Advertisement

Why Good Risk Analysts have Trouble with Public Communications-A Quantitative Analysis

  • Raymond Johnson
  • W. Larry Petcovic
Part of the Advances in Risk Analysis book series (AIRA, volume 5)

Abstract

Effective risk management requires effective communications. the communication strengths and limitatiols of over 300 health risk analysts, in the radiation protection profession, have been analyzed by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This indicator measures the magnitude of our preferences for gathering data by SENSING(S) or INTUITION(N), for making decisions by THINKING(T) or FEELING(F), for how we relate to others by JUDGING(J) or PERCEIVING(P), and for how we get our energy by EXTRAVERSION(E) or INTROVERSION(I). Profiles for these risk analysts show a strong preference to INTJ. They tend to be self confident, decision makers, practical, orderly, logical, outstanding in research and as executives, hard workers, high achievers, organizers, and pragmatic strategists. On the other hand, they can also be very independent and single minded. They may ignore the views of others and may appear unemotional, cold, demanding, critical, reserved, and determined. They may neglect social rituals and may not like to waste time in idle dialogue or play. This paper will analyze how an awareness of Myers-Briggs Type can be used to develop effective approachs to communication and risk management.

Key Words

public communications communication style Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) radiation radiation protection risk management and risk analysts. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Jo85a.
    Johnson, R. and L. Petcovic, 1985, “Your special Gifts,” The Health Physics Society Newsletter, August 1985, pp. 9–12.Google Scholar
  2. Jo85b.
    Johnson, R. and L. Petcovic, 1985, “Health Physicist’s Temperaments,” The Health Physics Society Newsletter, September 1985, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
  3. Jo85c.
    Johnson, R. and L. Petcovic, 1985, “When In Rome,” The Health Physics Society Newsletter, October 1985, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar
  4. Ju23.
    Jung, C. G., 1923, “Psychological Types,” ( New York: Harcourt Brace Publishers).Google Scholar
  5. Ke78.
    Keirsey, D. and M. Bates, 1978, “Please Understand Me–Character and Temperament Types,” (Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis Books).Google Scholar
  6. My62.
    Myers, I. B., 1962, “The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,” (Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press).Google Scholar
  7. My80.
    Myers, I. B. and P. B. Myers, 1980, “Gifts Differing,” (Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press).Google Scholar
  8. vo71.
    von Franz, M. and J. Hillman, 1971, “Jung’s Typology,” (Dallas, Texas: Spring Publications, Inc.).Google Scholar
  9. Ye82.
    Yeakley, F. R., 1982, “Communication Style Preferences and Adjustments as an Approach to Studying Effects of Similarity in Psychological Type,” Research in Psychological Type, 5, p. 30–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Johnson
    • 1
  • W. Larry Petcovic
    • 2
  1. 1.Communication Sciences InstituteUSA
  2. 2.Advanced Communication TechniquesUSA

Personalised recommendations