The term “identity”, derived from the Latin word identitas, has various meanings across different fields. Identity is the sum of characteristics or traits that define a person and distinguish them from others.
Group affiliation is an essential part of identity. This can include family, nation, region, religion, clan, friends, or informal groups.
What differentiates identity from personality?
Below we will introduce and explore five applications:
For dealing with egocentric individuals, we have developed a tool that makes it possible to make the involved interest structures transparent in conflict situations with two parties. Afterward, it prompts them to search for common interests. This tool, called the Interest Sheet, is deliberately simple in design but highly effective. It fits on one page. These conflict situations are the most frequent, both privately and professionally.
The fundamental work with the Interest Sheet for conflict resolution consists of identifying both “My Interests” (I) and “Your Interests” (You)—including the personality type, the superficial interests, and the conflict-relevant interests of each party.
These are then supplemented by the stress trigger. This is necessary to avoid putting our conversation partner under stress, as they would then focus solely on activating their defense mechanisms to prevent stress, rather than engaging constructively. This would block any productive continuation of the conversation.
The PBI model serves as the foundation for this fundamental work.
With the collected information, it is now possible to work toward a mutual conflict resolution.
Examples of this process—both for personal and professional settings—are provided in the book “Successfully Handling Egocentrics.” ( Currently only available in German)
Michael’s the Author’s Comment’s on This:
“The case studies make it clear that not every conflict can be resolved with a perfect solution. However, the resolution becomes smoother if I avoid stress factors on both sides and consider the needs of those involved. This significantly reduces potential harm. In my experience, solutions don’t always work perfectly right away, but it gets easier each time. I immediately tested it with colleagues in my office—and it works. And as a bonus, it also serves as great practice. Pay attention to how situations unfold when you take interest structures into account.”
In the context of relationships and partnerships, the question is often asked: “Which personalities go well together and which do not?” To begin with, a preliminary remark: In principle, the more developed a personality is, the better it fits with any other personality. Conversely, the more disturbed a personality is, the more difficult it is to live together with any other personality.
Therefore, a statement about compatibility can only be substantiated in the realm of undeveloped traits. Additionally, we must interpret it as a probability, not as established knowledge.
Perfectionists:
The Perfectionist gets along best with those of the same type or with Thinkers. Two perfectionists strive for a perfect partnership. They often build families on a practical foundation, emphasizing responsibility and pride in their achievements. Perfectionists and Thinkers are highly independent, prefer working alone, and value controlling their emotions. The relationship is more pragmatic than romantic. Peter gets along well with Helpers, Self Promoters, Individualist, and Peacemakers. Perfectionists and Helpers are attracted to each other due to their differences and complement each other. Like the Self Promoter, Perfectionist’s find their identity through work. Both value status, social image, and are success-oriented. Perfectionists and Individualists often have lively relationships. Traditionalist and perfectionist usually share a vision that requires joint hard work to bring to life. Perfectionist and Peacemakers can be remarkably similar and have many things in common. The relationship between Perfectionist and Bon Vivant is typically normal. The clear opposites may either attract or repel. A relationship between Perfectionists and Power People is usually very difficult. Both have a strong need for control and dominance, and they eventually clash.
Helpers:
The Helper gets along well or very well with all personality types, except with their own kind; best with Thinkers, Bon Vivant’s, Power People, Peacemakers. Between Helpers and Thinkers, opposites attract. Thinkers are the most introverted of all personality types, and Helpers are the one who approaches others the most. Helpers will support Bon Vivant in realizing their plans and share in their enthusiasm. With Power People, the Helper often forms an almost symbiotic relationship. Helpers and Peacemakers have many commonalities, which strengthen and solidify their relationship. Helpers also get along well with Perfectionists, Self Promoters, Individualist, and Traditionalists. With Perfectionists and Helpers, opposites attract and complement each other. In a relationship with a Self Promoter, the Helper gives attention, and the Self Promoter expects it. The relationship between Helpers and Individualist is like a dance. Both partners are very familiar with the relationship pattern of ‘push and pull.’ Helpers give Traditionalist so much attention that they can overcome the Traditionalist doubts and provide the security Traditionalists expect. A relationship with their own kind is very difficult for the Helper. After all, there is no one they can help; and even accepting help is especially hard for the Helper.
Self Promoters:
The Self Promoter representative gets along best with Thinkers and Peacemakers. Between Self Promoters and Thinkers, opposites attract. The Self Promoters extroverted behavior is ideally complemented by the Thinkers introverted behavior. With Peacemakers, there is a mutual attraction in which Self Promoters lead, and Peacemakers adjusts. Self Promoters also get along well with Perfectionists, Helpers, and Bon Vivint’s. Like Perfectionists, Self Promoters find their identity through work. Both focus on status, social image, and are success-oriented. In a relationship with a Helper, the Helper gives attention, and the Self Promoter expects it. The Self Promoters goal-orientation also pairs well with the many options and plans of Bon Vivint’s. Relationships with Individualists and Thinkers are more difficult. Both Self Promoters and Individualists care about image and appreciation from others. The main difficulties in this relationship arise from the moods of the Individualist and the blocked emotions of the Self Promoter. A relationship between Self Promoters and Traditionalist is rare. The tension between the goal-driven nature of the Self Promoter and the performance anxiety of the Traditionalist is simply too great. A partnership between Self Promoters and Power People is very difficult. The relationship with another Self Promoter is likely to diminish over time. Sooner or later, both enter into competition, which endangers the relationship. The same applies to a relationship between Self Promoters and Power People. Both are highly competitive and power-oriented, which hinders a functional relationship.
