For decades, empathy in leadership was seen through a single lens. But what if the most impactful influence comes from a different, often overlooked, kind of understanding?
Thinking types in leadership can cultivate powerful influence not by mimicking Feeling types, but by using their natural strengths of logic and objectivity. Their empathy often manifests as cognitive understanding, proactive problem-solving, and a focus on tangible support, which, when strategically deployed, inspires deep loyalty and drives results.
The rain lashed against the panoramic windows of the Synapse Innovations boardroom, mirroring the tension inside. Marcus Thorne, the company’s Chief Technology Officer, gripped a lukewarm coffee cup. He watched the faces of his senior engineers, a tableau of polite discomfort. He had just laid out a bold, data-driven plan for the next quarter, a strategy that, by all objective metrics, promised unprecedented efficiency and growth. He saw the logic; the numbers sang. Yet, in the ensuing silence, he sensed a familiar, unsettling resistance.
Data from a large-scale survey of 17,000 respondents indicated Thinking types were more likely to value authority and accept fear-based leadership. This finding aligned with Marcus’s own instincts: lay out the path, expect compliance, achieve results.
The same research, examining a sample of 9,200 people, revealed a curious counterpoint. It found that the Thinking-Feeling trait was the most consistent predictor of how individuals experienced and expressed empathy. And for some, the expression was actively muted. A striking 71% of INTJs, for instance, deliberately restricted empathy, often to protect their own well-being. Marcus, an INTJ by self-assessment, recognized a flicker of himself in that statistic. He understood emotions perfectly well, he just didn't often feel them, or at least, he didn't broadcast them. He considered it a necessary detachment for objective decision-making. The numbers told a story Marcus couldn’t yet see.
Months prior, one of Marcus’s most promising junior developers, Sarah, had approached him. Her voice had been tight, strained. She spoke of burnout, of an impossible workload, of feeling disconnected from her team. Marcus, ever the diagnostician, listened intently. He processed her words, not for their emotional undertow, but for the underlying system failure. He saw a resource allocation problem, a mismanaged sprint backlog. His solution was immediate: he would reassign some of her tasks, implement a new project management tool, and schedule a training session on time efficiency. Logical and efficient. Problem solved. Or so he thought.
Sarah had nodded, murmured thanks, and left.
But her eyes still held that distant, defeated look. Marcus had been baffled. He’d fixed it. What more was there to do?
Observations from extensive personality research offered a clue. Thinking types, such research indicated, were often less likely to outwardly show sympathy even when understanding emotions. For Marcus, understanding a problem and offering a solution was the ultimate act of care. The outward display of emotional resonance felt, to him, performative, even inefficient. This drive to solve, rather than simply witness, is a reflex so ingrained in some that it becomes a blind spot.
A common misstep for Thinking types in leadership is to optimize for logical solutions when the room, sometimes, needs something else entirely. It is not that they lack empathy. Far from it. Their empathy often operates on a different frequency, a cognitive understanding of another’s plight rather than an emotional mirroring. But if that signal is not translated into a recognizable dialect, it remains unheard, unappreciated. The restriction of empathy, as described in some personality research, was not a deficit of care. It was, for many, a strategic, if unconscious, choice – a way to maintain objectivity, to protect their own processing power from emotional overwhelm. But in leadership, this protective barrier could inadvertently create distance.
The prevailing narrative often paints empathy in broad, emotional strokes: feeling what another feels, sharing their joy or sorrow. But is that the only, or even always the most effective, form of empathy, especially in the demanding world of leadership? Here, the MBTI community often misinterprets the concept. They confuse empathy with emotional expressiveness.
A broad analysis of decision-making patterns among personality types offered a more nuanced view. While 65% of Feeling types prioritized emotional impact in decisions, Thinking types were almost equally split between reason-based analysis and personal values. This indicates a re-prioritization, not a dismissal of values. For a Thinking leader, a 'value' might be fairness, efficiency, or long-term team health, expressed not through a hug, but through a meticulously designed process or a transparent, objective policy.
Consider the work of researchers like those at the Center for Creative Leadership, who have long explored the multifaceted nature of leadership competencies. They often differentiate between emotional empathy (feeling with someone) and cognitive empathy (understanding someone’s perspective). Thinking types, like Marcus, often excel at the latter. They can mentally put themselves in another's shoes, logically deduce their motivations, constraints, and needs. The challenge, then, is not to become a Feeling type, but to translate that cognitive understanding into visible, impactful action.
Marcus began to observe. He watched Maria, a project manager known for her ability to rally teams, even through difficult sprints. Maria was not overtly emotional, but she was relentlessly clear, transparent, and consistent. She anticipated roadblocks, not just for the project, but for her team members. She’d pre-emptively shift deadlines, secure extra resources, or even just provide a quiet, clear assessment of a tough situation. Her empathy was expressed as foresight, as practical support, as absolute reliability.
Her focus was stress elimination, not emotional mirroring.
