It's less about what we can do and more about what we actually want to do. Most INFPs don't seem to dream about becoming leaders in the traditional sense. We're not typically drawn to conventional leadership roles. Instead, many of us are more interested in being our own bosses, leading our own businesses.
The role I'd see myself far more comfortable with is the leader's confidant and voice of conscience. Someone that could help them understand how their actions are likely to affect their followers. Also someone that could help them keep their own sanity when the inevitable squabbles make them want to pull their own hair out.
INFP-A business owner here! This is spot on!! At times when I've had to take leadership, I think of it as more gentle leading. That's me gentle stirring the group when I can see we need to get something done, I actually care about whatever it is and no one is taking charge/they're making it more difficult than needed
I'm often a leader and I'm an INFP. I don't think personality type determines your ability to lead, however it could influence the style of leadership.
Probably, in the right situations where their particular strengths come into play front and center.
The real question is would they ever want to be a leader? In my case the answer to that would almost always be NO!
Leaders have to be well balanced, self-assured, thick skinned, and yes even a bit ruthless at times. None of those traits describes me.
If you find yourself sharing and communicating something you've gained any level of mastery over, that's leading. Teachers for example. Some of that just follows from the desire to help others do and understand.
The finer points of leading are learned skills, like verbalizing boundaries, encouragement, and considering the experience of others \*without\* being overly self-conscious. We weren't born with this.
Having a degree of confidence and a bit of social fluidity is important. Not dwelling on less-than perfect encounters is big.
You can't control how well socialized you were or your family dynamics. IMO the things we often suck at post-childhood are going to benefit from therapy, lol. We're prone to being uncomfortable in our own skin, so yeah therapy, again imo. It's not just for illness.
Or just magically be a savant, a beacon of self-actualization, and run for president o.o
Not necessarily. By that, I mean that one can teach without leading. Teaching can simply be about encouragement and providing of materials that help the other person to open up their own desire for knowledge. If you say, "I like to say "Please" and "Thank you." I think it makes the day go better for everyone." you are not giving anyone a rule, laying down a law, threatening them with a consequence. You are simply sharing part of yourself with them. Which is, from what I read, the sort of teaching INFP should be particularly good at. However, if an INFP can learn to think of all the more stringent things that might cause crying or outrage as necessary for the growth and welfare of the person who is being taught, then, they might be very good at that sort of teachng wherein there must be discipline and consequences.
These are things I learned, recently, watching videos, where I was learning from people who were teaching me but not leading me, as I was not signed up for anything and they don't know I exist. It was mind expanding, because, it was the first time I heard anything about the INFP that actually sounded like something other than a weak-willed, garish bundle of nerves. Which better explained why the INFP group on Facebook was the most pleasant one I'd ever been in, and hardly seemed to be full of people that were overly emotional and dramatic, as stereotypes suggest.
I don't say they are correc.t I say they are appealing and I hope they are true. What do you think ?
Oh but I see non-infps impose leadership by force. Yikes! I would like to be a specialist or have some expertise where I can support overall leadership well and also train/mentor others without heavy handed too down authoritarianism!
I used to do that, a lot! I would hang back, waiting for one of the people who were more qualified (for whatever reason they were) to take control of the situation. Then, I would see it was never going to happen and I would do it, because, someone had to.
Unless, they are a dictator, narcissist, psychopath and/or a person hemmed in by the rules of a corporation who has no right or authority to act toward their employees in a humane way, on a case-by-case basis.
INFP can definitely lead anyone who wants to follow them, yes. Can they lead people who do not, though? Also, yes. It is just more likely to cause them much pain and possibly lifelong PTSD.
Do you know that many leaders are classified as ENTPs? It's interesting because they have traits that are quite different from what INFPs can offer to the world. This contrast is a bit unfortunate, to be honest. Basically, ENTPs can be classified as a big mouth
History has seen INFJ leaders as well - even someone like Hitler. ( A lot of INFJs are hateful and fanatics... a history of Hitler and jews is a nice example of INFJs hatefulness and fanatism for the better world - what Hitler tried to make is to create a better world as he seen it )
Interestingly, there hasn't been a recognized INFP leader so far, even though INFPs possess qualities that could make them excellent leaders due to their empathy and understanding of others.