Individualists:
The individualist gets along well with Perfectionist, Helpers, Thinkers, and Peacemakers. Individualists and Perfectionists often have a lively relationship. The relationship between the Individualist and the Helper is like a dance. Both partners are very familiar with the relationship pattern of ‘push and pull.’ Despite their obvious differences, Individualist and Thinkers share a meaningful and common worldview. The Individualists aesthetic self-expression mixes with the Thinkers observational skills. Peacemakers have incredible patience with others, and Individualist enjoy being inspired by a partner who is at peace with themselves. A partnership with Thinkers, Bon Vivint’s, and Power People, is usually normal. A partnership between two individualists is rare. However, a best-friend relationship is more common. The Individualist and the Traditionalist share similar traits. Individualist can be as anxious as thinkers, and Thinkers can experience the same existential pain as Individualist. The many options of the Bon Vivant and the identity search of the Individualist either lead to a union of opposites or an atmosphere of estrangement. The partnership between Individualist and Power People is either full of intensity or hopeless due to their many problematic opposites. A partnership between Individualist and Self Promoters is more difficult. Both Individualist and Self Promoters care about image and appreciation from others. The main difficulties in this relationship are the moods of the Individualist and the blocked emotions of the Self Promoter.
Thinkers:
The Thinker gets along best with Perfectionist, Helpers, Self Promoter’s, and Power People. The Thinker and the Perfectionist are both highly independent, enjoy working alone, and value controlling their emotions. The relationship is more pragmatic than romantic. Thinkers are the most introverted of all personality types, while Helpers are the most outgoing. Between self promoters and Thinkers, a balance of opposites is achieved. Self Promoters extroverted behavior complements Thinkers introverted behavior perfectly. While the Thinker is the withdrawn personality type, the Power People is the confident one. Together, they often form a very good partnership despite their obvious differences. Thinkers get along well with individualist, another Thinker, Traditionalist, and Peacemakers. Despite their obvious differences, Thinkers and Individualist share a meaningful and common worldview. Individualist aesthetic self-expression blends with a Thinkers observational skills. Two Thinkers often get along well because they can respect each other’s boundaries. The partnership between a Thinker and a Traditionalist doesn’t play out in public, but rather radiates warmth within their private space. In a partnership between Thinkers and Peacemakers, a familiarity and presence often develops that doesn’t require words. A partnership between the Thinker and a Bon Vivant is usually normal. Often, Thinkers and Bon Vivant live side by side, with the Thinker pursuing their introverted worldview and the Bon Vivant pursuing their extroverted one.
Traditionalists:
The Traditionalist gets along well with Perfectionists, Helpers, Thinkers, Powerful People. Traditionalist often share a vision with Perfectionists, and realizing this vision requires joint hard work. Helpers give Traditionalists so much attention that they help them overcome the Traditionalist’s doubts and provides the expected security. The partnership between Traditionalist and a Thinker does not play out publicly, but instead radiates warmth within their own four walls. In the typical partnership between Traditionalist and Power People, the Power People exercises power, and the Traditionalist looks up to this authority and feels protected. The partnership between a Traditionalist and Individualist, another Traditionalist, or Peacemaker is typically normal. Individualist and Traditionalist share similar traits. Individualist can be as anxious as Traditionalists; Traditionalists can suffer from the same world-weariness as Individualists. Two skeptics either escalate each other’s doubts and fears or find common activities and pleasures. A partnership between Traditionalists and Peacemakers is either marked by mutual support or a constant struggle to see who takes the initiative. The relationship between Traditionalists and Self Promoters or Bon Vivant’s is difficult. A relationship between a Self Promoter and a Traditionalist is quite rare. The tension between the performance orientation of the Self Promoter and the performance anxiety of the Traditionalist is simply too great. A partnership between the Traditionalist and the Bon Vivant suffers because the Bon Vivant struggles to commit. Traditionalist’s want guarantees before they engage in something, while Bon Vivant’s hate being pinned down.
Bon Vivant’s:
The Bon Vivant gets along especially well with a Helper. Helpers support Bon Vivant’s in realizing their plans and share in their enthusiasm. Bon Vivant’s also get along well with Self Promoters. The Self Promoters goal orientation aligns well with the Bon Vivant’s many options and plans. The relationship between Bon Vivant’s and Perfectionist, Individualist, Thinkers, or Peacemakers is usually normal. The undeniably present contrasts between Bon Vivant’s and Perfectionist can either attract or repel each other. The many options of the Bon Vivant and the identity search of the Individualist either create a union of opposites or an atmosphere of alienation. Often, Thinkers and Bon Vivant’s live side by side, with the observer realizing his introverted world view and the Bon Vivant’s realizing his extroverted world view. Bon Vivant’s and Peacemakers either create a common ground through their variety of interests or fail due to their indecisiveness. A partnership between Bon Vivant’s and Traditionalist or Power People is difficult. A partnership between Bon Vivant and Traditionalist suffers because the Bon Vivant struggles to commit. Traditionalist’s want guarantees before they engage, and Bon Vivant’s hate being pinned down. Bon Vivant’s and Power People can either meet in their shared pleasure-seeking nature or, more likely, experience a power struggle between them. A partnership between two Bon Vivant’s is very difficult. They often come together as confidants and playmates but rarely engage in lasting relationships.
