MBTI

Putting together the psychodynamic, style, and situational approaches to leadership

February 18, 2014 by Fernando Ribeiro

by Fernando Ribeiro

Although being controversial in relation to its validity and reliability¹, the MBTI® tool is one of the most deployed personality inventories in the world, with more than 2 million applications a year (Center for Applications of Psychological Types, n.d.) and more than 4,000 research studies, journal articles, and dissertations about the theme since the publication of the first MBTI® manual back in 1962 (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2003). On a personal account, the MBTI® has been an important tool to look inside myself and understand some patterns of behavior that I have always displayed. For the purposes of this post, I will side with Furnham (1996) and assume the test does have two intrinsic characteristics of scientific instruments: reliability and validity.

The MBTI® served as a tool to my knowing better myself and my predispositions, but I am sure it does not capture me as a full human being. We are far too complex for any psychometric or psychological type tool to predict how we will behave in any situation. Jung’s theory predicted that people would have preferences in the ways of dealing with the outer world, collecting information, and processing information. If you allow me a metaphor, just because an individual is right-handed, i.e. he / she usually prefers to use his/her right hand; it does not follow that this same individual will not use his/her least preferred hand – this is a non sequitur. It does say a lot though about the hand I expect him / her to raise against me in a fistfight.

I digressed, I suppose. Coming back to the point, as I have previously shared on my posts (leaders of the world – know yourselves and leadership and obedience), there are no ultimate tools and every paradigm or theory is still partial no matter how comprehensive it might be right now.

If no theory is ultimate, why can’t we combine different theories to better understand our behaviors and even our leaders and followers?

That is exactly what some people have been doing by combining the psychodynamic approach, namely through the MBTI®, the style approach, and the situational approach.

Using Berens’s (1998) temperament theory, Myers, Kirby, and Myers (1998) developed a temperament scale through the MBTI® profiles by combining information gathering (S-N dichotomy) with attitudes (J-P dichotomy) for sensing types (the second letter as an “S”) and decision making (T-F dichotomy) for intuitive types (the second letter as an “N”). Clarifying it: the authors created a temperament matrix based on the following combinations: NF, NT, SP, SJ.

It did not take a lot to combine the MBTI® temperament profiles with the situational and style approach, basically leveraging three tenets:

(i) Behaviors do not happen in a vacuum and nurture and nature constitute a bidirectional relationship in which each influence the other. In plain English, our innate predispositions do shape the environment and the environment does shape our innate predispositions. Nevertheless, getting to know some of such tendencies is valuable;

(ii) The advantage of the style approach to leadership is twofold: (a) it sheds light on what leaders do and act in various situations (Northouse, 2013) and (b) it provides converging evidence that good leaders manage to put together task and relationship (Stogdill, 1974; Kahn, 1956 as cited in Northouse, 2013) . If this is true, then knowing our predispositions, that is, whether I tend to focus on people or on tasks, might provide me with a chance to know my strengths and weaknesses and where I should work on;

(iii) The situational approach to leadership focuses on the ability leaders have to adapt to different situations and to different subordinates, more specifically, to the level of competence and commitment their subordinates show (Northouse, 2013).

Well, if all statements (i), (ii), and (iii) make sense, then there is nothing more natural than combine a tool that makes evident innate predispositions – for leaders and subordinates – with two other tools that allow an individual to realize in a single place his/her behavioral tendencies (focus on tasks or people) and how this individual has to act – by providing support, by coaching, by being directive, or by delegating – to match the situation their subordinates are facing vis-à-vis their level of competence and commitment to tackling that situation in that moment. And that is what the MBTI® with Blanchard’s Situational Leadership® II Assessment provides.

To spice things up and add an interesting lens to the myriad of theories on leadership effectiveness, flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2010) might bring additional

insight on how to constantly adapt to situations by balancing challenges and competences to work in a zone of flow, i.e. the zone in which the work is produced effortlessly and with such an intensity that the person performing it does not even realize what she is doing.

In the end, no matter the tool you like the most; no matter the theory you like the most. Maybe leadership theories are just like leaders and followers – they need each other to make sense of the world around them.