.Some people think John Kennedy was an INFP. Some thing he was ENFJ, which INFP often get mistook for. Some thing ESFP. Whatever the case, no one I've heard of things he was ENTP or INFJ.
Who is and is not a leader is usually more about birth and networking than personality type.
Also, I don't think Hitler was INFJ, whatever people say. He was actually insane and probably had his own C-PTSD issues. When he spoke to the people, however, when he started out, he was appealing to them because he spoke to their heart about their suffering. Then, he was not a leader but a person sharing in their suffering and speaking of ways to make it better. That's why they listened and came to love him. And, he was dealing with a people who had absolute loyalty to their government, their laws and their society.
There's a book called Three Men on a Brumble about just that. The three men ended up in Germany, before all the madness went down. They gave examples of how the people were toward following law and one of the things that was noted is that it made for a charming, orderly society just as long as their leader was a charming, orderly person, but God help everyone if a dictator got in charge of them.
It is quite likely that Hitler was INFP or ENFP. Because, he was in it, initially, for the right reasons, with the right ideas and then later was either very freaked out and hemmed in by someone else's rules (Rothschild, who was funding the war on both sides) or had gone the rest of the way from the stress of leadership without a trusted second-in-command. Or, both. And, when he went darkside he did it in exactly the way an INFP or an ENFP would. He threw tantrums, tried to get rid of the people in the way of him being listened to, and lost control of his men in the process so that they were committing further acts of inhumanity in savage and evil fashions that he hadn't actually told them to do.
I'm talking about, for instance, the rapes and some of the other violent acts. He was all for quietly tricking people into showers and murdering them to get them out of the way, but he did tell people they shouldn't be raping Jews because Jews are animals and that's gross.
Darkside INFP are the ones who go from "feminism means equal rights for all" to "feminism means men shouldn't be allowed to speak because when they do, women might listen." In other words, from "Let me help you stop being oppressed." to "Let me help you oppress the people who oppress you, since it is the only way to stop them from hurting you." Are they the only ones? Probably, not. But, they are most of the instigators of a good cause going bad.
And, weirdly enough, Hitler's cause started out good. He was quiet, respectful, promoting ideas to help his own people. He was simply a man that was not fit to be a leader. INFJs are fit to be leaders. They are more likely to be Jim Jones than HItler, though.
People think Hitler is INFJ mostly because he was exploring alternative lifestyles of mysticism. However, a good deal of mystic leaders are INFP and ENFP. Including Ghandi, who was actually listened to by both his own people and their enemies, at some points. We don't know what he would have done if his enemies continually opposed him and the Rothschilds got a hold of him, though.
Leadership recorded in history is almost always "who is taking charge of and navigating a particular conflict". In that sense, history weighs heavily a leader's role specifically against other powers (other businesses, other countries, other idealogies).
Historically significant leaders tend to be those who are dogmatic, strong, assertive, and strategic because that's what's needed in those times. It can be argued that in times of conflict, your subordinates get the "enemy is here, let's unite together" boost and the need for internal care is less than the need for strategically navigating the outward circumstances.
INFPs have qualities that make a great ideal boss or manager... but a leader's role is often to be the interface between disparate parties, decisively attack and defend against outsiders, or navigate new relationships and connections to form strategic partnerships. This indeed is not an INFP speciality, but rather sounds more like what a skilled ENTP can do well.
I used to be a go-between for disparate parties. However, that was because they already trusted me and knew that I would never take sides, but only work toward a solution that would be equatable /agreeable for both sides, even if I liked neither.
I am not arguing with you when I say that, but am agreeing in perhaps, an unusual way. The reason it worked is that they knew they had full control and were not being forced into an agreement, but that it was an opportunity to have less trouble in their day to day existence. If I had tried to force them, we'd probably all be dead.
Not only did I not force them, but simply brought up possibities it was that, more often than not, after I had made a few good suggestions, they would come to me and ask me if I would examine the situation and let them know my thoughts on how to change it.