Power People:
The Power People gets along best with Helpers or Thinkers. The relationship between Power People and Helpers is often almost symbiotic. While the Thinker is the introverted personality type, the Power People is the self-assured one. Together, they often form a very good partnership despite the obvious differences. Power People also get along well with Traditionalist. In the typical setup of a partnership between Traditionalist and Power People, the Power People exerts power, and the Traditionalist looks up to this authority and feels protected. A partnership between Power People and Individualist or Peacemakers is generally normal. The relationship between Individualist and Power People is either full of intensity or hopeless due to many problematic contrasts. A relationship between Power People and Peacemakers consists of the poles of impulse and inertia, which either block each other or create a unique blend. A partnership between Power People and Bon Vivant is difficult. Power People and Bon Vivant can either meet in their shared pleasure-seeking nature or, more likely, experience a power struggle between them. Partnerships between Power People and a Perfectionist, self promoter, or another Power People are very difficult. A relationship between Power People and Perfectionists usually proves to be challenging. Both have strong tendencies toward control and dominance, so they will eventually clash. The same applies to a relationship between Self Promoters and Power People. Both are highly competitive and power-oriented, which stands in the way of a functional relationship. Two Power People have a hard time building a lasting partnership.
Peacemakers:
The Peacemaker gets along best with Helpers or Self Promoters. Peacemakers and Helpers have many similarities, which foster and strengthen their relationship. There is a mutual attraction between Peacemakers and Self Promoters, where Self Promoters take the lead and Peacemakers adapt. Peacemakers also get along well with Perfectionist, individualist, or Thinkers. Peacemakers and Perfectionist can be remarkably similar and share many commonalities. Peacemakers have incredible patience with others, and individualist enjoy being inspired by a partner who is grounded in themselves. In a partnership between a Peacemaker and a Thinker, a familiarity and presence often form, which doesn’t require words. Normal partnerships for Peacemakers are with Traditionalist, Bon Vivant’s, Power People, or another Peacemaker. A partnership between Peacemakers and Traditionalists is either marked by mutual support or a constant struggle for initiative. Peacemakers and Bon Vivant’s either find common ground through their shared interests or fail due to their indecisiveness. A relationship between Peacemakers and Power People consists of the poles of impulse and inertia. These either block each other or create a unique blend. When two Peacemakers are together, harmony and balance are apparent on the outside. The situation becomes difficult when conflicts arise that cannot be avoided.
In Conclusion:
The relationship navigator can provide an insightful prognosis about the future viability of a relationship.
In an existing relationship, understanding the personality types helps to better comprehend the partner on a deeper level—by grasping their fundamental needs, core issues, basic fears, and stress triggers. This opens the path to a more fulfilling relationship with better mutual understanding.
Additionally, the awareness of balanced, egocentric, and disturbed behaviors offers both partners developmental impulses toward evolved behavior, which deepens and strengthens the relationship.
The following overview summarizes the quality of collaboration between all nine personality types in their typical and egocentric expressions, as explained below. It provides insight into who works well with whom and how. The same principle applies: collaboration with a developed personality is consistently effective, while Collaboration with a disturbed personality is always very difficult. This table does not cover disturbed.
Perfectionist:
The Perfectionist works best with another Perfectionist or with a Individualist. When two Perfectionist collaborate, two like-minded individuals meet. They work hard, are competent, efficient, and complete their work with high quality. Individualist and Perfectionist both have high standards; the Perfectionist is perfect, the Individualist is unique. Their collaboration can develop into a highly performance-oriented partnership based on this foundation.
The perfectionist usually works well with Helpers, Thinkers, and Peacemakers. Perfectionist with Helpers is a good combination if the perfectionist can respond to the emotional needs of the Helper. In this collaboration, the perfectionist takes responsibility, while the Helper plays a supportive role. The critical attitudes of perfectionist and Thinkers can complement each other well in the workplace. Both possess the ability to accept criticism, are disciplined and frugal, and are therefore well-suited to eliminating waste and inefficiency in a company. When working with a Peacemaker, the perfectionist can gradually and sustainably improve a company.
The collaboration between Perfectionist and Traditionalist and Bon Vivint’s can be either good or difficult depending on the situation. Collaboration with Self Promoter is difficult. The Perfectionist’s demand for quality clashes with the Self Promoters performance-oriented focus on quantity. Collaboration with pattern Power People is particularly difficult. Sooner or later, both will fight for control and power.
Helper:
The quality of collaboration between the Helpers and other personality types is always good or even very good. This is certainly due to the obvious relationship orientation of the Helper. The Helper works very well with personality types Self Promoter, Thinkers, Power People, and Peacemakers. With Self Promoters, the Helper forms an efficient team. The Helper also complements Thinker excellently. The Thinkers thinking ability combines successfully with Helpers emotional and people-oriented nature. Collaboration with Power People is based on trust and can develop into a near-symbiotic relationship. In this dynamic, Power People takes the lead while Helper manages relationships. Collaboration with Peacemaker develops very well when both patterns share common goals. The Helper can structure Peacemakers activities effectively and also provide the necessary recognition.
The partnership with Perfectionist is a good combination if Perfectionist can respond to the emotional needs of Helper. In this setup, Perfectionist takes responsibility while Helper plays the helper role. Collaboration with another Helper develops well if both serve the same task. The task itself takes the place of a person, has requirements, provides identity, and offers space for emotional energy. The collaboration between a Helper and a Individualist is highly emotional. The Individualist enjoys feeling special, while the Helper nurtures the relationship. Helper also works well with Traditionalist. This collaboration involves multiple behavioral aspects working together. Both form an alliance when pursuing common goals, such as restructuring efforts or social welfare initiatives. The Helper also collaborates well with Bon Vivant’s. In this partnership, Bon Vivant’s contributes ideas and plans, while Helper implements them. The prerequisite for success is that the relationship aspect of this partnership remains stable.
