Interpersonal Preference Spectrum
None of the interpersonal preferences should be declared better than the other preferences. Specific strengths are associated with three primary preferences, as well as strengths associated with various blends of these three styles. The metaphor of color is used in describing (and hopefully making memorable) each of these primary and blended styles. That is why this model is titled: The Interpersonal Preference Spectrum. We then take the big and very important step of relating the Extraverted and Introverted personality types to the interpersonal preferences we are about to describe.
Three Domains
In setting the stage for a description of each interpersonal preference, we offer a basic model regarding ways to approach the many challenges of mid-21st Century life. This model concerns the ways in which we identify our current reality, our desired reality, and the ways to move from the current to the desired state.
In Europe of the Middle-Ages there were many small fiefdoms, rather than several small and large countries (as there are today). Each of these fiefdoms had its own set of rules, its own history of success and struggle, and its own rulers. Thus, there was a set of domains in Europe that required one to recognize distinctive differences in perspective and practice when crossing the boundary into a new fiefdom.
We suggest that the same occurs when we move from one set of perspectives and practices to another domain when tackling a challenging issue in one’s personal life or in one’s organization. There are three domains on which we wish to focus. These are the domains of information (where am I or where are we right now), intentions (where do I want to be or where do we want to be), and ideas (how do I or how do we get from where we are to where we want to be).
Domain of Information
The domain of information is entered whenever we attempt to find out more about the current condition in which the client finds herself. In seeking to identify this information, we act as researchers, asking questions that can be answered by a systematic collection of information. For example, if a college wants to know which of four academic programs are potentially most attractive to a particular group of prospective students, then a sample of these students might be asked to indicate under what conditions they would be likely to enroll in each of these four programs. The information obtained is valid if the students have been honest, if the right questions were asked and if the sample used was representative of the entire pool of potential students. If the information is valid, then the college should be able to state with some confidence which of the academic programs is most attractive to this population of potential students.
In understanding the current situation, however, we (individually or collectively) must not only seek information that is valid. We must also seek information that is useful. It must align with the target that the leader, team members (and often stakeholders) aim to achieve. We suggest, by the way, that a group becomes a team at the point when it has identified a specific target to which it can direct its strength and energy. We will be referring primarily to teams (rather than groups) when exploring the role played by preferences and attitudes when people gather together to work on behalf of some target.
We would note that if the target concerns increased financial viability for a college, then a market survey will be of little use, even if the information obtained is valid. It is only useful if the costs associated with each of the four programs can also be determined, along with the acceptable tuition levels for this population of students regarding each of the four programs. It is surprising to see how often information is collected that relates only marginally to the problem faced by an organization! Targets are systemic in nature. They require a comprehensive and systemic collection of appropriate and valid information.
