01
Prepare the conversation around work
Discuss a real recurring task rather than comparing type labels. Ask each person what information they need before contributing, how they prefer to raise disagreement and what a clear decision looks like. Concrete examples reduce the risk of stereotyping.
- What should be sent before a meeting?
- Which decisions need discussion and which need one owner?
- How should someone signal that they need more processing time?
02
Translate common friction
Fast verbal exploration can sound careless to someone who prepares privately; careful preparation can look disengaged to someone who thinks aloud. Direct critique can feel cold, while contextual feedback can sound indirect. Name the process difference before assigning intent.
A useful repair sentence is: “I think we are optimizing for different things. What evidence, impact or deadline would help us decide?”
03
Use a four-part decision record
For consequential decisions, record the observed facts, alternative interpretations, effects on people and the owner and review date. This simple structure makes room for different preferences while keeping accountability visible.
04
Keep type out of performance judgments
Personality language must not become a reason to exclude someone from a role, excuse harmful behaviour or predict performance. Evaluate the work, skills and agreed expectations. Use preferences only to improve the way people coordinate.