Self Promoter:
The Self Promoter works best with Helper, Thinker, and Traditionalist. With a Helper, Self Promoter forms an efficient team. Both can work hard and are eager to engage with those around them. In collaboration with Thinker, Thinker takes on the analytical part, while the performance-driven Self Promoter manages external matters and implementation. This suits Self Promoter, as they compulsively seek control over the image-oriented aspects of a partnership and work success-oriented. Thinker serves as the perfect introverted counterpart. In the constellation with Traditionalist , Traditionalist contributes creative and original concepts, while Self Promoter, similar to their collaboration with Thinker, handles execution and external presentation.
The quality of collaboration between a Self Promoter and another Self Promoter or with a Peacemaker depends heavily on the task and environment and can develop either well or with difficulty. The collaboration of a Self Promoter with Perfectionist, Individualist, Bon Vivant, and Power People is consistently challenging on a relational level. Working with a Perfectionist is difficult because Perfectionist’s demand for quality clashes with Self Promoter’s quantity-focused, results-driven approach. Collaboration with Individualist is difficult because both types seek applause. They can compete relentlessly without either backing down. Typically, a partnership between Self Promoter and Bon Vivant starts off well but deteriorates over time as their differing forward-moving strategies lead them in opposite directions. Working with a Power People is also difficult, as both exhibit aggressive and competitive behavior. Often, Power People sees Self Promoter as a hypocrite and liar, while Self Promoter perceives Power People as a tyrant.
Individualist
The Individualist works best with Perfectionist. Both personality types have high standards: Perfectionist strives for perfection, while Individualist seeks uniqueness. Perfectionist’s discipline complements Individualist’s creativity, allowing their collaboration to develop into a highly performance-oriented partnership.
Individualist works well with Helper, Thinker, Bon Vivant, and Peacemaker. The collaboration with Helper is highly emotional—Individualist enjoys feeling special, while Helper nurtures relationships. A Individualist can work well with Thinker if the goal of their collaboration is clear and both are invested in the task. Individualist desires a special role and personal recognition, while Thinker values organizational efficiency without the burden of personal involvement. Despite their differences, Individualist and Bon Vivant work well together. Collaboration with a Peacemaker is a common partnership. Their differences complement each other in the workplace, with Individualist generating creative ideas while Peacemaker takes care of execution.
The quality of collaboration between a Individualist and another Individualist, a Traditionalist, or an Power People depends heavily on the task and environment, and it can develop either well or with difficulty. The partnership between Individualist and Self Promoter is particularly challenging on a relational level, as both types seek applause. They can compete endlessly without either one backing down.
Thinker:
The Thinker works best with Self Promoter and Helper. In collaboration with Self Promoter, Thinker takes on the analytical part, while the performance-driven Self Promoter handles external matters and implementation. This suits Self Promoter, who compulsively seeks control over the image-oriented aspects of a partnership and works success-oriented. Thinker serves as the ideal introverted counterpart. Thinker and Helper also complement each other excellently in the workplace. Helper focuses on people and their needs, while Thinker’s intellectual abilities combine with Helper’s people orientation to form a successful partnership.
A Thinker can also work well with Perfectionist, Individualist, and Power People. With Perfectionist, Thinker shares a critical, analytical mindset and a focus on efficiency, making them a strong team for eliminating waste and inefficiency in an organization. Thinker and Individualist collaborate well if both have a shared interest in the task and a clear goal. Individualist seeks personal recognition and a special role, while Thinker prioritizes organizational efficiency without the burden of personal involvement. Thinker and Power People work well together when Thinker takes on the thinking and strategizing, while Power People handles execution.
The quality of collaboration with another Thinker depends heavily on the circumstances, including the task and environment, and can develop either well or with difficulty. Thinker has more difficulty working with Traditionalist, Bon Vivant, and Peacemaker, as these combinations are unlikely to produce practical, usable results. Thinker and Traditionalist are both highly intellectual types, focusing on ideas rather than action. Similarly, collaboration with Bon Vivant can be challenging, as Bon Vivant tends to jump from idea to idea without follow-through. Working with Peacemaker is unlikely to create much conflict, but it may also suffer from a lack of initiative.
Traditionalist:
The Traditionalist works best with Self Promoter. In this combination, Traditionalist contributes creative and original concepts, while Self Promoter, similar to its collaboration with Thinker, handles implementation and external representation. Traditionalist also collaborates well with Helper, as their teamwork integrates different behavioral aspects. They form a strong alliance when pursuing shared goals, such as restructuring efforts or social causes.
Collaboration with Perfectionist, Individualist, or another Traditionalist is generally neutral but can be either good or difficult depending on the situation. Working with Thinker, Bon Vivant, and Peacemaker is more challenging. Traditionalist and Thinker share a tendency to focus more on theory than action, often leading to few practical results. With Bon Vivant, Traditionalist shares a habit of delaying decisions, making outcomes unlikely. The doubts of Traditionalist combined with the inertia of Peacemaker slow down or even prevent joint activities.
Collaboration with Power People is often very difficult because their behaviors are fundamentally opposed. Under stress, Power People tends to react aggressively and seize control, while Traditionalist withdraws and carefully evaluates the situation. These opposing tendencies frequently create personal tensions that disrupt teamwork on a relational level. However, the situation changes significantly when Power People is in a leadership role and Traditionalist is a subordinate—especially when Traditionalist perceives Power People as an authority figure. In such cases, their working relationship can become almost symbiotic.
