How to Sort People by their Values

Anyone who has worked in an office knows that certain personality types stand out.  There are the friendly, outgoing people and the quiet, serious people who hate small talk.  There are big-picture people and hands-on number crunchers.  Caricatures though these stereotypes may be, they are accurate enough in describing extroverts and introverts to have kept psychologists, trainers and human resources executives enthusiastically using personality tests in the workplace for decades.  The widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator* has been the standard-bearer of testing for generations, sorting out quirky personality types since 1943.  Its 97 questions can identify introverts, extroverts and other personality types in 15 or 20 minutes, though analysis and interpretation of the results can take at least an hour if done correctly.  Myers-Briggs distinguishes personality types from four sets of opposites.  Many consider it an essential tool for career planning and development.

Such tests are about discovering dominant personality traits and recognizing strengths or areas of potential weakness, such as things that can produce stress.  A "thinking" person, for example, who likes organizing and structuring information in logical, objective ways, might work on organizing in a more personal way.  An introvert who likes to work quietly should be aware that others might interpret that as a lack of interest.  Today, most Fortune 500 companies use psychological tests in some form or another, including 89 of the Fortune 100 organizations.  They aren't the most sophisticated measurement tool, but they do what they purport to do in a useful and efficient way.  One may draw from them statistical support for Socrates' maxim "Be true to thyself"; that is to say, people do best when their role fits their personality type.

If, as the troubled Dane conjectured, "all the world's a stage and we are mere players," then we are all playing a principal role on the world stage.  Just what are these roles?  Because our interest in sorting out people is to learn their motivations, rather than their potential in the work force, we've opted for a "broad brush" approach to stereotyping.  They say it takes all kinds of people to make a world, although Myers-Briggs has reduced the number to eight, and this analysis breaks it down to four motivational types. 

The motivational distinctions drawn here have nothing to do with race, color, nationality, or religious affiliation, although some do involve "acting" ability, as you'll see.   More importantly, they concern personal values------------- those unexpressed but intensely felt goals and attractions that make one person's approach to life so different from another's.  Values are the engines that drive human behavior.  When these engines are pulling in the same direction, humanity moves synergistically and in unity toward common goals.  But when values drive us in diverging directions, as is more often the case, the result is counter-productive; our attitudes are in conflict and we waste energy working at cross-purposes.

The inability to see eye-to-eye on the issues dividing us is a major cause of interpersonal stress, whether in academia, politics, the arts, or the work environment.  Within the boundaries of a state it may lead to civil strife or foment a revolution.  On the international scene it can result in the wholesale destruction of populations.

As civilized people we are taught as children to suppress our reaction to human differences, and most of us learn to acquire a measure of tolerance toward our fellow man.  In recent times this has led to an egalitarian policy of non-discrimination by which all people are treated as "equals", whatever their merit or credentials.  In other words, while it's permissible to discriminate between good and bad art or superior and inferior quality in consumer goods, we dare not discriminate between poor and excellent performance in human behavior.  That is how today's generation regards "discrimination".

But because biased and malevolent attitudes are easily ignitable, the world stands at the brink of annihilation by fiat, détente, or some such "containment" policy.  While this averts disaster in the short term, it is strained by the same kind of animosity and mutual distrust that characterizes incompatibility between individuals.  It is important, therefore, to understand the differences that separate us as human beings, both as individuals and as nations.  Such insight may not allow us to "forgive and forget" past indiscretions, nor to adopt the values of our antagonists; but it is a necessary first step in reducing the threat of violence and its accompanying stresses.

There are salutary consequences in learning to deal with persuasions that are foreign to ours, not the least of which is psychic tranquility.  By now, though, you are probably curious to see how I identify the stereotypical roles played by people like yourself, and especially, which one matches your particular life style.  Don't be surprised if you find yourself crossing over the type parameters, because circumstances often cause temporary value distortions.  Fundamentally, however, you should have little difficulty picking the motivation type that applies to you.

This stereotype is the easiest to describe because its representatives stand out in bold relief against the others.  The Politicians we're most familiar with, of course, are those that seek public office.  And once they've won an election, beware----------   the power wielded by a public service official is enormous, especially when you consider the ability to coerce his constituents into paying for any government program he may choose to initiate, whether they want it or not.  I've included all power-seekers in the "politicians" category, because they tend to pattern their behavior after the government bureaucrats.  Some psychologists would refer to this stereotype as "emulators".  They are the people to whom the folks on Madison Avenue direct their most prestigious ad campaigns.  It is not so much that the Politicians are an extravagant lot, although they see wealth as a source of power; it is the fact that, as emulators, they want to be known as "in control" and up-to-date with the Jones's next door.  Politicians purchase only established name brands and designer clothes, send their kids to Ivy League colleges, and wouldn't be caught dead without the latest model cell phone or laptop computer.  Their valuistic motive: to leave their mark on the world by being identified with success.    

