o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

changing or of an unknown character.
Let me pose you a very general scenario. In this scenario, a judger and a perceiver are faced with a
goal that requires them to be in a favorable position at a certain date in the future. The judger
immediately starts working on a plan that will maximize their odds of attaining this favorable
position by the specified date. The perceiver studies the situation and gathers information, but
makes few actual preparations until the deadline draws nigh.
There are pros and cons for each strategy. The judger's strategy assures that they will have time to
devote maximum resources to the project, since some resources may be difficult to mobilize rapidly.
It also allows them to derive the benefits of long-term planning. Perceivers lose the benefits of
slow-to-deploy resources because they don't start their preparations till the last moment; in addition,
they are faced with the dilemma of trying to deploy all their reserves at the last minute, which may
result in overloaded delivery channels.
But consider what happens if outside factors make a strategy change necessary halfway before the
deadline? By this time, the judger will have deployed (and perhaps wasted) half their resources on
a strategy that may now be defunct. It will now be necessary to come up with another plan, this
time with fewer resources and less time. The perceiver, however, will not have committed any of
their resources yet. Since they wait until the last moment to make a decision, they do not have to
worry so much about changing circumstances. In addition, when they finally commit, they do so on
the basis of the most up-to-date information available, which allows them to make the best decision
possible.
This is why judging is the better working strategy in stable situations, while perceiving is the better
working strategy in unstable situations. For obvious reasons, judgers dislike uncertainty and lack of
control more than Perceivers. One excellent demonstration of this judging trait occurred in the
episode "Time Squared."
Through a quirk of time travel, it became known to Picard that somehow the Enterprise would be
destroyed in six hours. He wracked his brain trying to figure out what would happen in six hours so
that he could plan for it. But of course, it was virtually impossible to make any plans because he
had no idea what was going to happen. In the following dialogue, we see Riker (P) counseling a
frustrated Picard:
Riker: Captain, I think this is one instance where you should suppress your natural tendencies.
Picard: Oh, really?
Riker: One of your strengths is your ability to evaluate the dynamics of a situation, and then take
a definitive preemptive step, take charge. Now, you're frustrated because you not only can't see
the solution, you can't even define the problem.
Picard: Go on.
Riker: What we're facing is neither a person nor a place. At least not yet. It's time.
Picard: You're saying I should just sit down, shut up and wait.
Riker: I wouldn't have put it exactly like that.
Picard: Not something I do easily.
Riker: Your Persian flaw.
Picard: Yes, perhaps it is.
Although Picard's judging decisiveness was typically one of his greatest strengths, it also made him
made him vulnerable during circumstances that were hard to predict and control. Note how Riker is
filling in Picard's blind spot by offering a Perceiving opinion, "Let's just see what happens and roll
with it." Judging and Perceiving leaders can benefit from listening to the point of view of those