CORE is a growth process for developing self-leadership, effective relationships, and organizational health.


Recognizing and connecting to the unconscious operating systems that are driving our thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Once you have this self-awareness, you can come back to it to center yourself.


Opening to new situations where we can use our own strengths and to perspectives and approaches other than our habitual ones. We need to open up to the value of other approaches and perspectives.


Increasing our capacity to connect with others and to relate to the various contexts we are in. This will improve the quality of our relationships, reduce unproductive conflict, and improve teamwork.


Increasing our capacity to sense beyond our blind spots into what is needed and what is emerging. As we expand, our capacities to bring forth what needs to emerge will increase.

About Linda

Linda-330-cropped-V2-125Linda V. Berens, Ph.D. is a human and organizational development practitioner who has spent over thirty years teaching professionals as well as helping individuals and teams recognize their strengths, transcend their weaknesses, and work together better. After founding Interstrength® Associates (formerly known as Temperament Research Institute), a corporate consulting and training organization, she has turned her attention to developing a more complete and integrated look at individual differences through development of the Berens CORE Approach and Integrated Type. She is the Director of Linda Berens Institute that was established as a container for this work. Linda is recognized internationally for her contributions to the field of psychological type theory and for developing user-friendly training materials for practical application of understanding individual differences. She is the author or co-author of multiple books and training materials.

About Linda Berens Institute

Integral Type

Our Mission

My Work

Professional Bio

My Story



  1. Directing—Informing, a Powerful Polarity

    Last night I had a dream in which I was trying to get the attention of a large group of people I was supposed to be training. Finally I was so frustrated I yelled, “What I’m going to tell you, will change your life forever!” (or something like that). They all quieted down and I proceeded to tell them about the impact that recognizing their unconscious preferences for either Directing or Informing communications could have. Directing communications are aimed at getting something done in a timely way. The consciousness behind Directing is one of either wanting to achieve a result or manifest an envisioned result. Consequently, there is comfort telling people what to do, or to do something, or ask directly. There is a sense of urgency that is communicated in voice tone as well as choice of words. The closer to a deadline the more likely the language will be forceful. Directing communication serves the drives and aims of the In-Charge and Chart-the-Course Interaction Styles so people with these styles may unconsciously apply some version of Directing communications even when it is not called for. Informing communications are aimed at getting buy-in and leaving the option to act open. The consciousness behind Informing is either one of wanting to get involvement or more information. There is a comfort with just giving some information with no urgency for others to act. Openness is communicated in voice tone as well as choice of words and phrasing. When there is deadline pressure,...
  2. Task vs People

    Recently in a LinkedIn group discussion someone asked for an instrument that would identify whether leaders had a task focus or a people focus. Quite an interesting discussion took place and I was moved to post my view. Here is a blog version of what I posted. It seems that what is being sought when asking for an instrument is a way to identify natural tendencies that are often unconscious so that they can come into awareness and therefore be under conscious control. Instruments to do this are often subject to the same unconsciousness that exists in the first place and therefore can be inaccurate. Still useful, but not as accurate. And an instrument alone without suggestions about what to do about it isn’t enough. Task focus versus People focus is one of those dichotomies that have been identified and linked to for many years. With the MBTI® instrument a link is often made to the Thinking-Feeling dichotomy and sometime to the Judging-Perceiving dichotomy. A challenge is that the Task vs People dichotomy is only a part of a much bigger whole so it is hard to tease out by itself. My approach would be use the Interaction Styles framework to help identify the deeper underlying ‘rules’ that being met by a focus on task vs a focus on people. Each Interaction Style pattern identifies a different Drive and Aim of that Drive as well as Talents to get that drive met. Two of the styles are time and task...

You'll automatically receive our blog posts and we'll inform you periodically about new workshops.

SafeSubscribe with Constant Contact
For Email Newsletters you can trust

Not a member yet?

Register now to join our private Community of Practice on the web for only $20/month.

Sign up instantly!

Already a member?

Please click here to sign in.

Copyright © 2013. Linda Berens Institute. All rights reserved.