While the Politicians gamble to win, they do not experiment when it comes to spending their winnings.  They seek identification with what is accepted as fashionable and "cool", acquiring what is "tried and tested" as symbols of success, often being too busy achieving status to enjoy the pleasures of their acquisitions.  Politicians are active, outgoing, congenial people who live by proxy.  They speak in the clichés of the times and support consensus views.  They attend celebrity concerts and sporting events and participate in gala social functions, not so much because they enjoy these activities, but because they want to be seen by those for whom such events are deemed significant.

The Politician's first rule is: To be successful, look successful and act the part.  Mingle with the prosperous, dress with class, join a country club, and drive a Rolls-Royce----------   or at least a red Corvette.  Curiously, while a person's worth may be measured by society in terms of productive potential, the Politician gages his own life in terms of where his peers place him on the social ladder.  It is a value incommensurate with the "natural" man; yet, it is of paramount importance in the gamesmanship of "making a name for oneself" and getting ahead in the competitive world.

Accordingly, Value for the Politician is power accredited.  The good life is one lived by reputation rather than directly experienced, with moral decisions based on what is politically expedient as determined by majority opinion.  As controllers and manipulators of people, Politicians are also likely to earn the label "troublemaker".  The Politician equates success with winning; it is his relentless life-goal and his personal philosophy to boot.  His motto is: It's not how you play the game, it's that you must come out of it a winner.  Value is measured in the number of "favorable impressions" achieved----------  the approbations, affiliations, and acquisitions that mark one's importance on the social register.  It has been suggested that ultimate satisfaction for the Politician would be to have the letters "VIP" engraved on his headstone.

Now the Hedonist is quite another animal in the behavioral or role-playing sense.  The Hedonist is too self-centered to live by proxy.  He wants to indulge in it to his heart's content.  Life to him is an experience to be savored down to the last delicious drop.  It may be enjoyed alone----------  or even better with amicable companions----------  but never merely to create an impression.  Rather than seeking to impress others, he wants to please himself.

The true connoisseur is a Hedonist, whether he's savoring a fine wine or preparing Duck á l'Orange; but so is the old fisherman with his corncob pipe and bucket of earthworms, the painter at his canvas, or the copywriter at Bailey & Jones.  Self-indulgence is the byword of this stereotype, but such indulgence can be an addiction to work as much as to epicurean delights.  For Hedonists are the alcoholics, chocoholics, and workaholics of this world.

While they typically lack the intellectual curiosity and self-discipline needed for scientific or technical innovation, Hedonists are drawn to occupations where the work tasks give them pleasure.  In all probability they would choose similar activities even if a weekly paycheck were not attached to it.  These individuals advance on the job because they enjoy their work sufficiently to pick up the required skills quickly, putting them into practice consistently, and, as a consequence, generally become quite good at what they do.

The third type of person is the Perfectionist.  Here we see the slow, methodical decision-makers that ultimately move our world.  Like Hedonists, Perfectionists are experiential, internally driven, and acutely sensitive to the detail of physical existence.  These folks are not pleasure-seeking from the standpoint of sensuality in a Sybaritic world.  The Perfectionist is by nature curious, and this curiosity sparks the quest for factual knowledge that inevitably leads to intellectual proficiency. Instead of decorating their homes with symbols of success or satiating themselves with consumables as the Hedonists do, Perfectionists tend to be stoic in their outlook and perspicacity, tinkering incessantly with the gadgets they already possess to figure out how to make them work better or to increase their utility.  And if that doesn't work, the Perfectionist is resourceful enough to invent something that will.

The "finer things in life" do not tempt the Perfectionists, who are refreshed by a humble retreat to the mountains or a camping trip for which they always seem organized and well prepared.  Lean and independent, Perfectionists are motivated to research as much about the world as is humanly possible, and they have little time for the ignorant or family gossip.  As voracious readers in pursuit of intellectual excellence, they are sometimes berated as "nerds" in their youth or as the pariahs of academe.  And because it is a pursuit associated with moderation in worldly activity, Perfectionists tend to be less sociable than their counterparts.

Albert Einstein was a Perfectionist (despite his reputed "mistakes"), as were Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Steven Hawkins, Michelangelo, Richard Wagner and Arturo Toscanini.  Indeed, anyone who has earned distinction in science, mathematics or the arts must be considered to have perfectionist tendencies by the discriminative requirements of these disciplines.  A case could also be made for perfectionism in golf, baseball, or chess; however, the excellence demanded of the players in these contests is a prerequisite for the game.  From a motivational perspective, winning at sporting events is better described as a hedonistic challenge.

Rounding out this assortment of motivated stereotypes, and arguably the most difficult to define, are the Esthetes.  These individuals are the most anti-materialistic of our quartet, for their concept of reality is psychic or sensual in essence, and they tend to withdraw into a solipsistic shell which, with the exception of persons like Mother Teresa or Mahatma Gandhi  (who as role models were also political figures) is inimical to Western Psychology and is therefore often considered "unhealthy".  But the true Esthete is not neurotic; he or she does not resign worldly existence but instead seeks to identify with its holistic Oneness.

