperaments described by Keirsey. In other words, it seems highly likely that the four-fold "temperament" and "organizational culture" models are two independently-developed ways of describing a uniquely recognizable personality forms. The text definitions given for each of the four aspects in both models appear to match up one for one, which seems unlikely to occur by accident even if one takes into account a subjective wish on my part to perceive correspondences that don't actually exist. Even accepting that some level of such subjectivity exists, the correspondence between every one of the four parts of both models still seems too close to be illusory.

Guardians, for example, are (by Keirsey's descriptions) most likely to be concerned with everyone fitting into what they feel are their proper roles. Likewise, the Task culture, so focused on goals and results, should sound perfectly familiar to any Rational who has worked in an engineering or scientific environment. It seems equally clear that Artisans (particularly the extraverted SPs), more than any other temperament, will feel at home in a Power culture, where the skilled manipulation of things and people is not merely tolerated but encouraged and rewarded. Finally, while the Idealist temperament and the Person culture do seem to describe fundamentally the same world-view, the inadaptability of the Person culture to the commercial world has meant fewer of such cultures available for study, and thus less supporting material for declaring that the Person culture and the Idealist temperament are merely different aspects of the same mindset.

All this considered, however, I find the connections between these two systems to be highly persuasive. Apparently Keirsey and Harrison were both perceptive observers of the basic elements of human nature.

Home

Heart	Body	Spirit	Mind
Art	Writing	Religion	Personality
Music	Travel	Politics	Computers
Genealogy	Work	History	Reasoning
Fiction	Games	Economics	Science