Building Blocks of Personality Type - Extraverted Thinking (Te)
By Leona Hass & Mark Hunziker
Dominant for ESTJ and ENTJ
Auxiliary for ISTJ and INTJ
In this chapter, we seek to present a picture of the âpureâ Extraverted Thinking that we would see if we could carefully remove it from its natural state where it is influenced and colored by all the other elements of personality. Though no process actually exists separated from the rest of the personality, the portrait that follows reflects core characteristics that are in play whenever Extraverted Thinking is engaged at a conscious level.
Extraverted Thinking most clearly resembles the descriptions in the following pages when it is in the dominant (first) position. In fact, these descriptions are based on input from people for whom the process is dominant (ESTJ and ENTJ). But even with Extraverted Thinking in the first position, what you observe will vary noticeably depending on other factors-particularly whether it is paired up with Introverted Sensing or Introverted Intuiting in the auxiliary (second) position.Â
In order to draw a complete picture of the âessenceâ of Extraverted Thinking, one must use bits and pieces that cannot individually demonstrate âpureâ Te. Like the splashes of color in an impressionist painting, however, the bullets in this chapter, when taken all together, reveal a vivid portrait that will enable you to recognize Extraverted Thinking when you see it. Knowing what the process would look like if it could be separated from other influences is the foundation of process watching, the practice that will quickly take you as far as you want to go in understanding personality.
Extraverted Thinking is a decision-making process. It focuses on the objective, external world by instituting systems of organization and assigning all information to a place within an appropriate system, based upon quantifiable comparison. Te wants to evaluate, decide, and complete a task using a system of logical binary judgments.
Adopts or develops applicable standards to guide decisions.
Is driven to structure and organize the external world.
Sorts everything in the world to its proper place in an organized system.
Applies objective logic within a framework of policies, standard procedures, operational guidelines, or some other common system of guiding rules.
Views creating and maintaining systems that take care of people as more effective and therefore more important than taking care of individuals directly.
Is energized by reaching goals or achieving an end result.
Seeks clarity and order in the environment.
Looks for logical organization or structure in the tangible, external world.
Employs proven analytical tools.
Assembles the rules of organization to function like a matrix.
Can spot illogic and inconsistencies immediately.
Is exemplified by the western scientific process of painstakingly methodical experimentation that examines one variable at a time.
Strives for equality in dealing with all things, including people.
Seeks clarity through order.
When people are using their preferred Extraverted Thinking
They need to use systems that define how things interact and interrelate, such as the laws of physics, to provide frameworks for logical organization and analysis.
The structure of the process is visible. It could be recorded, explained, and even repeated, as when a second team of scientists duplicates all experiment to confirm the findings of the first team.
They need a system in which all relationships are known in order for the logic of the decision-making process to operate effectively.
They seek clear standards or systems that are broad in scope because such frameworks can be applied to many different situations.
They are sometimes driven to extremes by their desire to anticipate every possible contingency. They may create ponderous institutionalized systems, such as complex government bureaucracies, as a result.
They are most comfortable working within a mechanistic, cause-and-effect model.
The clarity and specificity that they desire is often found in laws, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and standards.
Broad standards such as the sweeping declarations of the U.S. Constitutionâs Bill of Rights and Christianityâs golden rule are ideal since they can be used almost universally.
Their approach is to methodically move from the facts, through an orderly process, to an end result.
They want to use clear-cut, tangible criteria that are measurable and quantifiable, such as âmoreâ or âbigger,â as opposed to qualitative criteria, such as âbetterâ or âmore important.â
They use the tactic of reducing every choice to a sequence of yes-or-no decisions. Labeling, quantifying, applying objective standards, and analyzing are all techniques that support this reductionist approach.
Their decision-making process makes use of measurable, quantifiable data that can be evaluated on a binary matrix. This provides the framework for the yes-or-no decisions.
