# Leader and follower types



## TwinAnthos (Aug 11, 2014)

Hello. 

So, we know the typical leader is an ENTJ , but I'm sure there are more types prone to leading or following, maybe even types such as ISTP's that do neither. Is there a scientific reason why it is like this? Can someone make a list that says which types are more commonly seen as leaders or followers, and maybe some reasons to why it is like that.


----------



## hawkataine (May 31, 2014)

There's probably a second axis with something like independence on it. Like, some types might be rubbish at following but also at leading because they like going off and doing their own thing, whereas others might be more interested in getting a group working together than taking the lead or following specifically.


----------



## Elinathopie (May 23, 2014)

NJ types are usually the most qualified for leadership positions. NP is super independent and/or is too lazy to follow or lead. SP are also independent, but sometimes they like being in a team. SJ are pretty strong followers.

ENFJs don't control others but are good with leadership positions and democratic work, ENTJs control others simple as that, INFJs can persuade a crowd but prefers working behind the scenes and INTJs only take leadership when no one else is "competent" enough to.

ENFPs won't be controlled so easily but will fight fire with fire you do and try to control you back, ENTP are technically very good leaders but more in chaotic purposes and are disloyal, INFPs simply don't care enough most of the time, INTPs are perhaps the most independent types.

All SJs are extremely loyal to their organizations. ESTJs take orders from the boss to the others. ESFJs make sure everyone in the team is well and organizes for practical assistance. ISxJs are competent and independent in their work, but still work under someone else.

xSTPs are strong team players but are disloyal unless if passionate and are not being controlled. xSFPs just go with the flow. ESxP will go anywhere where the party is.

*So I'd have to say:
NJs are leaders
NPs are independent
SJs are followers
SPs are adaptable*


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I'd pick the EJs as the most naturally inclined to lead (not to mention the bossiest), with ETJs being the more hardassed variety and EFJs tending to be more sensitive to the "people issues" involved.

And I'd pick the ISJs as the most naturally inclined to defer to authority and be followers.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

reckful said:


> I'd pick the EJs as the most naturally inclined to lead (not to mention the bossiest), with ETJs being the more hardassed variety and EFJs tending to be more sensitive to the "people issues" involved.
> 
> And I'd pick the ISJs as the most naturally inclined to defer to authority and be followers.


Nope, I think INJs are most likely to follow.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

john.thomas said:


> Nope, I think INJs are most likely to follow.


The MBTI Manual says that INTJs "are the most independent of all the types."

Keirsey says INTJs "are the most independent of all types."

Kroeger & Thuesen note: "INTJs are among the most independent of the sixteen types."

Hirsh and Kummerow explain that INTJs "are very determined people who trust their vision of the possibilities, regardless of what others think. They may even be considered the most independent of all of the sixteen personality types."

Describing INTJs, Berens and Nardi note: "It is important for them to maintain independence, to be an independent thinker."

Naomi Quenk says IN_Js "are the most intellectually independent of the types."

I see a trend here, and I'm an INTJ, but in this case I'm afraid I'm inclined to follow the herd.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

reckful said:


> The MBTI Manual says that INTJs "are the most independent of all the types."
> 
> Keirsey says INTJs "are the most independent of all types."
> 
> ...


So you think INJs are better than ISJs because you say they are independent and intellectual?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

God, I hate leading. I'd rather be on my own or following. I don't particularly mind following or going my own way but I don't want to be responsible for other people. I'm more comfortable running events or projects and delegating as much as possible to the point that, if I'm not there, it runs itself. And that's the ideal situation. I'm extremely unhappy with leadership situations where I'm having to babysit and nitpick. I dislike shit pumps. The kind of person who can't think for themselves and their only skill is consuming food and converting it into shit. Incompetence is annoying. If I'm leading, my goal is to create a situation where I've delegated well enough that they don't even need me.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Just sticking more towards what certain dominant types may be more prone towards wanting to lead

I think it can be split into categories possibly

*ENxP *: leading in cases involving "not sure where to start" situations. Idea generation. Getting the process starting
*ExTJ* : leading in cases involving "not sure how to follow through/get to end". Step generation. Making sure a to point b is gotten to efficiently
*ESxP* : leading in cases involving "not sure how to react to this sudden x". Adapting to sudden stimuli and leading/ showing a way for others if necessary
*ExFJ *: leading in cases involving people presentation, unification of individuals "not sure how to present this in a convincing way, resulting in individuals feeling X". Wrapping up process, presenting to audience is efficient manner.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

I'm an incompetent leader and have a hard time following directions, but I make a pretty good dungeon master.