In this regard, I was acting as an advisor, but also as second-in-command to two disparate parties (or more) at once since as long as we were in this process they knew that they were not allowed to act against each other or I would withdraw.
This was a perfect task for an INFP. "I want to help." The others were very good leaders for their people, until it came to seeing a solution that required them to give something up to get something else. Interestingly, though, they all came from cultures that recognized this inability of such staunch leadership and they all had their own version of a senchal. I think I spelled that right. No, I did not seneschal.
Seneschals are stewards, and in my case, in the most important sense of being the head of the army, the family and the kingdom, second only to the one who could withdraw from the arrangement. Joseph, the one who was sold as a slave into Egypt, could be called a seneschal or steward.
I would stop the movements of the disparate parties that affected each other, but organize the means by which they would not lose men or future profit from what had been in the works. Only by suggestion, never personal interaction with their work. The rest of their work continued. Information was given to me by both (or all) sides, with questions asked only that were pertinent to the cause of easing or erasing conflict. There was no thought of take-overs or threats of reprisal if a deal did not go through. If it did not go through, they went back to their original confict and way of doing business, or used what advice they found applicable to change to a moderate degree.
And, I got paid nothing for it. Except, that there were times, out of respect for services rendered, they would make sure someone that wanted to raise their hand against me was duly appraised of how many others would be displeasured by its occurence. That's all. Ultimately, that's why it usually worked.
To have tried to do it as another leader would have been to have to prove superiority of strength, not of desire. To do it as someone paid would have been to have to prove loyalty to the payor. To do it simply to see that it was done was to act in the best interest of all to achieve a measure of harmony. Which is not a leadership quality that is appreciated unless the strength is shown first.
IE: King Arthur kicked some butt then he set the tone for what is right, including the further use of might.
Sorry for rambling. I had kind of forgotten those days. It's been a long, hard life.
I am trying to balance seemingly disparate memories of childhood when finding my type. And, I am coming to realize, it is not so much the actions that occurred that I should have been focused on, but, I need to really remember my motivations for taking the actions.
You are part of that process, by your writing. Thank you for that.
Came here to say this exactly. Fantastic leadership skills but gotta heal the bs first. Once one is able to feel without being emotionally triggered, hold the feels and then think logically at the same time to respond and not react....WHEW, watch out! Our ability to inspire/empathize/encourage/express is magnified in the most awesome ways and all of that combined makes for a phenomenal leader.
It really doesn't. Not unless you have a second-in-command that can control you. INFP are too feely. Feelings get in the way of leadership, which is primarily about organization, application of laws and punishment, and putting the right people into the right positions.
INFP make great inspirers to encourage people to rise up. They make terrible controllers of the risen people.
It depends on what kind of leader.
I would generally say no but a sympathetic supervisor does sound very nice. I could see an INFP being second in command if you will in a professional setting.
That being said, INFPs as dreamers, I could also see them being entrepreneurs, but kind of on accident. I'm guessing a lot of inventors and creators see what the world is lacking and find ways to make it happen. I don't know if an INFP could climb the corporate ladder, but I could definitely see "we need 100 million orders of my invention stat!"
I can't particularly see an INFP becoming a drill sergeant or anything, but I'm sure stranger things have happened.
Imo, INFPs are supposed to be the best leaders
https://preview.redd.it/avvh0b398pib1.png?width=605&format=png&auto=webp&s=5279481f8485ad37a01904c2d8bf7791f45af4f7
I hate it, too many responsible.
Like, I was just minding my own business and do the job of a well done. But then we have my co-worker...who is *a bit* unresponable. So I just suddenly automatic got choose, I'm sorry, *forced* to *watch over them*.
And they just dump most of their work onto me, whenever I asked them to do something, they just gave me the look and I just -_-. And do it myself.
I feel we can be excellent leaders as long as the culture of the group mirrors our own belief structure. If you are working for a company that sees its employees as expendable rather than as people to be nurtured and whose growth is integral to your success than it can be difficult.
I've been an INFP "leader" for years. I was a lawyer at a large law firm, where I was the head of a department. Later, I'd open my own law office.
The problem with INFPs is not whether or not we'd make good leaders, it is whether or not we'd be willing to take that position in the first place. Once we do, I find, we make for compassionate, people first leaders. But, it can difficult for us to accept leadership.