Bon Vivant:
The Bon Vivant works well with the Helper and the Individualist. In the collaboration with the Helper, the Bon Vivant contributes its ideas and plans, while the Helper implements them. However, this only applies if the relationship between the two is right. If the Bon Vivant is too narcissistic and the Helper is dissatisfied, nothing will come of the Bon Vivant’s great plans. Despite their differences, the Individualist often works very efficiently with the Bon Vivant. With the Perfectionist, the collaboration is normal. Depending on the situation, this collaboration can either go well or become difficult. The collaboration of the Bon Vivant with the personality types Self Promoter, Thinker, Traditionalist, and Power People is difficult. A collaboration between Bon Vivant and Self Promoter usually starts off well, but gets worse over time. The collaboration with the Thinker and also with the Traditionalist suffers from the implementation weakness of those involved. Naturally anti-authoritarian, the Bon Vivant has difficulty with the authoritarian behavior of the Power People. The collaboration of the Bon Vivant with another Bon Vivant and with the Peacemaker is very difficult. In the collaboration between two Bon Vivant, their implementation weakness is reinforced. They then hype each other up in the branches of ideas and possibilities. Peacemaker’s feel safe when they know exactly what they have to do during the day. This collides with the Bon Vivant’s constant reshuffling of the work program, so these differences in work styles often lead to tensions between the two on the relational level.
Power People:
In internal company collaboration, Power People is the most difficult of all patterns. Its strategy of facing all situations with ‘competition’ does not adequately account for the complex situations of internal collaboration. The Power People works best with the Helper. Their collaboration is based on trust and can develop symbiotically. In this, the Power People sets the tone, and the Helper shapes the relationships. The Power People also works well with the Thinker. In this case, the Thinker often takes on the conceptual part, while the implementation work is handled by the Power People. The collaboration of the Power People with both the Individualist and the Peacemaker depends greatly on the circumstances and can either go well or be difficult. The collaboration with the Self Promoter and the Bon Vivant is difficult. Power People and Self Promoter are both aggressive and competition-oriented patterns. Often, the Power People is seen by the Self Promoter as a tyrant, while the Self Promoter is viewed by the Power People as a liar and manipulator. This collaboration only works if both clearly pursue the same goals. Otherwise, it will inevitably lead to a power struggle. Since the Bon Vivant is inherently anti-authoritarian, it has difficulties with the authoritarian behavior of the Power People. The collaboration of the Power People with the personality types Perfectionist, Traditionalist , and Power People is very difficult. Perfectionist and Power People tend to fight for power and control. The collaboration between Power People and Traditionalist is often very difficult because the behavior of both personality types is very opposite. Under stress, the Power People tends to react aggressively and seize control, while the Traditionalist first withdraws and reconsiders the situation. These different behaviors often lead to personal tensions between the two personality types, which cloud the collaboration on the relational level. A collaboration between two Power People’s almost inevitably leads to a power struggle.
Peacemaker:
The Peacemaker works best with a Helper. This collaboration develops very well when the goals for both patterns align. The Helper can structure the Peacemaker’s activities well and also provides the necessary recognition. The Peacemaker usually works well with the Perfectionist, Individualist, and another Peacemaker. The collaboration between the personality types Peacemaker and Perfectionist is good for preserving companies in consolidation phases. Both personality types need structures and known procedures to find their way, both are detail-oriented, tend to procrastinate on decisions, and avoid risks. The collaboration with a Individualist is a commonly occurring partnership. The differences of the two patterns complement each other in the work environment, with the Individualist often generating creative ideas and the Peacemaker taking on the implementation work. Two undeveloped Peacemakers usually work well together in a well-structured environment where decisions are laid out for them. The quality of collaboration with a Self Promoter or a Power People depends heavily on the tasks and environment and can either go well or be difficult. Collaboration with the Thinker and the Traditionalist develops difficultly. In collaboration with the Thinker, there is likely to be little friction on the relationship level, but much more lack of initiative and therefore probably little practically usable results. The doubts of the Traditionalist and the inertia of the Peacemaker slow down or even prevent all joint activities. Collaboration with the Bon Vivant is very difficult. Peacemakers feel secure when they know exactly what they need to do during the day. This collides with the constant reshuffling of the work program by the Bon Vivant, so these differences in work styles will inevitably lead to tensions between the two on the relational level.
We are able to recognize that difficulties in collaboration result from two main causes: Either from incompatibility due to behavior or from the inability to achieve results together. We have added the Team Navigator – Corporation disruption to address these two causes.
In the case of difficult or very difficult cooperation, the cause of the cooperation disruption is distinguished. This cause is marked at the beginning and end of the evaluation symbol with the following meaning:
(v) Intolerance due to behavior
(e) Inability to achieve results together
It remains to be noted that with developed characteristics, the cooperation between the individual personalities improves significantly, and as a result, development towards integration is also extremely beneficial for internal cooperation and, associated with this, for the performance climate of an organization.
The team navigator can be used to check the composition of existing teams or the formation of new teams for compatibility. Teams in the context used here can be work groups, project teams, management teams, or functional units such as groups, departments, or areas. This check can determine where there are incompatibilities and development potential in existing teams. When putting together new teams, the team navigator can show potential for future disruption so that these can be avoided in advance by recognizing them early on.