So I'd say:

ETJ's best leaders
IFJ's best devotees
INFPs best dungeon masters


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

john.thomas said:


> So you think INJs are better than ISJs because you say they are independent and intellectual?


Your attempts to put words in my mouth in thread after thread after thread is tiresome and offensive, Mr. Thomas, and I've called you out on it repeatedly. Your integrity needs work, IMHO.

As I told you _earlier this week_ in another thread where you were pulling the same horseshit:



reckful said:


> Both Jung and Myers believed that the different types tended to have different strengths and weaknesses, and I agree. Neither Jung nor Myers believed that it made sense to say that, _on an overall basis_, any type was superior to any other type, and neither do I.
> 
> Thanks for listening.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

reckful said:


> Your attempts to put words in my mouth in thread after thread after thread is tiresome and offensive, Mr. Thomas, and I've called you out on it repeatedly. Your integrity needs work, IMHO.
> 
> As I told you _earlier this week_ in another thread where you were pulling the same horseshit:


I'm not putting words in your mouth, I was just asking if you thought they were better because you never tell me any strengths about ISJs but are always talking about the strengths of intuitives.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

john.thomas said:


> I'm not putting words in your mouth, I was just asking if you thought they were better because you never tell me any strengths about ISJs but are always talking about the strengths of intuitives.


A temperamental inclination to follow (defer to authority) is a strength in situations where following is the appropriate (or best) course, and a temperamental inclination to be independent is a strength in situations where being independent is the appropriate (or best) course.

You're the one who keeps putting _negative value judgments_ on things that tend to correlate with ISJ or SJ preferences and then turning around and telling me I think N's are "better" than S's because of _your_ value judgments.

You just told us that "INJs are most likely to follow." So... if you really think being more independent makes one type "better" than another, were you saying that ISJs are "better" than INJs?


----------



## TwinAnthos (Aug 11, 2014)

Guys, chill. Neither type is better then the other , each type is equally important for society to work. We've all just got our specialities.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

If there are only those two choices, I would choose follow most of the time.

Though I often have opposing viewpoints about how things should be done. And this leads me to follow the parts that I agree with and then sort of do my own thing on the side.

I find this almost always is okay with others. They don't really care what happens as long as the work gets done and it gets done well.

But ya I don't like leading at all. I'd much rather be in collaboration with someone. Even if that ultimately leads to my doing most of the work -- I don't care. I just don't want the liability of being responsible for others.

Recently I had a project with another student who 1) didn't even know what we were supposed to do, 2) didn't have a computer or easy access to one

so I basically told him to not worry about it. And I did it by myself.

I wish every group project would go like that, honestly.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

More ranting, but what's especially annoying about leading is how many times, I've shown someone how I do the job and then they've tried to copy it exactly and it doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work if you do it exactly the same way! You have to deal with people by being you. Take what I've done and then figure out how you do it. Just... UUGGHHH! Charm doesn't come in a cookie cutter shape. If you're not a 5'9" blonde in heels, don't mimic her version of charm. I refuse to babysit adults. Prove your value. I feel this guys pain in the first scene:





 (Won't allow playback on other websites.)

What we have there are a bunch shit pumps. His mistake. He hired them.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

I could say the same to myself, I don't like to lead or follow.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

Gore Motel said:


> I'm an incompetent leader and have a hard time following directions, but I make a pretty good dungeon master.
> 
> So I'd say:
> 
> ...


Well that rustled my jimmies.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

I think Judgers in general are better at the whole "leader-follower" system, with EJs (excluding ESFJs) preferring to lead and ESFJs and IJs preferring to follow (even though INJs like to think themselves independent, I've seen more evidence that they prefer to follow a strong leader as much as ISJs, just in different ways... INTJs, especially if that leader is an ENTJ and INFJs if the leader is ENFJ, but that's just my observation). 

Perceivers in general seem to be more uncomfortable with the dynamic, but that doesn't mean they aren't/can't be good leaders/followers.


----------



## an_doer (Oct 1, 2014)

O_o said:


> *ESxP* : leading in cases involving "not sure how to react to this sudden x". Adapting to sudden stimuli and leading/ showing a way for others if necessary
> [


Oh that why everyone looks at me when a problem show up. 
Last time was on stage, the leader drew name to ask people to come to the stage. 
One women was in the wheelchair the leader just took 1 look at me 
I told him she could go around and there is a ramp on the other side. 

thanks for posting..


----------