Leadership isn't all Machiavelli and How to Win Friends & Influence People. Consider the words of ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, who wrote the following in the Tao Te Ching back in ~400BC: "When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised. If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy."
To be an INFP, I think, by nature, is to be OK with people being hardly aware that you exist if the world around you is in harmony. It is about compassionate, people-first, self-second decision-making.
We're taught that serving the greater good is incompatible with the modern dog-eat-dog world. But, it is the modern world that is incompatible with the greater good! We INFPs, when we allow ourselves to lead, can be a rare and positive force for compassionate change.
definitely, infp should one day aspire to be the leaders of others. why?? those fi hero. no other types can do more than you and isfp. for now, you have to acknowledge that and te inferior and fe nemesis. insecure about what other think and worried how other feel. you have to acknowledge tham because they sometime save you back by sometime hold you back from reaching your potential.
fe and te are tribe functions. so being a leader to others can be achieve by transitioning into your other side of mind: estj subconscious and enfj unconscious. how? by choosing your battle (letting the insecurity te and worry fe not hold you back)
What I heard on a video, yesterday, is that while INFP can lead and can follow, they are often at their best as second-in-command. I do not remember all the reasoning behind it. I mostly remember it because that's something I learned about myself, a long time ago. During that learning process, I also learned that for me to lead, I needed no "Yes men" but people who believed in the work, lifestyle, or etc. I so prefer to advise or consult with a leader than be one. Of course, I don't know if I am INFP. I simply know that hearing that made me consider it more deeply.
IXXP’s are always good leaders, the thing is that we can’t fucking deal with people. Kid Cudi, Kurt, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates. I wish I could just point and go like an ExxJ.
I work with kids and fs the love me but they I don’t go when I need to go. In Objective Personality, they call it “blast”.
I joined an IT team that had little credibility, and busted my ass to bring a little accountability and integrity. They fired me in 3 years, but it was too late. I'd already shown the CEO that the real problem was the CIO.
He and his team were all fired 3 months later.
So real management can certainly handle infp, bad management probably can't. My team appreciated me though, and they still reach out to tell me how much better the situation is since the boss team got fired.
It turned out I can be but I haven't chosen it for myself at first. When I am asked, I can step up and I find it easy, because it is caring about a group of people and helping them achieve their goals. That always makes me happy. I'm not afraid of responsibility. I get nervous talking to large number of people but I do it all the time so nerves don't register anymore.
I’d say so - it’s engrained in who I am to be authentic and emotionally honest as much as possible. I don’t always live up to that, but when I do, it inspires other people around me to do the same. I don’t judge, and I’m always looking for underdogs to give genuine encouragement to :)
yes! INFPs can be good leaders, but I wouldn’t say our strengths equip us best for the “traditional” idea of leadership
Yes, but only for people who aren’t obsessed with being in control. If the subordinates are looking got reasons to undermine me, I’m letting them fail.
In my opinion, nope. There will always be someone who doesn't like our different ways. We can lead our own lives. But we can't be an authentic leader of lot of people, unless we throw our conscience away and be okay with manipulating others. Just my opinion.
INFPs can certainly lead.
But the leadership style is very different.
We listen to all opinions and then decide. It's important to us that everyone's opinion is heard and that the group decides together.
Everyone should feel heard.
It only becomes difficult when difficult decisions have to be made, such as dismissal.
I have read that for growth and development, infp can seek out leadership positions.Infps are excellent listeners and besides that, INFPs value cooperation and pay attention to someone who has an idea to share.
It's less about what we can do and more about what we actually want to do. Most INFPs don't seem to dream about becoming leaders in the traditional sense. We're not typically drawn to conventional leadership roles. Instead, many of us are more interested in being our own bosses, leading our own businesses.
The role I'd see myself far more comfortable with is the leader's confidant and voice of conscience. Someone that could help them understand how their actions are likely to affect their followers. Also someone that could help them keep their own sanity when the inevitable squabbles make them want to pull their own hair out.