Overall, it is evident that the developed behavior of the personalities offers significant advantages over the undeveloped behavior, both in terms of internal collaboration and the quality of the leadership process. This can be explained by the fact that all nine personalities overcome the limitations of their patterns and expand their behavioral options on the path to the developed personality. They thus exhibit a wider range of behavior and, thanks to the associated expanded response options, are better able to cope with professional and personal situations. In this respect, it is worthwhile both for the individual personality to make the necessary effort for this personal maturation and development process, and for companies to support their leaders in this development.
Avoid stress triggers at all costs:
What actually happens when we unintentionally trigger stress in our conversation partners? And what triggers stress? Contrary to the prevailing belief in the mainstream, stress is a deeply individual phenomenon. Every person has their personal stress trigger.
For example, the perfectionist becomes stressed when others point out their mistakes. They then respond with particularly harsh measures. The helper, on the other hand, becomes stressed when others refuse to acknowledge their helpfulness.
In principle, everyone tries to avoid stress. Their tools for this are defense mechanisms. For the perfectionist, these include repression and reaction control. They like to repress all facts and events that do not fit into their worldview. They control their reactions to avoid showing anger and rage. The defense mechanisms of the helper are repression and denial. They repress their own wishes and needs and deny the realization that their helpfulness is not altruistic but demands something in return.
The self promoter becomes stressed when the people around them do not give the admiration and applause they so desperately need and for which they stage their activities. Their defense mechanisms are identification and repression. They identify so strongly with the role they are playing that they completely immerse themselves in it, thus blocking out and repressing reality.
The individualist becomes stressed when they do not receive the attention they were hoping for. Their defense mechanisms are repression, withdrawal, and introjection. They repress real life and retreat into their dream and fantasy worlds. Introjection means that they internalize other people’s negativity and transform it into their own.
The thinker becomes stressed through excessive involvement or emotional overload. Their defense mechanism is withdrawal. They retreat from the overwhelming situation.
The traditionalist becomes stressed when their preventive security measures prove ineffective or when confronted with unexpected changes. Their defense mechanism is projection. What is unresolved and conflict-laden within themselves is projected outward onto their environment or others. There, it can be fought with.
The Bon Vivant becomes stressed when they fail to avoid situations where they perceive pain, lack, or boredom, despite all their activities and pleasures. Their defense mechanisms are repression, rationalization, and idealization. They focus on repressing pain, lack, or boredom. Rationalization refers to a mental process in which actions, thoughts, and feelings are given a rationally consistent and morally acceptable justification. Idealization inflates a given situation and attributes to it the quality of “perfection.” This complex process can also be simplified as “sugar-coating.”
The power people becomes stressed when their aggression and desire to attack fail to overcome obstacles in their path. Their defense mechanism is denial. They deny anything that does not fit into their concept.
The peacemaker becomes stressed when facing problems, conflicts, or any form of confrontation. Their defense mechanisms are repression, denial, and numbing. Emerging problems and conflicts are repressed by sweeping them under the rug, waiting for the situation to pass, or stubbornly enduring it. They can also simply deny conflicts by sugar-coating them or even idealizing them. When the many demands become overwhelming, they escape into numbing. They resort to alcohol or drugs or suddenly fall asleep in the middle of the day “so to speak””.
Now, let’s imagine a conversation in which we trigger the stress of our conversation partner. At that moment, they are reflexively preoccupied with their stress defense and defense mechanisms and give no thought to the conversation topic.
If we want to have good and rewarding conversations, both professionally and privately, it is best to avoid stress triggers that automatically create barriers and blockages in our conversation partner. It is definitely worthwhile to familiarize ourselves with the stress triggers of our conversation partners.
Let’s begin with the cooperation game. It seems at first glance to be a simple game, but over the course of the game, it reveals its depth. It is advisable to integrate this game into a personnel development concept so that it can truly be experienced and understood. In any case, we have had very good experiences with it.
The game is played over several rounds. The goal is to win. For this purpose, two groups are formed from the participants, who play against each other. Both groups are separated, so direct communication between the groups is not possible. In each round, the groups have to decide between cooperation and competition. First, the negotiators of both groups meet in a separate room, discuss the situation, and make an agreement for the current round. This meeting of negotiators is the only means of communication between the groups in terms of interest negotiations. The negotiators then return to their group and report on the negotiation. Each group is then asked to simultaneously make a decision about cooperation or competition. They are not bound by the negotiation result. The game leader evaluates the decisions according to a decision matrix with points for each group, and these scores, along with the underlying decisions, are made known to the groups. The next round then begins with the same process.
The decision matrix is designed so that mutual cooperation results in the highest total score, while mutual competition results in the lowest total score. In between, there is the combination of competition/cooperation, where the group that chooses competition is clearly favored.
In this game, we recognize that the pure cooperation strategy (always COOPERATION) does not pay off if the other side behaves in a competitive manner. The morally good feeling is not rewarded. Behind closed doors, in such a situation, people tend to speak of naivety. The exploiter usually does not feel guilty. Those who allow themselves to be exploited will be offered more. On the other hand, we can also recognize that with a strong trust foundation, unwavering cooperation can be possible. This, in turn, leads to the best results overall.
We also recognize in the analysis of different games that the pure competition strategy (always COMPETITION), despite possible initial successes, does not provide satisfactory results over the course of the game.
In many games, over the course of the game, a mutual understanding of a third strategy emerges: The Principle of WORKING TOGETHER. In the following, we will also use the abbreviation TOGETHERNESS for this. This principle consists of two maxims:
The Principle of Togetherness (TOGETHERNESS) aims to establish mutual cooperation and consists of four guiding elements:
Here’s a practical example of how TOGETHERNESS can be applied in everyday business life.
