Irresponsibility or unsuitability?

We used to understand irresponsibility as a fail to exercise responsibility of own actions. However, if we look deeper, irresponsibility covers something more, including unwillingness to take up duties, desire to transfer own responsibility to others and breaking promises.

Are there really people who have born irresponsible? Whom we should blame for irresponsibility: family, school, society?

Carl Gustav Jung, upon whose personality types socionics has been built, through his model of psyche depicted that each person wants to be responsible for something particular. More precisely, any person does not just wants, but desires responsibility.

There is a common belief that any responsible person is able to be accountable for everything. In reality, it is quite different. Our power to take responsibility is limited to the capacity of our strongest functions. For instance, if during an experiment the participants were asked to describe a painting:

  • Logical types - would find out the connections among the details described in the painting, analyse its content, enlarge on and ground its classification;
  • Ethical types – would express their attitude towards the painting and its content as well as give an evaluation;
  • Intuitive types – would discuss the talent of the painter, try to discover the uniqueness of the painting and describe associations the painting brings;
  • Sensing types – would describe colours, tones, shapes, texture in details and appraise the aesthetics of the painting.

From my point of view, this example is good enough for depicting the fact that our attentiveness is limited and linked only to our field of interests. This can also be reflected to duties, for any person can dedicate oneself fully and entirely only to the work that does please him or her.

Taking responsibility involves taking risks and being able to defend the outcome of work in front of critics. Nevertheless, we have only one psyche function with which we can rise above the opinion of others. It is the first function that adjusts program and mission of life, according to which we take the responsibility for the outcome of our actions. The other psyche functions are involved in the path towards the aim, but they don’t eliminate mistakes. Even the second strongest psyche function – the creative one - can make serious mistake! The only difference is that we don't lose self-esteem and are ready to bear critics. As for the weaker functions, our self-esteem fades away and we are hurt by critics and hunted by guilt.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? If a work is closely connected with the strongest psyche functions, the employer has but to take care of the outcome of the work instead of process. However, if the weaker psyche functions are involved in the work, the employer has to take care for both, the outcome and the process how the work is carried out. Besides, he or she has to acknowledge that mistakes might repeat.

From that stand point of view, there are no irresponsible employees. There are only suitable or not suitable employees for a certain position.

There is an even higher risk, if a person who lacks management skills, takes up a leading position in a corporation or government. In these cases, it is not only organization who does suffer, but also the entire nation and country. Examples:

  • Valery Kargin (Esenin) and Viktor Krasovicky (Dumas), ex-chairmen of the “PAREX” bank.
  • Bertold Flick (Huxley), ex-chairmen of “AirBaltic”,
  • George Bush (Huxley), ex-president of the USA.

Find out more about socionics through our courses!