They pursue equality through consistent application of the rules. A need to make exceptions to the rules indicates a need to improve the rules. A perfect world would have perfect rules so that exceptions would never need to be made.
Though end results may be their conscious focus, the act of task completion itself is the driving need.
Task completion is their payoff, and the need for a sense of movement toward completion is powerful. Setbacks or a sense of stagnation can be very frustrating.
If they cannot attain the closure of completing a task, measurable progress is reassuring.
A series of short-term, intermediate goals or milestones can be very helpful as a way of showing that progress is, indeed, being made.
If they have no sense of progress being made or they feel that a task is behind schedule, this may lead to high levels of frustration, even anxiety or panic.
They tend to focus on the task at hand, not on the broader ramifications. They may, for example, neglect to consider the impact on the work team when they are choosing the teamâs most efficient path to a goal.
They often need to verbalize the process â to think out loud.
FROM THE OUTSIDE, LOOKING IN
When we experience people who are engaging their preferred Extraverted Thinking, they:
Endeavor to ensure that everything and everyone is treated equally by following policies and procedures.
Seem to maintain a standard of equality that guides their treatment of people.
Thrive in a hierarchy where relationships are guided by clear rules, such as the military, the Catholic Church, or a traditional corporate structure.
Want to know what the goal or desired outcome is before they begin a task.
Can be relied upon to have a contingency plan.
Are often the first to produce results when assigned a task. The results are almost always quantifiable.
Produce the criteria that are needed for a team to make decisions.
Often use a checklist to make sure tasks are accomplished.
Need to physically organize their personal space and sometimes try to organize the space of others.
Need to talk out the logic and underlying assumptions of decisions.
Do not often say âI thinkâ; it goes without saying. Almost everything you hear from them is thinking verbalized. May be perceived as cold since what you hear is their objective, impersonal logic.
Often imply âyou shouldâ or âthey ought toâ when they express an opinion.
Often sound more rigid than they are. Thinking out loud sounds a lot like stating decisions. In actuality, as long as they are still talking, they probably have not yet reached a final decision.
May preface everything they say with an overview of what they are going to say, such as âWe need to cut costs. Here is a rough outline of how we can do it.â
Usually try to determine whether someone is competent and whether his or her information is credible and objective before listening to what that person has to say.
Often start with a distinct agenda, then reference the applicable rules, then go through a series of mini-decisions that will lead to the ultimate decision: Which result is more desirable? Which action will produce that result? What staffing will be required to support that action? Can appear harsh and judgmental to people around them. Thinking is critical by definition.
Take care of people in a broad, systemic way. They gravitate, for example, toward trying to fix the healthcare system rather than focusing on taking care of individualsâ health problems. Have a defensible position for every question or issue.
Have a logical rationale for their every action.
Tend to be decisive. Decisions are usually either âthumbs-upâ or âthumbs-downâ with no gray area. Strive for closure. They are uncomfortable moving on to another task before completing the one they are doing.
Can sometimes take the drive to reach closure through dispassionate logic to its extreme. It can become a mind-set wherein the end seems to justify the means.
Seem prone to becoming staunch defenders and enforcers of the prevailing laws and rules. They are often involved in creating the laws or rules.
Are very systematic and structured.
Special perspectives and approaches of Extraverted Thinking
The Newtonian view of a universe that consists of objects that act upon each other in predictable, quantifiable ways.
Laws, rules, regulations, and standard operating procedures
Logical, standardized filing systems
Providing logical structure to enable organizations to attain their desired end result.
Giving others a starting place for their work or discussion by presenting a specific position
Paraphrased descriptions of what it is like to make decisions through oneâs preferred Extraverted Thinking
I enjoy crossing items off âto-doâ lists. If a completed task is not on my list, I may put it on the list and then cross it off to give myself a sense of accomplishment.
No matter what it is, I need to analyze or organize it.
I need to talk in order to think.
When someone asks me a question, I often just start talking it out. I may not know the answer until I hear myself say it.
