 |
At 60, Myers-Briggs is Still Sorting Out and Identifying People's Types
Demand for the venerable personality test remains strong, even though the world has changed.
By Douglas P. Shuit
nyone
who has worked in an office knows that certain personality stereotypes stand
out. There are the friendly, outgoing people and the quiet, serious people who
hate small talk. There are big-picture people and hands-on number crunchers.
Caricatures though they may be, they are accurate enough in describing
extroverts and introverts to have kept psychologists, trainers and human
resources executives enthusiastically using personality tests in the workplace
for decades. And it is the widely used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator that has been
the standard-bearer of testing for generations.
Myers-Briggs celebrated its 60th anniversary in October, a
noteworthy achievement for a test that has been sorting out quirky personality
types since 1943. After all those years, it’s said to be still the most popular
and widely used personality-assessment tool of its kind in the world, with about
2.5 million tests given each year. Both critics and supporters say that the
Indicator endures because it does a good job of pointing up differences between
people, offers individuals a revealing glimpse of themselves and is a valuable
asset in team-building, improving communication and resolving personality-based
conflict. Many consider it an essential tool for career planning and
development.
Calling it a test will spark an argument because ideally
no one can fail Myers-Briggs. There are no right or wrong answers to the basic
93-question "test." It can identify introverts, extroverts and other personality
types in 15 or 20 minutes, though analysis and interpretation of the results can
take at least an hour if done correctly.
Begun by Isabel Myers and her mother, Katharine Cook
Briggs, and based on the theories of psychologist Carl Jung, the questionnaire
successfully nailed down personality types in World War II such as GI Joes and
Rosie the Riveters, then ’50s conformists, ’60s rebels and on to Gen X types.
Attitudes, styles and cultures may change, but the eight basic personality types
that Myers-Briggs identifies don’t.
Logic over sentiment
Myers-Briggs distinguishes personality types from four sets
of opposites. Establishing differences comes from questions like: Are you
inclined to value sentiment more than logic, or value logic more than sentiment?
After the answers have been completed, the responses are dropped into broad
categories of opposites, the best known of which are the introverts/extroverts.
Other categories are judging/perceiving, sensing/intuitive and thinking/feeling.
At the end of the process, four initials identify people, say ISTP (introvert,
with strong sensing, thinking and perceiving traits). Although there are some of
the different characteristics in just about everyone, the test is about
discovering dominant personality traits and recognizing strengths or areas of
potential weakness, such as things that can produce stress. A "thinking" person,
for example, who likes organizing and structuring information in logical,
objective ways, might work on organizing in a more personal way. An introvert
who likes to work quietly should be aware that others might interpret that as a
lack of interest.
Today, most Fortune 500 companies use the test in
some form or another, including 89 of the Fortune 100, says CPP Inc.,
publishers of Myers-Briggs. General Motors Corp. has put its workforce through
thousands of the tests. Myers-Briggs was a key part of an executive training
program between 1997 and 2000, when every GM executive was given the test. It is
still widely used by the company. Robert Minton, GM’s manager of global human
resources communications, recently took it for the first time and came away
impressed. "It was uncannily accurate," he says. But it does have its critics,
who say that Myers-Briggs has limited value, has not been validated by solid
science and is subject to manipulation by test-takers who want to present a
certain picture of themselves to employers. Myers-Briggs, they note, is not an
indicator of success and does not measure intelligence or skills. Detractors
also argue that test results can change over time.
"It’s accurate the way a $5 wristwatch is accurate," says
John Binning, associate professor of psychology at Illinois State University,
who specializes in industrial and organizational psychology. "It is not the most
sophisticated measurement instrument, but it does what it purports to do in a
useful way."
Wendell Williams, managing director of
ScientificSelection.com, a consulting and test-developing firm, points out that
it isn’t like a blood test that is backed by solid science. "People who take the
test may find they are characterized as one kind of person today and if they
take it tomorrow, they will find they are characterized significantly
differently," he says.
A major concern of critics and supporters alike is that
Myers-Briggs will be used by hiring managers for selection or promotion
purposes, a practice that is widely condemned by both supporters and critics.
Many companies do use psychological tests to determine whether job applicants
are suited for a job, but Myers-Briggs was not intended for that. "In most
cases, scores on a personality test have little or nothing to do with how well
you perform on the job," Williams says.