Footnote

¹The MBTI® tool is controversial to say the least. “Not surprisingly”, one may think, given its (i) link to the psychodynamic approach, (ii) the complicated relationship between foes-once-friends Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, and (iii) the fact that two non-scientists – actually mother and daughter – Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers developed the tool (Burnet, 2013).

Reliability of the MBTI® is hotly debated with researches pointing to scores of 50% of reliability (Pittenger, 1993) whereas others point to a reliability of 75% or higher (Center for Applications of Psychological Type, n.d.; Myers et al., 2003). Validity of the MBTI® is also debatable with researches pointing out failures considering factor analysis and predictive validity (Pittenger, 1993) while others point to satisfactory validity (Carson, 1985; Furnham & Stringfield, 1993 as cited in Furnham, 1996).

The discussion above is not, though, the focus of this blog post, but rather a warning for the reader to take his/her own conclusions about the reliability and validity of the MBTI®.

References

Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York: William Morrow.

Burnett, D. (2013). Nothing personal: The questionable Myers-Briggs test. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/mar/19/myers-briggs-test-unscientific

Center for Applications of Psychological Type (n.d.). The Reliability and Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Instrument. Retrieved from http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/reliability-validity.htm

CPP (n.d.). Using the Myers-Briggs® instrument with Blanchard’s Situational Leadership® assessment. Retrieved from https://www.cpp.com/pdfs/mbti-situational-leadership9_21_10.pdf

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (2010). Effortless attention in everyday life: A systematic phenomenology. in Effortless attention : a new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action (pp. 179-189) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/754033381?accountid=13158

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303-307. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00033-5

Myers, I. B., Kirby, L. K., & Myers, K. D. (1998). Introduction to type: A guide to understanding your results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (2003). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Mountain View, Calif: CPP.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI… And coming up short. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf

Myers-Briggs & Years of Frustration

September 15, 2013 by sbm5171

INFP. ISFP. ISFJ. ISTJ. INTJ. INFJ. INTP. ISTP. ENTP. ENFP. ESFP. ESTP. ENFJ. ESFJ. ENTJ. ESTJ.

What is all that jibberish? These are “psychological types”, known as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (“MBTI”), established by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, that are measured through a questionaire that give insights into how the respondant will make decisions in life and how they see the world in general (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2013). In general, the MBTI will measure your preferences for things such as are you more of a party girl (Extrovert) or crazy cat lady who never leaves the house (Introvert)*.

In establishing your Myers-Briggs type, you are provided a sort of insight your personality. For example, I am an ENFJ. According to the Myers & Briggs foundation website, I am:

“Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. Highly attuned to the emotions, needs, and motivations of others. Find potential in everyone, want to help others fulfill their potential. May act as catalysts for individual and group growth. Loyal, responsive to praise and criticism. Sociable, facilitate others in a group, and provide inspiring leadership.”(Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2013).

By looking at this definition, one might make the assumption that I would be a good leader. In fact, it actually says word for word that I could provide “inspiring leadership.”(Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2013). If an executive at a company was using this test purely as a sorce for picking the next great organization leader, I would fit the bill!

I have found, though, that the MBTI can be deceiving, overly generalized, and badly utilized. In examining the definition for ENFJ, one of the first five words is “responsible.” I ask you all this very serious question: If I were truly a responsible person, would I be writing this blog entry at the last possible moment it could be done when I have had a full week to complete the assignment? In my case specifically, the term responsible is both deceiving and overly general. Yes, I can be very responsible in some cases such as paying bills early as to not forget to pay them. In other cases such as a deadline, though, I will procrastinate, which is not responsible at all.

Beyond being deceiving and overly general, I have also seen the MBTI badly utilized. At a previous place of employment, every employee was required to take the MBTI and then there was a meeting on how they would fit properly into the team. On the outside, this looked like a great thing where you could zero in on an employee’s strengths and make them an essential part of planning and making a better team. It became, however, an excuse mechanism. People who were listed as Introverts instead of Extroverts would state they couldn’t go to meetings because they were exhausting. When complaints were made to bosses, a response of “That is how they are and we have to learn how to better communicate with them” was given. It, basically, became a crutch. It became incredibly frustrating and the benefit of the MBTI was lost.

