What's "Right" for Each MDNA (Results vs. Intentions)

To each MDNA gift, there’s an intrinsic framework that processes the difference between “right” and “wrong.” In other words, every MDNA judges things differently because intrinsic motivations lead to personal values and values ultimately drive our judgments.

Yet, there’s one principle that is common to all of us, regardless of MDNA. That is:

We all want to be judged by our intentions but we judge others by their results.

This means that our internal intentions are “right” based upon our own subjective perspectives. But we can quickly judge other people as “wrong” without knowing their intentions. This can become a pesky issue in every organizational culture. The key of course, is to have conversations and agree collectively on what is right and wrong.

What’s helpful from an interpersonal level is knowing how each MDNA gift approaches the difference between right and wrong along with results versus intentions. Here’s a small sample of what that might look like. You can read the full MDNA profiles to gain further insight.

UCD: What’s “right” is black and white, based on their convictions and principles. They make that judgment very quickly.

For the UCD, if intentions are ideologically aligned, then they are OK. But if they aren’t aligned, then even the right result can be wrong to the UCD. And they’re very willing to stand alone and lose friends for what they believe in. They’re willing to sacrifice and pay the cost upfront for what’s right to them.

SSA: What needs to be done first is “right” and supporting what the leader and team think is “right” is right for the SSA.

The SSA tends to give people the most slack based on their intentions. Although the SSA may have an idea internally what is right and wrong for them, they’re willing to set it aside to be of service and get things done. However, they’re very loyal to the leader and team, so anything that threatens this will be wrong.

KWR: Things are “right” if they are backed up with precise and logical information. They’ll accept claims on what’s “right” but need to validate it.

For the KWR, any information that’s misused, manipulated or inaccurate is always wrong in their mind, no matter how close it gets to the truth and what the initial intentions were. Because of this, the KWR can find themselves wanting to be right and defending the truth if they think they have better information.

EIA: What’s “right” is based on a combination of connections, vision and opportunity. They also value being “right” based on their intentions.

To the EIA, intentions based on relationships is the most important. They can be most hurt is they are judged by results without including intentions. They’ll also defend others based on their intentions and do what’s necessary for the whole group to strive towards a vision.

CVS: The “right” thing also has the “right” value and return on investment. They appreciate results more than others.

What’s even worse for the CVS is if the results are wrong and it’s been a waste of time. The CVS has no problems learning from intentions and results, but they’ll quickly get cranky with others that waste resources getting there.

DLF: The “right” thing requires loyalty and productivity. If there are both, anything “wrong” can be made “right” without blaming.

The DLF doesn’t get into the blame game of who was wrong. They just want the team to work together to make it right. If intentions are loyal then the results will get there with enough hard work. But this makes them extra sensitive to any wrongs that seem like “betrayals” to their leadership.

IAF: What’s “right” is based on everybody’s sense of fulfillment. They’ll sacrifice to make it “right” for one person.

The IAF has an intuitive sense, not necessarily of what is right or wrong, but how people feel about it. They recognize that everybody has their own sense of right and wrong and can empathize with each. Nor do they want anybody to feel left out. This means an IAF will sacrifice for the needs of the few, sometimes ignoring the needs of the many. Their intention is always to help everybody feel fulfillment.

Ed KangComment