The Project Work:
Holger Hibbelig has been a project manager at Muster GmbH for six months. He was accepted into the company’s talent development group, which offers him three two-day plenary sessions, accompanying project work, and seminars for his further education.
In the first plenary session, a cooperation game is played, and the project work begins. A self-chosen topic is to be worked on by a group of four members, with the results to be presented to management during the second plenary session. The project group has eight months to complete this task.
Holger, an ambitious young man with strong dedication to his daily responsibilities, refuses to cooperate despite repeated requests from the group and instead focuses entirely on his regular work. The situation is especially delicate because the project team must also collaborate closely in their day-to-day roles.
During the thirty-minute presentation of the project results to management, Holger’s three colleagues present their well-prepared work, while Holger stands silently to the side, contributing nothing. This is visibly embarrassing for him.
The group held its position without a word, which led to a lasting learning experience—for Holger, the project team, and all participants in the talent development group. Afterward, the team discussed the situation, and they have worked well together ever since.
This story shows how TOGETHERNESS enables a self-regulating conflict resolution process. For this reason, it is ideally suited as the foundation for self-organization in complex environments. TOGETHERNESS is based on the idea that unprovoked competitive behavior will, in the long run, only lead to retaliation from others. On the other hand, it is better to respond to a provocation immediately with a competitive stance; otherwise, the wrong signal is sent to the other party. They should not even begin to think that competition could be worthwhile.
The Cobra Story:
A yogi comes to a village at the edge of the mountains. The village elders complain to him about a cobra living in the nearby woods. They say the cobra has already bitten several villagers to death with its venomous fangs. They ask the holy man to visit the cobra and persuade it to stop its harmful actions. The yogi agrees to help.
He finds the snake and says, “If you keep biting so many people, you will create bad karma for yourself.” The cobra, clever and receptive, understands the yogi’s message and promises to stop biting the villagers.
Two years later, the yogi returns to the village. He asks about the cobra, and the villagers tell him the snake has become peaceful and hasn’t harmed anyone since. Curious, the yogi goes to find the cobra and discovers it lying under a bush, weak and half-dead.
“You gave me bad advice,” the cobra gasps. “The people nearly killed me.”
The yogi replies, “I told you not to bite—but did I tell you to stop defending yourself?”
The cobra understands. When the next villager walks by with a club in hand, the cobra rises into its characteristic pose and hisses. The villager, startled and afraid, runs away.
This little story illustrates the two sides of competition: exploitation represents the destructive side, while defending oneself reflects the constructive side. The cobra learns that wisdom is not in becoming harmless, but in protecting itself wisely.
The same principle applies to how we interact with others—and it lies at the heart of the concept of TOGETHERNESS.
TOGETHERNESS begins with cooperation and openness. A friendly start signals self-confidence. But if met with unfairness or exploitation, TOGETHERNESS doesn’t retreat—it calmly sets boundaries and responds with clarity, discouraging further abuse without escalating the situation. In this way, it enables a self-regulating conflict resolution process.
This makes TOGETHERNESS especially well-suited as a foundation for self-organization in complex environments. Unlike other strategies that might react hastily or distrustfully, TOGETHERNESS recognizes that competition often begins not from hostility, but from personal insecurity—the fear of being exploited first.
Importantly, TOGETHERNESS does not seek to exploit others. Its strength lies in encouraging mutual cooperation through transparency and consistent, fair behavior. It does not require trust in advance, but it naturally fosters trust over time. By doing so, it helps stabilize relationships and creates the conditions for long-term collaboration.
The Secret of the Dollar Bill:
The symbol of the bald eagle on the U.S. dollar bill vividly represents the principle of “TOGETHERNESS”, which encompasses both cooperation and competition. The eagle, known as Zeus’ bird, represents the transition from the heavens (a spiritual or higher perspective) to the world of action—a world where people must both compete and collaborate.
The two contrasting actions the eagle holds in its claws illustrate the principle of competition and cooperation:
Interestingly, the eagle faces towards the olive branch, indicating that peace and cooperation are the preferred direction. However, the eagle remains prepared to defend itself: The arrows in its other claw symbolize that, if necessary, it can turn to competition or confrontation.
This image on the dollar bill sends a strong message: Cooperation is always preferred, but there is also readiness to defend if needed, in order to preserve one’s integrity or peace. This balance between collaboration and the ability to defend oneself is a core element of the principle of Togetherness.
The combination of cooperation and competition in this symbolic representation shows that in any stable and successful relationship—whether personal, professional, or societal—both elements can exist: the pursuit of harmony and the necessary intervention when circumstances demand it.
Characteristics of the Cooperation Game:
Let’s take a look at some special features of the cooperation game to develop a sense for the underlying situation. First, it is noticeable that this game is unusual for the participants. They are used to playing determinable games. A typical example is chess, where each side alternates moves and responds with the best possible counter-strategy to the opponent’s moves. From early childhood, we are accustomed to solving mathematical problems. Over time, these problems become increasingly difficult. Technical, business, and scientific issues form the arena where our human intellect is tested and trained.
Through the simultaneity of the moves, our cooperation game takes on a very different character. Here, we recognize the nature of circular feedback. Our behavior in the current situation affects us in the next situation! The same applies to the other players. Circular feedback is a fundamental aspect of complex situations, including conflicts. Our human mind breaks down the circular feedback into simplified fragments: A acts on B. In doing so, it ignores that B also acts on A at the same time. This process aligns with the nature of our perception, which can only focus on individual aspects of a whole at any given time. Through this simplifying perception, the context is overlooked, and the complex situation is reduced and trivialized. At this point, we note: Our intellect has not adequately grasped the complex situation.
