Discussing MBTI Personality Types and Conflict with Kate Ward of Prefix Mediation
Kate: Thanks for joining me today. I’ve been hearing a lot about your recent talk on personality types and conflict, and I’m really keen to delve into some of the key takeaways. To start, could you explain the foundational framework you discussed?
Jeremy: Absolutely. The core of my talk was the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI. It’s a framework that suggests that what might seem like random differences in human behavior are actually consistent preferences in how we use perception and judgment. It’s not about what we’re capable of doing, but what our natural inclinations are. It’s a tool that’s been used for team building and leadership training for decades. It was developed by a mother and daughter, Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs, who were inspired by Carl Jung’s work.
Kate: That makes sense. You mentioned that certain pairs within the MBTI framework are particularly relevant to conflict. Can you elaborate on those?
Jeremy: Yes. The two pairs I focused on are
Thinking vs. Feeling and Judging vs. Perceiving.
• Thinking vs. Feeling is about how we make decisions.
Thinkers prioritize logic, objective data, and fairness, seeking a reasonable solution. In a conflict, they often focus on facts and rules.
Feelers, on the other hand, prioritize values, relationships, and the impact of decisions on people. They aim for a harmonious outcome and want everyone to feel heard.
• Judging vs. Perceiving relates to our preferred approach to the world.
Judgers like things to be structured and planned, and they want to resolve conflicts and move on. They can get frustrated by indecision.
Perceivers, however, prefer to be flexible and spontaneous. They’re comfortable with ambiguity and want to explore all possibilities before making a final decision, which can make them feel pressured by tight deadlines16.
Kate: So, if you have these different types in a conflict, how can understanding them help?
Jeremy: Acknowledging these preferences allows you to make accommodations and improve communication. For example, if a Thinking-Judger (TJ) is dealing with a Feeling-Perceiver (FP), the TJ should acknowledge the FP’s feelings and focus on outcomes, not just rigid rules. They should also avoid overly critical language, like saying something is “illogical”. The FP, in turn, should be prepared for the TJ’s directness and present their own arguments in a logical way.
I’ve seen this play out in my mediation practice where you often see people with different personality types in conflict. Take a Feeler and a Perceiver (FP), who needs to explore all options and prioritize harmony. And imagine that FP is talking to an FJ a Feeler, but a Judger, who values decisiveness and wants to reach a conclusion quickly. Their differences in how they approached life and conflict were the very things that caused them so much tension.
Kate: That’s a great example. So, how do you, as a mediator, use this knowledge in practice?
Jeremy: As a mediator, I’m not using MBTI to box people in, but rather to gain a quick sense of their fundamental preferences and instincts in the moment. It helps me reframe their differences as a source of strength rather than tension. For one couple, I helped them see that their individual qualities—one who could get things done and another who could be present—were their “collective superpower” as parents. This reframing can shift the dynamic into a much more productive co-parenting place.
During joint meetings, people often lean into the extremes of their preferences under stress. For example, a mild TJ might become someone who wants to impose their logic and take charge. Understanding this allows me to moderate the conversation and ensure all perspectives are heard, particularly for those who might be more concerned with emotions and well-being than facts and logic.
Kate: That’s fascinating. And what about for lawyers? How can this be useful for them?
Jeremy: I think it can be a useful tool for them to reflect on their cases. It can help them with personal insight—understanding their own type and how they might need to “flex professionally”. It can also help them understand and manage their clients. For instance, a Thinking-Judger client might want advice presented in a way that is logical and works for them.
Where lawyers are working collaboratively, understanding your colleague’s type can help you navigate both moments of synergy and friction. For example, two Judgers might appreciate a shared commitment to a timely process. Conversely, a Thinker might get frustrated by a Feeler’s focus on rapport-building, or a Perceiver might feel a Judger is too rigid with deadlines. MBTI offers a framework to see these dynamics clearly and quickly, which can help a team work together more effectively.
Kate: This has been incredibly insightful. Thank you for sharing your expertise with us.
Jeremy: It’s been my pleasure. I’m hoping that both clients and professionals will find that this can be a useful tool for them.