"It is not the most sophisticated
measurement instrument, but it does what it purports to do in a useful way."
|
A Canadian client called him in because he had a
workforce of "highly sensitive, team-oriented folks" who couldn’t get anything
done together. The company had opened up a new branch and built the workforce
largely with new hires, bringing in people who were team oriented and people
friendly. "They ended up with a workforce that would not meet unless everyone
was there, and wouldn’t make a decision unless everyone agreed," he says. "They
never ever wanted to leave each other, to the point that they liked to have a
few drinks with each other after work. This was highly irritating to their
spouses." The proposed solution was just as bad. "Their answer was that they
wanted to use another cheap personality test to bring in anti-team members."
Williams bailed out.
Agrees up to a point
Michael Segovia, director of business development at CPP Inc.
agrees with some of the concerns, but only up to a point. He says that
Myers-Briggs is not intended for hiring or job-candidate selection, and that its
use as a hiring tool is unethical. "The MBTI is meant for inclusion, not
exclusion," Segovia says. "It is used most often for team-building. Its purpose
is not to move people in and out of the team, but to help people work more
happily, more successfully, as team members."
Segovia says the biggest misconceptions about Myers-Briggs
are generalizations about personality types. "It doesn’t mean a person is loud
or shy," he says, referring to two common stereotypes of extroverts and
introverts. The terms apply to how people absorb and process information.
Segovia says that misinterpretations of Myers-Briggs stem in part from people
who imitate the test, which keeps CPP’s legal department busy. He recommends
one-on-one analysis of the test results to ensure that test-takers do not walk
away with misconceptions about who they are or what the conclusions mean.
Over the years, Segovia says, the basic ideas on
personality assessment presented by the two women in 1943 have been researched
extensively. "It continues to be studied, continues to be evaluated," he says.
"It’s amazing how much it holds up."
Rebecca Tilley, a team-building facilitator with Adventure
Associates, says her firm uses Myers-Briggs as a core team-building device. She
takes groups of executives, administers Myers-Briggs and then explores the
individual differences and approaches of team members. The premium here is
problem solving. People have different ways of dealing with stress and problem
solving, and one benefit of the exercise is to bridge differences between
managers and show that there are several ways to tackle a problem. There are
group activities, such as writing ad copy for a product, that indicate how
different personality types approach problems differently. Each group learns
where its strength is, and where it might be closed off to possibilities, she
says.
Tilley says that sometimes extroverts have trouble
understanding an introvert, who processes information internally and likes to
think about things before acting. Common misconceptions might be that the person
doesn’t have anything to say or is not interested in the topic being discussed.
One solution, she says, would be to give information to participants the night
before a meeting so that they have time to study it.
She describes a conflict between two companies that
Myers-Briggs helped to resolve. A manufacturing company was working with an
advertising firm on a campaign. The ad agency sent the manufacturer sketches of
a proposed advertising campaign, and wanted a quick answer about the approach
being taken. Tensions developed. "They didn’t feel that their relationships were
solid," Tilley says. "They did the Myers-Briggs to find out more about
themselves." Turns out the client who received the storyboards was a strong
introvert who wanted a longer time to think about the ads before giving his
feedback. A light went on. "They said, Aha!" and a dialogue opened up, Tilley
says.
She acknowledges that corporate managers are tempted to
use Myers-Briggs for hiring, but says she will have nothing to do with it. "We
do have people who call us who want to use it as a screening process for
hiring," she says. "But Myers-Briggs has strict ethical guidelines that it can’t
be used that way, and we won’t do it that way."
Minton will buy that. "We use it to help leaders figure
out their own personal style and how they are perceived by their peers as well
as the people who work for them," he says. "Leaders are encouraged to share
their [personality] type with their staffs. It doesn’t mean you are that way all
the time, just that you have a natural preference. We are all kind of wired a
certain way, and this helps us see that."
Workforce Management, December 2003, pp.
72-74 -- Subscribe Now!
Douglas P. Shuit is a Workforce Management staff writer based in Irvine, California. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.
Features Archive
|
 |
|
Workforce Blogs |
|
The Business of Management
Workforce Management editor John Hollon analyzes and comments on business, management and the art of leading a workforce.
|
|
Workforce Washington
Washington staff writer Mark Schoeff Jr. provides an insider’s insights to the workings of our nation’s capital from the workforce management perspective.
|
|
Global Work Watch
Staff writer Ed Frauenheim blogs about how companies worldwide marshal and manage their workers.
|
|