All in all, I wish that I could be everything my MBTI makes me out to be. Perhaps I am when I am at my very best. At my very worst, though, I believe I would be the polar opposite of that definition and no one would want to me to be the leader, or the follower for that matter.

*For further information on understanding MBTI, please visit: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/.

Resources:
Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2013). Mbti basics. Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

Predicting the Future

September 17, 2012 by akl5178

As part of the application process for my first office job, I took a personality test called the Predictive Index. The Predictive Index (PI) is a psychodynamic assessment tool that claims to “help [managers] select, retain, and develop…key talent for long-term business results” (Predictive Index System, 2010). To complete the test, participants look through two lists of adjectives (the lists contain the same adjectives, but in a different order). On the first list participants check off adjectives that they would use to describe themselves, and on the second list participants check off adjectives describing how they think people expect them to behave. There is no time limit and there are very general requirements surrounding the number of adjectives required.

To calculate results, the PI uses the participants’ choices to predict four primary “personality constructs”: Dominance (control), Extroversion, Patience, and Formality (organization, discipline, conforming) (Rouse, 2011). The PI also measures two secondary personality constructs: Decision-making and Response level (Rouse, 2011). The results are then plotted as points on three charts: One chart measuring the participants’ description of themselves (self), one chart measuring how they think people expect them to behave (self-concept), and one chart that combines the first two (synthesis) (Rouse, 2011).

Lucier_Figure 1_PI Assessment (640x525).jpg

Figure 1: Example of self, self-concept, and synthesis results for a Predictive Index assessment. Retrieved from http://www.powershow.com/view/b3b60-ZWQ4Y/Predictive_Index_flash_ppt_presentation

Of course I had no idea when I was applying for that job that I was taking a personality test. I just filled out all the paperwork and turned it in. Months later, after accepting the position, I was in a training session where the facilitator explained that she brought along copies of our PI results to analyze and compare in class. Some of the participants knew what she was talking about, a few didn’t, and as she described the process I finally realized why I had to check off all of those adjectives in my interview. Then I wondered, is a personality test reliable enough to be the base of a company’s hiring strategy?

According to PI Worldwide’s website (2011), the answer is yes. They claim that their tool is built to help managers and business owners hire the right people for the right jobs and retain employees by keeping them motivated in a way that complements their PI profile. On the other hand, the Myers-Briggs Foundation, home of another psychodynamic tool the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), discourages making hiring decisions based on the MBTI assessment claiming that it is “unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants” (Myers-Briggs Foundation, n.d.).

Personally, I’m wary about an employer’s use of any test to assess either candidates during an interview or current employees. I think the PI and MBTI are both insightful assessments and both seem to be relatively accurate; however, it’s important that the test results be interpreted appropriately, and to me that means taking many other qualities and situations into consideration. I imagine the creators of the PI and MBTI feel the same, but that doesn’t affect how employers, managers, colleagues, and other members of the business world treat the information. As mentioned in Northouse (2013), one of the criticisms of the psychodynamic approach (which includes both the PI and the MBTI) is that it has a narrow focus, measuring only the personalities of leaders and followers. It does not take into consideration organizations, situations, or any other factor external from the personalities of these two groups.

Overall, I did have a positive experience with the PI. It was helpful both in class and in the organization to compare different parts of my personality with others using a shared language. I learned a lot about myself as well. One specific piece of the assessment I remember was that my “self” patience level was very low, while my “self-concept” patience level was high, which showed that I spent a good deal of energy being patient because although it was contrary to my natural tendency, that is how I thought I was expected to behave.

Can personality tests predict the future? I think they are one of many tools that can help leaders and managers understand their candidates and employees, along with helping followers understand their leaders and managers. However, I don’t think that they are reliable enough to be the sole predictor of employment performance.

References:

Myers-Briggs Foundation, The. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/index.asp

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Psychodynamic approach. Leadership: theory and practice (6^th ed.) (319-348). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Predictive Index System. (2010). Wellesley Hills, MA: PI Worldwide. Retrieved from http://www.piworldwide.com/Products/Predictive-Index-System.aspx

Rouse, M. (2011, November). WhatIs.com. Retrieved from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Predictive-Index-PI