The shift for Marcus came when he started asking different questions. Not, How do I make them feel better? but What is the specific problem they are facing, and what tangible action can I take to mitigate its impact? This reframing, from emotion to impact, was a revelation. It connected directly to his logical strengths.
He began to consciously identify the root cause of frustrations, not just the emotional symptoms. When a team member expressed overwhelm, he would not just reschedule a task. He would ask, What specific dependency is blocking you? What resource are you lacking? What information do you need that I can provide immediately? This was strategic inquiry, a powerful tool for influence. It demonstrated not that he felt their pain, but that he understood its mechanics and was prepared to dismantle it.
The other critical piece was transparency. A survey focused on leadership styles noted that Feeling types prioritized transparency and gathering input. While Thinking types valued authority more, Marcus realized transparency was not antithetical to authority. It could be a form of authority. By clearly articulating the why behind decisions, the logical chain of reasoning, he invited not just compliance, but informed collaboration. He stopped expecting people to simply accept his directives and started explaining the underlying rationale. This shifted the dynamic from mere obedience to shared understanding.
He was learning a new language. One word at a time.
One morning, Sarah, the junior developer who had struggled with burnout, approached him again. This time, she was not strained. She was apologetic. A critical piece of code she was working on had a bug, and she’d been unable to pinpoint it for two days. She expected a rebuke, or perhaps another suggestion for a new debugging tool.
Marcus listened. He did not offer a sympathetic sigh. He did not say, I understand how you feel. Instead, he paused. He thought. Then he said, I see. This bug is holding up the next deployment. What’s the specific error message? Have you cross-referenced it with the known issues database? I’ll sit with you for the next thirty minutes and we'll walk through the log files together. If we can’t find it, I’ll reassign the deployment to another team for the next 24 hours while you focus solely on this.
Sarah’s eyes widened. Not because he was being nice in the conventional sense, but because he had immediately grasped the impact of her problem — the deployment, the pressure she felt — and offered a precise, actionable path forward. He fixed the bug. He alleviated her stress, providing a logical, competent solution and a clear plan. He took responsibility for the systemic issue that affected her.
They sat together, side-by-side, poring over lines of code. They found the bug, a subtle misconfiguration. Sarah learned. Marcus taught. The deployment went out on time.
Months later, Marcus stood in the same boardroom. The rain had subsided. He presented a new strategy. It was still data-driven, still meticulously logical. But this time, when he finished, there was no polite discomfort. There were questions, yes, but they were engaged, informed, collaborative. His team offered suggestions, not hesitant complaints. They understood not just what he proposed, but why it mattered, and how it would impact them, and the company, in tangible ways.
Marcus Thorne had not transformed into a different person. He did not suddenly feel a surge of emotional resonance in every interaction. But he had learned to translate his profound cognitive understanding into a form of empathy that his team not only recognized but deeply valued. He had found his own distinct language of influence, one built on clarity, competence, and a logical, undeniable commitment to solving the problems that affected the people around him. The question, it turns out, was not how Thinking leaders could become empathetic, but how their inherent, logical empathy could uniquely shape their leadership, inspiring loyalty not through shared emotion, but through shared, tangible progress.
Jornalista de ciência comportamental e escritor de não ficção narrativa. Passou uma década cobrindo psicologia e comportamento humano para revistas nacionais antes de se dedicar à pesquisa de personalidade. James não diz o que você deve pensar — ele encontra a pessoa real por trás do padrão e então mostra por que isso importa.
Artigos semanais sobre carreira, relacionamentos e crescimento — adaptados ao seu tipo de personalidade.
Sem spam, cancele quando quiser. Política de Privacidade
Despite massive investment in leadership programs, trust in managers is plummeting and burnout is rampant. The MBTI, once seen as a simple self-awareness tool, now offers a strategic framework to build cross-culturally adaptable, human-centered leaders ready for tomorrow’s complex challenges.
Leia maisIch dachte einst, Dating-Apps seien ein Spiel des endlosen Swipens, das nur zu Burnout führt. Doch meine eigene Forschung – und meine Misserfolge – zeigten, wie das Verständnis von Persönlichkeitstypen Frustration in echte Verbindung verwandeln kann.
Leia maisMis propios clientes de terapia me enseñaron que la resolución de conflictos tradicional a menudo no da en el blanco. Necesitamos entender lo que 'conflicto' realmente significa para cada tipo de personalidad para ir más allá de la frustración y llegar a una conexión genuina.
Leia maisundefined
Leia maisGerentes dedicam 4,34 horas semanais a conflitos, enquanto 71% dos funcionários os enfrentam regularmente. Compreender seu tipo MBTI pode remodelar esses confrontos custosos. Isso vai além da simples evitação, apontando para uma resolução autêntica e uma compreensão mais profunda.
Leia maisMy own exploration through the maze of personality types taught me that no single label captures the full truth. Weaving together the 'what,' 'why,' and 'how' of who you are reveals a richer, more actionable understanding.
Leia mais