I like respectful, nonpersonal debate because thatâs how I think. Iâm very much in the habit of speaking in order to clarify my thoughts.
I hate it when people at work try to stop a good debate, mistaking it for an argument. Discussion gives me new ideas and allows me to work them through with others.
I can carry an analysis of something to only a certain level in my own head. To go any deeper, I need someone to be my sounding board. If I canât do that, then writing it down, diagramming, outlining, or even talking aloud to myself is helpful.
I view competence as being extremely important. I strive for competence in all that I do.
Itâs frustrating when I can see the logical order of things and others refuse to see it or discuss it.
The ideas of weighted data and of sliding scales conflict with my need for an even-handed application of the standards and rules.
My fondness for debate makes some see me as angry or confrontational.
I believe there is always an order, law, rule, or regulation to be followed, though sometimes it may not be obvious to others.
I highly value competence in others and in myself. Itâs something I always look for. I am really attracted to competent, results-oriented people.
I may not know a lot about a topic, but I have an opinion. Iâll know more about what it is after I start talking.
I know that I can come across as being cold and impersonal.
I say, âBe prepared!â I always have a contingency plan. In fact, I have contingency plans for my contingency plans.
I always arrive at meetings prepared, with an agenda, and on time.
Picture several file cabinets, each labeled according to a system. Each file cabinet has labeled drawers, which contain clearly labeled dividers, which in tum hold clearly labeled folders. I organize by means of an external system, one that others can quickly and clearly understand.
I automatically prepare outlines for everything. It is my way of structuring a problem so I know how to tackle it. In school I started all my papers by making an outline, whether it was required or not.
Creating and improving structure in my job is exciting.
Everything can be reduced to cause and effect.
I have the entire year planned in advance.
If I donât know exactly how and when Iâm going to accomplish tasks, I get worried that I wonât be able to get everything done.
Thereâs a place for everything and everything has its place.
I have a lot of difficulty with the concept of paradox. The idea that two seemingly contradictory explanations can both be true blows my mind. It has to be either one or the other.
I need to âdiscussâ my ideas with my partner. Even if Iâm not really listening to what he says, I need him as a sounding board. I am really mostly listening to myself to find out what I think.
I need external structure. Iâm sure thatâs why I made a career in the military.
I enjoy balancing my checkbook and organizing my possessions and spaces.
I organize and orchestrate everything. Even my vacations are planned down to the last detail. My family insists that there has to be some spontaneity, so I put times for that in the schedule too.
I enjoy planning vacations. I enjoy the planning more than the actual vacation. When we drive, I always have several backup plans: a best route, a best alternate route, and so on.
In my garage, Iâve traced the outline of each tool on the wall in the place where it belongs so there can be no mistake about what goes where.
When I proof read this manuscript, I knew immediately when a sentence was not structured correctly.
Scenes from the world of Extraverted Thinking
In a âtype-alikeâ group exercise, our group had to identify the priorities first. What is most important? Whatâs less important? Half of our time was used in creating structure in this way and in identifying the desired end result. After that, we could quickly proceed with accomplishing the task itself.
Intending to say that she âthinks by talking,â a workshop participant instead stated that she âtalks by thinking.â It was an understandable slip. To her, talking and thinking are essentially synonymous.
In task-focused workshop exercises, the members of this type-alike group almost always map out how they will approach the task before doing anything else. They either create a timeline or they outline the steps to follow to reach the goal.
In a workshop exercise, this type-alike group found it extremely uncomfortable to be asked to determine criteria to use in making a decision, when the information provided was not sufficient for creating good criteria. The lack of data, combined with the drive to complete the task, created a situation that was very stressful.Â
Unique strengths of Extraverted Thinking
Organizing ideas, objects, information, and so on in the external world to help others understand and use them
Summarizing and codify a nationâs or cultureâs shared vision and morality into laws
Leading logical group decision making
Reliability in completing a task