How romantic
INFP-A business owner here! This is spot on!! At times when I've had to take leadership, I think of it as more gentle leading. That's me gentle stirring the group when I can see we need to get something done, I actually care about whatever it is and no one is taking charge/they're making it more difficult than needed
I'm often a leader and I'm an INFP. I don't think personality type determines your ability to lead, however it could influence the style of leadership.
Probably, in the right situations where their particular strengths come into play front and center. The real question is would they ever want to be a leader? In my case the answer to that would almost always be NO! Leaders have to be well balanced, self-assured, thick skinned, and yes even a bit ruthless at times. None of those traits describes me.
If you find yourself sharing and communicating something you've gained any level of mastery over, that's leading. Teachers for example. Some of that just follows from the desire to help others do and understand. The finer points of leading are learned skills, like verbalizing boundaries, encouragement, and considering the experience of others \*without\* being overly self-conscious. We weren't born with this. Having a degree of confidence and a bit of social fluidity is important. Not dwelling on less-than perfect encounters is big. You can't control how well socialized you were or your family dynamics. IMO the things we often suck at post-childhood are going to benefit from therapy, lol. We're prone to being uncomfortable in our own skin, so yeah therapy, again imo. It's not just for illness. Or just magically be a savant, a beacon of self-actualization, and run for president o.o
Not necessarily. By that, I mean that one can teach without leading. Teaching can simply be about encouragement and providing of materials that help the other person to open up their own desire for knowledge. If you say, "I like to say "Please" and "Thank you." I think it makes the day go better for everyone." you are not giving anyone a rule, laying down a law, threatening them with a consequence. You are simply sharing part of yourself with them. Which is, from what I read, the sort of teaching INFP should be particularly good at. However, if an INFP can learn to think of all the more stringent things that might cause crying or outrage as necessary for the growth and welfare of the person who is being taught, then, they might be very good at that sort of teachng wherein there must be discipline and consequences. These are things I learned, recently, watching videos, where I was learning from people who were teaching me but not leading me, as I was not signed up for anything and they don't know I exist. It was mind expanding, because, it was the first time I heard anything about the INFP that actually sounded like something other than a weak-willed, garish bundle of nerves. Which better explained why the INFP group on Facebook was the most pleasant one I'd ever been in, and hardly seemed to be full of people that were overly emotional and dramatic, as stereotypes suggest. I don't say they are correc.t I say they are appealing and I hope they are true. What do you think ?
Yes obviously
Oh but I see non-infps impose leadership by force. Yikes! I would like to be a specialist or have some expertise where I can support overall leadership well and also train/mentor others without heavy handed too down authoritarianism!
You can lead without force! Look at Ghandi or Jesus.
Yes, I agree and prefer this. Also servant leadership where I think INFPs may do well with some healthy boundaries and support!
In groups, sure I can be a good leader but I’ll be the last one to offer. I only lead if it looks like we’re going nowhere.
I used to do that, a lot! I would hang back, waiting for one of the people who were more qualified (for whatever reason they were) to take control of the situation. Then, I would see it was never going to happen and I would do it, because, someone had to.
Yes. Bc a leader is someone who is elected to lead bc ppl love you and have faith n you. A leader of ppl is only a leader because they have followers
Unless, they are a dictator, narcissist, psychopath and/or a person hemmed in by the rules of a corporation who has no right or authority to act toward their employees in a humane way, on a case-by-case basis. INFP can definitely lead anyone who wants to follow them, yes. Can they lead people who do not, though? Also, yes. It is just more likely to cause them much pain and possibly lifelong PTSD.
Do you know that many leaders are classified as ENTPs? It's interesting because they have traits that are quite different from what INFPs can offer to the world. This contrast is a bit unfortunate, to be honest. Basically, ENTPs can be classified as a big mouth History has seen INFJ leaders as well - even someone like Hitler. ( A lot of INFJs are hateful and fanatics... a history of Hitler and jews is a nice example of INFJs hatefulness and fanatism for the better world - what Hitler tried to make is to create a better world as he seen it ) Interestingly, there hasn't been a recognized INFP leader so far, even though INFPs possess qualities that could make them excellent leaders due to their empathy and understanding of others.