A characteristic of a complex situation is that no side can control the situation alone, and all decisions are made under uncertainty. The outcome is determined only by the simultaneous decisions of both sides. This is unfamiliar. We lack trained behavior patterns for this. We initially find it difficult to deal with such situations. However, complex situations occur regularly in everyday business life and are actually much more frequent than determinable ones. They appear in various ways in all areas of our lives, both professionally and privately.
We are not trained for this, nor are we prepared for it. We reduce our own reality to factual issues. We shy away from facing reality. Many significant issues in organizations arise from the relationships between their people. These are the conflicts we prefer to avoid or, at best, address on a factual level, thus reducing them.
In everyday business life, we encounter two fundamentally different types of tasks:
As already mentioned, interest negotiations arise from the natural complexity of a company, shaped by the differing interests of customers, employees, and investors. While solving factual tasks requires professional competence, interest negotiations require social competence. This is based on the appropriate handling of complexity. We learn professional competence in our scientific, technical, or business training. Social competence is often underrepresented. By ‘social competence,’ we mean the ability to live in a community and to appropriately manage the relationships necessary for that. The principle of cooperation offers a good strategic foundation by enabling an appropriate handling of conflicts of interest.
A lack of social competence leads managers to drag conflicts into the factual realm, so they don’t have to recognize that they, too, are always part of the conflict. They are always affected and involved at the same time. This insight is extremely difficult for function-oriented leaders, as they unjustifiably associate this issue with questions of justification and blame. They tend to project conflicts onto the outside world, where they can be fought without personal risk. Other people or circumstances are blamed. This projection leads them to frequently handle conflicts of interest with factual solutions. But this is pure activism, which offers no adequate solution for the inevitable interest negotiations. As KOTTER states: “The unresolved conflict potential in an organization leads to bureaucratic petty wars, narrow-mindedness, and destructive power struggles. This reduces effectiveness, increases cost levels, stifles innovation, and frustrates employees further.”
A lack of social competence will ultimately be expensive for the manager: through price concessions to customers and suppliers, increased profit distributions to investors, and higher wages and salaries for employees. Deficiencies in management’s social competence negatively manifest in a company’s profit structure.
Open Communication:
Let’s take a closer look at another characteristic of our principle of TOGETHERNESS: open communication. Initially, open communication can make the simple connection transparent: “If you kick me, I will kick back just as hard; so, it is better for both of us if we cooperate.” Of course, one would not choose the same words, but rather present the message in a more elegant and situation-appropriate way, without losing clarity.
More sensitive individuals might say: “As you do to me, so I do to you!” However, in doing so, the core message is only incompletely conveyed. The complementary part that completes the statement has been lost in this simplification: “As I do to you, so you do to me!” The complex situation that arises from the mutual relationship between the players has already been reduced and brought down to the level of determinability. Even the Old Testament “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!” only conveys the matter incompletely and thus reduces it. It lacks the ‘constructive retaliation,’ meaning the part of mutual cooperation. It only contains the threat, not the offer with the reward.
TOGETHERNESS contains both equally: a simply communicable element of preventive deterrence and an offer of the better alternative. A prerequisite for this is that competitive behavior can be effectively practiced and that the other side must genuinely consider this alternative. Otherwise, one’s behavior will be interpreted as pure posturing. This would then practically invite the other party to attempt exploitation.
Those Who Cannot Defend Themselves Will Be Exploited:
If the other side still responds with competition, open and clear communication helps once again to return to mutual cooperation. In this new situation, it must be communicated clearly and explicitly that one is behaving competitively in this situation. Only when the other side returns the gain from exploitation can mutual cooperation proceed in the next situation. Otherwise, both sides will lose in subsequent situations due to mutual competition. Open communication therefore also means looking a bit into the future together. We recognize that the element of open communication is of significant importance in establishing mutual cooperation. The more open the communication between the participants is, and the better the two different perspectives are exchanged, the more likely mutual cooperation becomes. Through open communication, the participants learn to consider the other side’s view in their decisions.
We can now clearly see why TOGETHERNESS is becoming more widespread. Communication in our society has become more open. Information can no longer be so easily concealed. And with open communication – as we have just noted – the need, but also the willingness, to act on the basis of mutual cooperation increases. This trend is further reinforced by the broadening of power distribution in our pluralistic society. Pure official authority is decreasing, just as institutional authority did before it. Personal authority is gaining increasing importance, especially where it is combined with official authority, such as in all management functions. Additionally, complex situations are accumulating in which both sides can exert power.
By exercising power, we mean not only the simple authority to give orders, which corresponds to official authority. Among these subtler forms are personal authority, the ability to refuse, multiplier effects, expertise and specialist knowledge, representation of interest groups, co-determination rights, and media coverage. The possibilities to exercise power and influence through such means are constantly expanding, while official authority in our society is increasingly restricted and curtailed by a flood of laws, regulations, guidelines, and executive orders. Furthermore, the diminishing image of functionaries in politics, business, and administration due to individual misconduct further strengthens the trend toward a more homogeneous distribution of power.
The TOGETHERNESS principle is a winning strategy for the involved individuals. Even individuals who are more inclined toward competition than cooperation can understand that mutual cooperation in this environment is ultimately more beneficial than competitive behavior.
Note from the Author:
– Wolfgang Hinz & Jesse van Nek
Copyright © 2025 – PBI Learning Hub Designed by Click Creek
