Skip to main content
Take Test

ISFJ Career Interview #1

Interview by Eva Gregersen

Hi Amy. Good of you to do the interview. Before we begin, what is your background for identifying as ISFJ?

I've taken the official MBTI test several times, as well as the free test on your site. I always come out ISFJ or INFJ, but reading the descriptions, I can see myself in almost everything they say about ISFJs, whereas I recognize only parts of myself in the INFJ description. And once I squared my own personality with the INFJs in our social circle, I could easily see that I wasn't like them!

How could you see that?

It's like we're speaking different languages. I tend to have an easy time talking to other ISFJs. We are interested in the same things and we are good at finding each other's frequencies. To really have a good conversation with an INFJ, I need to concentrate and make an effort. It doesn't come naturally, like it does with ISFJs.

When speaking with INFJs, I often feel that it is as if we want to talk about the same thing, but end up framing the subject in different ways. Even if we both make a conscious effort to align ourselves with the other, it's just off. I'll say something and they'll say, "Yeah, that's right," but you can tell it isn't quite right. We're just on different channels.

I can recognize some of that from the conversations I've seen you have with our INFJ friends. But today we're here to talk about you – what is your education and what do you currently do?

I have a Master of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Chemistry. I currently work as a research engineer in a large international corporation, which does all kinds of things in chemical industry. My job is in the research department where most of my colleagues are Ph.D.'s as well.

I know you guys say that there are lots of S types who are scientists and Ph.D.'s, but in my department I often feel like I'm the odd one out. Most of my colleagues are N types, I'm pretty sure of that. And TJ types also seem to abound. As you might expect, there's also a majority of men in my department, like 85% or so.

As I said, my type puts me out on a limb in such an environment, but on the other hand it also gives me some advantages. In spite of the research-intensive nature of the work, there's still the human element and it still needs tending to. We're a team of scientists and we have to work together since the solutions we're working on are too complex for any one person to handle. I've gotten a lot of positive feedback for my approach to personal relations on the job. That's something I'm proud of.

On the downside, I also tend to turn that sensitivity to human affairs inwards. Being a research scientist is glamorous, and I'm certainly qualified, but it sometimes feels as if this whole idea of being a scientist who has to be innovative all the time isn't really me. Personality-wise, I know what I'm like: I like managing and planning things, and making sure that everything is in order. When I'm doing things like that, it just feels right. Constantly having to generate new ideas and attempting to break the current frame doesn't come naturally to me. I'd rather build on what's already there.

Some of the N types in my department will read a paper related to some general principle of chemistry and then spin out a ton of new ideas. That's not how I operate. I tend to stay with the problem at hand, as we've defined it, and seek out information that's relevant to that specific problem. I don't want to go back to my director and tell him that I've come up with a hypothetical solution to a job he never asked me to solve – I want to tell him that I've solved the problem we agreed on.

You seem quite ambivalent about being a researcher. So why did you pursue a Ph.D.?

I missed grappling with stimulating and complex challenges. Prior to pursuing my Ph.D., I worked as an ordinary chemical engineer for another major corporation, designing chemical plants all over the world. I found it too routine-laden; too practical for my tastes.

In that job I would sit at my desk designing factories and plants using the corporation's custom-made software. It was dreadfully easy, like playing SimCity. In truth, it didn't require any knowledge of chemistry whatsoever – anybody could do it. But because of the way corporations work, they would only allow a highly qualified chemical engineer to do it. Really, I'm not exaggerating when I say that anybody could do it. There were standard designs coded into the software and even a button that validated your designs to check for errors on completion. It was almost a joke. I knew pretty quickly that I wasn't going to be content in that job, but at the same time, everyone I talked to made sure to mention what a great job it was and how lucky I had been to get it. It made me doubt myself, but in the end, I knew it was too routine-laden for me. So I set out to find something just a little more challenging, and ended up in about as challenging a position as you can get! [Laughs.]

Ideally I would like something that was somewhere in the middle between those two jobs: Not as mindless as the factory-designing job and not as challenging as being a researcher.

What options have you considered?

I don't know, really. I've thought about climbing a few rungs down the ladder and becoming a high school teacher. I'd probably like the job, but then – well, I don't care for the loss of prestige and status. The pay is worse, too, and I tend to think that if I take any job that doesn't require me to have a Ph.D., well, that means that I've been wasting my time. Those are big reservations for me. It makes me think that my current job isn't so bad after all. [Laughs.]

What are the good sides of your current job then?

I like the fact that it's R&D, and not pure theory. It's science, but it's practical science. We have real tasks and solve real problems. We impact people's lives in a way that is for the better.

As I mentioned earlier, I also appreciate the human element. I put a lot of energy into keeping my lab technician happy, for example. Most of my peers just treat their technicians as minions to be ordered about at their whim: "Do this, do that!" I don't think that's a courteous way to treat one's assistant, so I take the time to explain to him what we're doing, why we're doing it, and what the results mean. I like to think that I'm doing a good job with that. In general, I'd say I'm pretty good at adapting myself to others and accommodating them. I have good personal chemistry with almost anyone I meet, except for a select few people whom I just can't talk to at all – very Intuitive people like our friend Shawn and your co-admin Ryan, for example. It's just too bad. Anyway, I'm glad that I get along well with my technician.