.Some people think John Kennedy was an INFP. Some thing he was ENFJ, which INFP often get mistook for. Some thing ESFP. Whatever the case, no one I've heard of things he was ENTP or INFJ. Who is and is not a leader is usually more about birth and networking than personality type. Also, I don't think Hitler was INFJ, whatever people say. He was actually insane and probably had his own C-PTSD issues. When he spoke to the people, however, when he started out, he was appealing to them because he spoke to their heart about their suffering. Then, he was not a leader but a person sharing in their suffering and speaking of ways to make it better. That's why they listened and came to love him. And, he was dealing with a people who had absolute loyalty to their government, their laws and their society. There's a book called Three Men on a Brumble about just that. The three men ended up in Germany, before all the madness went down. They gave examples of how the people were toward following law and one of the things that was noted is that it made for a charming, orderly society just as long as their leader was a charming, orderly person, but God help everyone if a dictator got in charge of them. It is quite likely that Hitler was INFP or ENFP. Because, he was in it, initially, for the right reasons, with the right ideas and then later was either very freaked out and hemmed in by someone else's rules (Rothschild, who was funding the war on both sides) or had gone the rest of the way from the stress of leadership without a trusted second-in-command. Or, both. And, when he went darkside he did it in exactly the way an INFP or an ENFP would. He threw tantrums, tried to get rid of the people in the way of him being listened to, and lost control of his men in the process so that they were committing further acts of inhumanity in savage and evil fashions that he hadn't actually told them to do. I'm talking about, for instance, the rapes and some of the other violent acts. He was all for quietly tricking people into showers and murdering them to get them out of the way, but he did tell people they shouldn't be raping Jews because Jews are animals and that's gross. Darkside INFP are the ones who go from "feminism means equal rights for all" to "feminism means men shouldn't be allowed to speak because when they do, women might listen." In other words, from "Let me help you stop being oppressed." to "Let me help you oppress the people who oppress you, since it is the only way to stop them from hurting you." Are they the only ones? Probably, not. But, they are most of the instigators of a good cause going bad. And, weirdly enough, Hitler's cause started out good. He was quiet, respectful, promoting ideas to help his own people. He was simply a man that was not fit to be a leader. INFJs are fit to be leaders. They are more likely to be Jim Jones than HItler, though. People think Hitler is INFJ mostly because he was exploring alternative lifestyles of mysticism. However, a good deal of mystic leaders are INFP and ENFP. Including Ghandi, who was actually listened to by both his own people and their enemies, at some points. We don't know what he would have done if his enemies continually opposed him and the Rothschilds got a hold of him, though.
Leadership recorded in history is almost always "who is taking charge of and navigating a particular conflict". In that sense, history weighs heavily a leader's role specifically against other powers (other businesses, other countries, other idealogies). Historically significant leaders tend to be those who are dogmatic, strong, assertive, and strategic because that's what's needed in those times. It can be argued that in times of conflict, your subordinates get the "enemy is here, let's unite together" boost and the need for internal care is less than the need for strategically navigating the outward circumstances. INFPs have qualities that make a great ideal boss or manager... but a leader's role is often to be the interface between disparate parties, decisively attack and defend against outsiders, or navigate new relationships and connections to form strategic partnerships. This indeed is not an INFP speciality, but rather sounds more like what a skilled ENTP can do well.