The Esthete views himself more as the cognizant Will of Nature than as a social entity with the myriad obligations this usually entails.  The goal of the Esthete is to harmonize with the balance of Nature by avoiding the distractions of everyday activity, in the classic Buddhist tradition.  We seldom encounter Esthetes in the public arena, which is why we know so little about them; but the very presence of well-populated monasteries and convents is evidence of their existence.

David Thoreau was an Esthete; so were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Albert Schweitzer.  Esthetically-oriented people typically support environmentalism and the preservation of Nature's beauty.  But they are also individualists in the truest sense---------  the dreamers and romanticists of our culture, without whose quiet contemplation and occasional words of wisdom we would be lacking a broader perspective of humanity in the world.  And, because they have neither a social agenda nor an interest in role-playing, Esthetes are numbered among the most intrinsically genuine individuals to be found in our society.

The late Ayn Rand discounted the possibility of true altruism, and I am inclined to agree with her.  Yet, while philanthropy may have a political corollary, the motive of some exceptional individuals to share their wealth with others less fortunate demonstrates a genuine compassion which should not be underestimated.  Not all charity is self-motivated however, which is an important fact to be reckoned with.  We pay taxes to our elected government every year, some proceeds of which find their way to the poor and disadvantaged.  But this is not charity on our part; it is involuntary coercion.  Similarly, many of our fellow citizens go though life attending church, contributing to charitable causes, and cheerfully tolerating various abuses from their less tolerant neighbors, not because they are compassionate but because they feel obligated to do so.

I don't quite know how to classify people who have little or no motivation of their own.  These are nominally good, affable, often generous people who keep on the right side of the law and wish no harm on anyone.  They work hard, typically for long hours at menial jobs, to fulfill the needs of others with very little compensation or enjoyment.  Like the willow tree bending to the wind, these pathetic figures tread a safe course that they feel society and the 'powers that be' expect of them, as if it is all that life offers.  Our land of opportunity is filled with such Orwellian 'proles', and I suspect that more than a minority of these under-achievers are in need of psychiatric help.  But, as this is a review of normally motivated types, externally-directed individuals as well as pathological criminals and the psychologically impaired fall outside the scope of our study.

What this exposé boils down to is the portrayal of life as a role-playing struggle for recognition, acceptance and survival involving four perceived reality values: Power, Pleasure, Knowledge, and Self-realization.  If you now see how you fit into this motivational grid, you can probably also distinguish the "stars" from the "bit players" on the contemporary world stage.

Now this simplistic analysis would be only an amusing caricature of human behavior if the disparate values of the four motivational groups outlined here were not constantly at odds.  The fact is, however, that each lifestyle requires one or more of the others for personal survival in our interwoven social fabric, and people with dissimilar values invariably try to out-maneuver each other in order to achieve their respective goals.

The Politician, for example, is by function a "delegator"; he is not particularly adept at working per se, because he is too caught up in the power struggle to have mastered the proper skills.  He is obliged, therefore, to manage the people who do the actual work----------   usually the Hedonists.  But because he doesn't understand what motivates Hedonists and can't conceive of anybody actually enjoying work, the Politician usually winds up procuring workers like a common commodity, with the result that his employees see their survival linked to the almighty dollar rather than to the quality of their work.  This has about as much incentive to the worker as a carrot dangled before a cat.

And the Politicians are not alone in their ignorance.  Hedonists and Perfectionists are usually so immersed in the details of their work that they pay little attention to their employer's policies, which they consider paranoid anyway.  Because they fail to genuflect appropriately to their supervisors and the corporate brass, who make all the difference to the Politicians, they often find themselves being shifted from job to job, or company to company, without advancement, wondering why management never seems to appreciate their talents.

But, alas, it is the Esthetes who are the envy of all the other types, because they alone possess the kind of motivation needed for true creativity.  Since they seldom work for any employer on a continuing basis, they are able to express their individuality in a manner that meets their own quality standards, free of the obsequious behavior that is expected of a hired contractor or organized work force.  While living subsistence in the absence of a regular paycheck might be a concern to others, the Esthete tends to be self-sufficient.  If not housed by a religious order or non-profit organization, or endowed by an independent benefactor, he will live very modestly, giving priority to spiritual contentment over material needs.

So you see, Power, Pleasure, Knowledge and Self-realization are not simply convenient metaphors for sorting behavioral types.  They describe four fundamental, usually misrepresented, mindsets about which only the reactive behavior is outwardly manifested.  These goals constantly tug the human energies of our society in a four-way split, the differences constituting a source of much aggravation.  Left to fester in the relations between people and nations, these incompatibilities are a significant source of discomfort that, in the clash of cultural values, have the potential to threaten our very way of life.