You're not just his boss but also a mentor to him.

[Amy is lost in thought.] I'm thinking about whether I like to motivate people – I think I like being motivational like that; figuring out what's important to the other person and catering to their needs. I don't mind pleasing the other party a little. I've gotten very positive feedback on that too. And my lab technician is more efficient and motivated than the other technicians in my department, so I really feel that my efforts are making a difference.

I'm thinking that maybe I could develop my foothold in the corporation where I am now to become a manager of some sort. I'd prefer a job that was about making sure things were running according to plan over a job like my current one, doing scientist's work. As it turns out, scientists need guidance and management too. A lot of the work that goes on at universities these days is just wasted for exactly the same reason: Their scientists are allowed to research whatever they feel like without being managed in such a way as to give their work applicability and coherence with the work of others. I'd like to be that kind of manager, actually – someone who has a feel for the bigger picture of what we're doing and where we're going with it, instead of just being myopically lost in some theoretical niche that's only relevant to one's own work. I'd be the kind of manager who had an overview of what others were engaged in, but who was also qualified to guide them and offer advice with regards to tools and methods of the field. I'd use my scientist credentials, but not be a scientist myself.

On the human side of things, I'd like to be like the current director of my department. He's an INFJ and he just works wonders at communicating and conveying the lay of the land for our department. He leads in such a gentle way that everyone feels a sense of inclusion and no one ever feels slighted or devalued in the least. He's also extremely adept at taking concrete occurrences and lifting them into the realm of abstraction, drawing generalized statements and observations from them and relating those lessons to what all of us are doing. Working under such a manager is supremely emotionally satisfying. All of the T types in my department like him as well, since he motivates people and is not afraid to give praise, whereas the T types are often more preoccupied with seeming smarter than each other.

There is one thing that annoys me about the INFJ, though, and that is that we have this one research engineer in our department who's ESTJ. He's very smart, and when he wants something, he can be very logical and objective – he doesn't allow any sort of personal element into his reasoning at all. He just says why he thinks something and then lays out his reasoning in a very clear manner – it's actually quite fascinating to see. However, it just so happens that the INFJ (who is his director as well) tends to disagree with a lot of his ideas. And one thing I've noticed there is that my director isn't actually able to answer the specific arguments raised by the ESTJ. Instead, it's as if the INFJ tries to mitigate the conflict by appealing to values and group sentiments, but the ESTJ isn't really receptive to that. So when he walks away from an interaction with the INFJ, he tends to feel that he hasn't received an answer to his observations, which were really very specific and clear.

With the INFJ, things are very "there is virtue in working in other ways than the ones that seem immediately right to us as well," but I agree with the ESTJ that that isn't really an answer. So if I were the director, I would ideally like to be the kind of manager who was able to motivate and speak to a shared sense of purpose like the INFJ, but who was also able to address the specific concerns that my team would have, and not just attempt to whisk them away with grand appeals to the cosmos or something like that.

It's interesting how you can see merit in both of their approaches, and it seems that your thoughts on being a manager just about cover the question of what your dream job is. So on a more somber note, what is the worst job you've ever had?

I once worked shifts in a grocery store. That was really bad. People say my type likes routine, but I'd say everyone hates it. The job was boring and didn't challenge me in the least – like the job designing chemical plants, you might say. I might enjoy working in a store if I could actually manage the store and set some overall policies and things like that. But it's not that I dream about working in retail or anything – it's just that everything in my life so far has told me that I excel at keeping track of what must be done, when, and by whom. I am really good at managing projects.

From what I know of you, I can certainly attest to that. Amy, I've enjoyed listening to your fascinating perspectives – are there any final thoughts you'd like to add?

There are. This whole thing about being a manager has gotten me thinking: A lot of the workplaces where I've been have been characterized by a culture of fault-finding and moaning. That kind of thing has never sat well with me. For example, people often whine about the policies set by the higher-ups pertaining to how the corporation should go about its business. I know why they do it, of course – they're promoting an image of themselves as "critical thinkers" who are far more valuable to the corporation than their current position suggests. But all this disapproval has the unintended consequence of promoting a culture of egotism: They're promoting themselves at the expense of contaminating the mood of an environment that everyone else has to work in, dragging it down with their negativity. When it comes to griping, I'm more like the kind of person who says: "There are some higher-ups who have made this decision and they probably did so for a reason. They probably reached this decision because it was the best one and not because they want to run the company into the ground." So in matters like that, I'm generally a little more trusting: I trust my CEO and the board of directors; I tend to think that they know what they're doing.

In general, I think that people should shift their perspectives a little: Rather than finding things that aren't perfect about their job, they should be grateful that they have a job, and one that is well-paid and attractive to boot. It's okay to voice one's opinion, of course, but one quickly reaches a point where it's more valuable to focus on what you can do to please and motivate your colleagues instead. In that way you yourself can help change the mood and the environment, and ultimately that makes you far more valuable to the corporation as well.

***

ISFJ Career Interview #1 © Eva Gregersen and IDR Labs International 2015.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI are trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc.

IDRLabs.com is an independent research venture, which has no affiliation with the MBTI Trust, Inc.

Cover image in the article commissioned for this publication from artist Georgios Magkakis.

***

IDRlabs offers the following Career Interviews:

FREE