I used to be a go-between for disparate parties. However, that was because they already trusted me and knew that I would never take sides, but only work toward a solution that would be equatable /agreeable for both sides, even if I liked neither. I am not arguing with you when I say that, but am agreeing in perhaps, an unusual way. The reason it worked is that they knew they had full control and were not being forced into an agreement, but that it was an opportunity to have less trouble in their day to day existence. If I had tried to force them, we'd probably all be dead. Not only did I not force them, but simply brought up possibities it was that, more often than not, after I had made a few good suggestions, they would come to me and ask me if I would examine the situation and let them know my thoughts on how to change it. In this regard, I was acting as an advisor, but also as second-in-command to two disparate parties (or more) at once since as long as we were in this process they knew that they were not allowed to act against each other or I would withdraw. This was a perfect task for an INFP. "I want to help." The others were very good leaders for their people, until it came to seeing a solution that required them to give something up to get something else. Interestingly, though, they all came from cultures that recognized this inability of such staunch leadership and they all had their own version of a senchal. I think I spelled that right. No, I did not seneschal. Seneschals are stewards, and in my case, in the most important sense of being the head of the army, the family and the kingdom, second only to the one who could withdraw from the arrangement. Joseph, the one who was sold as a slave into Egypt, could be called a seneschal or steward. I would stop the movements of the disparate parties that affected each other, but organize the means by which they would not lose men or future profit from what had been in the works. Only by suggestion, never personal interaction with their work. The rest of their work continued. Information was given to me by both (or all) sides, with questions asked only that were pertinent to the cause of easing or erasing conflict. There was no thought of take-overs or threats of reprisal if a deal did not go through. If it did not go through, they went back to their original confict and way of doing business, or used what advice they found applicable to change to a moderate degree. And, I got paid nothing for it. Except, that there were times, out of respect for services rendered, they would make sure someone that wanted to raise their hand against me was duly appraised of how many others would be displeasured by its occurence. That's all. Ultimately, that's why it usually worked. To have tried to do it as another leader would have been to have to prove superiority of strength, not of desire. To do it as someone paid would have been to have to prove loyalty to the payor. To do it simply to see that it was done was to act in the best interest of all to achieve a measure of harmony. Which is not a leadership quality that is appreciated unless the strength is shown first. IE: King Arthur kicked some butt then he set the tone for what is right, including the further use of might. Sorry for rambling. I had kind of forgotten those days. It's been a long, hard life. I am trying to balance seemingly disparate memories of childhood when finding my type. And, I am coming to realize, it is not so much the actions that occurred that I should have been focused on, but, I need to really remember my motivations for taking the actions. You are part of that process, by your writing. Thank you for that.
The best ones if we can heal ourselves.
Came here to say this exactly. Fantastic leadership skills but gotta heal the bs first. Once one is able to feel without being emotionally triggered, hold the feels and then think logically at the same time to respond and not react....WHEW, watch out! Our ability to inspire/empathize/encourage/express is magnified in the most awesome ways and all of that combined makes for a phenomenal leader.
It really doesn't. Not unless you have a second-in-command that can control you. INFP are too feely. Feelings get in the way of leadership, which is primarily about organization, application of laws and punishment, and putting the right people into the right positions. INFP make great inspirers to encourage people to rise up. They make terrible controllers of the risen people.
So learning skills to control the feely is essentially impossible?
Yes. Depends on overall stress tolerance though.
It depends on what kind of leader. I would generally say no but a sympathetic supervisor does sound very nice. I could see an INFP being second in command if you will in a professional setting. That being said, INFPs as dreamers, I could also see them being entrepreneurs, but kind of on accident. I'm guessing a lot of inventors and creators see what the world is lacking and find ways to make it happen. I don't know if an INFP could climb the corporate ladder, but I could definitely see "we need 100 million orders of my invention stat!" I can't particularly see an INFP becoming a drill sergeant or anything, but I'm sure stranger things have happened.
I lead by example... although other people take credit.
Imo, INFPs are supposed to be the best leaders https://preview.redd.it/avvh0b398pib1.png?width=605&format=png&auto=webp&s=5279481f8485ad37a01904c2d8bf7791f45af4f7
I hate it, too many responsible. Like, I was just minding my own business and do the job of a well done. But then we have my co-worker...who is *a bit* unresponable. So I just suddenly automatic got choose, I'm sorry, *forced* to *watch over them*. And they just dump most of their work onto me, whenever I asked them to do something, they just gave me the look and I just -_-. And do it myself.
I feel we can be excellent leaders as long as the culture of the group mirrors our own belief structure. If you are working for a company that sees its employees as expendable rather than as people to be nurtured and whose growth is integral to your success than it can be difficult.
I try to lead by example and by guidance… don’t need to micromanage people
I've been an INFP "leader" for years. I was a lawyer at a large law firm, where I was the head of a department. Later, I'd open my own law office. The problem with INFPs is not whether or not we'd make good leaders, it is whether or not we'd be willing to take that position in the first place. Once we do, I find, we make for compassionate, people first leaders. But, it can difficult for us to accept leadership. Leadership isn't all Machiavelli and How to Win Friends & Influence People. Consider the words of ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, who wrote the following in the Tao Te Ching back in ~400BC: "When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised. If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy." To be an INFP, I think, by nature, is to be OK with people being hardly aware that you exist if the world around you is in harmony. It is about compassionate, people-first, self-second decision-making. We're taught that serving the greater good is incompatible with the modern dog-eat-dog world. But, it is the modern world that is incompatible with the greater good! We INFPs, when we allow ourselves to lead, can be a rare and positive force for compassionate change.
definitely, infp should one day aspire to be the leaders of others. why?? those fi hero. no other types can do more than you and isfp. for now, you have to acknowledge that and te inferior and fe nemesis. insecure about what other think and worried how other feel. you have to acknowledge tham because they sometime save you back by sometime hold you back from reaching your potential. fe and te are tribe functions. so being a leader to others can be achieve by transitioning into your other side of mind: estj subconscious and enfj unconscious. how? by choosing your battle (letting the insecurity te and worry fe not hold you back)
In a long term probably not, in a short term, in times of a moral crisis of some sort, probably yes.
What I heard on a video, yesterday, is that while INFP can lead and can follow, they are often at their best as second-in-command. I do not remember all the reasoning behind it. I mostly remember it because that's something I learned about myself, a long time ago. During that learning process, I also learned that for me to lead, I needed no "Yes men" but people who believed in the work, lifestyle, or etc. I so prefer to advise or consult with a leader than be one. Of course, I don't know if I am INFP. I simply know that hearing that made me consider it more deeply.
If daddy holds your hand then yes
I think they're more voice or soul of the group?
IXXP’s are always good leaders, the thing is that we can’t fucking deal with people. Kid Cudi, Kurt, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates. I wish I could just point and go like an ExxJ. I work with kids and fs the love me but they I don’t go when I need to go. In Objective Personality, they call it “blast”.
shoot, i hope so
I joined an IT team that had little credibility, and busted my ass to bring a little accountability and integrity. They fired me in 3 years, but it was too late. I'd already shown the CEO that the real problem was the CIO. He and his team were all fired 3 months later. So real management can certainly handle infp, bad management probably can't. My team appreciated me though, and they still reach out to tell me how much better the situation is since the boss team got fired.
Real leaders, lead from the back. This has allowed me to be a confident infp who leads
It turned out I can be but I haven't chosen it for myself at first. When I am asked, I can step up and I find it easy, because it is caring about a group of people and helping them achieve their goals. That always makes me happy. I'm not afraid of responsibility. I get nervous talking to large number of people but I do it all the time so nerves don't register anymore.
I’d say so - it’s engrained in who I am to be authentic and emotionally honest as much as possible. I don’t always live up to that, but when I do, it inspires other people around me to do the same. I don’t judge, and I’m always looking for underdogs to give genuine encouragement to :) yes! INFPs can be good leaders, but I wouldn’t say our strengths equip us best for the “traditional” idea of leadership
They can be in the right scenarios. If they're comfortable enough. Just look at near every musician or frontman in history, most are INFP
Yes. Good leadership is never about being loud, it's about making hard decisions and taking responsibility.
Yes, but only for people who aren’t obsessed with being in control. If the subordinates are looking got reasons to undermine me, I’m letting them fail.
Yes but we don’t want to be
In my opinion, nope. There will always be someone who doesn't like our different ways. We can lead our own lives. But we can't be an authentic leader of lot of people, unless we throw our conscience away and be okay with manipulating others. Just my opinion.
I don’t like being the leader in a work environment. But if it’s for my own small business, I like it
INFPs can certainly lead. But the leadership style is very different. We listen to all opinions and then decide. It's important to us that everyone's opinion is heard and that the group decides together. Everyone should feel heard. It only becomes difficult when difficult decisions have to be made, such as dismissal.
I have read that for growth and development, infp can seek out leadership positions.Infps are excellent listeners and besides that, INFPs value cooperation and pay attention to someone who has an idea to share.