By Elif Çalışkan
We had already referred to the importance of understanding the structure of the organization, workplace situation, and personality traits to predict the actions of individuals in our previous article. This time we will explain the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It is one of the widest personality preference instruments. Firstly, it described by psychiatrist Carl Jung. Then, Jung’s theory on personality developed and extended by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katharine Cooks Briggs. In fact, the MBTI is a personality typology using four pairs of contrasting traits to combine 16 different personality patterns (Fretwell et al., 2013). Let’s examine the indicator closer!
The Concept of Preference
Preference is an operative concept of sequential organization and interpersonal relationships in conversation analysis. The concept of preference is an important part of the MBTI. Personality type is a variable that may play a crucial role in preference for one option over another. Preference includes feeling comfortable and natural about your actions which what you choose while focusing your attention on something (Bayne, 1997; Lerch, 2005 ).
MBTI involves four bipolar preferences because each of them has two sides. It includes Extravert vs. Introvert (E-I), Sensing vs. INtuitive (S-N), Thinking vs. Feeling (T-F), and Judgment vs. Perception (J-P) (Brownfield, 1993). The MBTI score also represents the strength of the preference for each dimension. So, individuals who have stronger scores are more likely to develop the attitudes associated with those preferences (Fretwell et al., 2013).
Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) Preferences
Firstly, the E-I dimension defines one’s preferences in gathering energy. Extraverts motivated to be part of the outer world of experiences, get their motivation from interaction with other people. They are action-oriented, sometimes impulsive, they have ways of meeting life while Introverts motivated to be part of the inner world of experience including information, concepts, and thoughts (Cohen et al., 2013). So, they are also more immersed in thought and may postpone acting too long at times. They have quiet concentration, enjoy working on one project for a long time detailed by detailed, (Fretwell et al., 2013; Myers & McCaulley, 1988). Thus, extraverts talk-to-think while introverts think-to-talk (Pelley, 2006). For example, in a work meeting, Extraverts can self-express themselves better than Introverts.
Sensing and Intuitive (S-N) Preferences
Firstly, the S-N dimension defines how individuals perceive the world and how they acquire information about their environment in it. Sensing types tend to lean on perceptions that are observable by the five senses: sight, smell, sound, touch, taste. They also have an impressive memory for concrete details. On the other hand, Intuitive types lean on to the perception of possibilities, ideas, and concepts (Myers & McCaulley, 1988). They also focus attention on meanings beyond what is visible so they can see the “big picture” of the events and explore numerous interactions and relationships among data (Ahrens, 2005). Thus, sensing types consider “what is” while intuitive people consider “what if” (Pelley, 2006). For example, to learn the coffee of a brand they don’t know, Sensing types are more likely to taste it. However, Intuitives may think about more heuristical what will be the possibilities of tasting it or not.
Thinking-Feeling (T-F) Preferences
Firstly, the T-F dimension defines the preferences of individuals for making decisions, processing data, and evaluating their perceptions. Thinking types use logic, facts, and fairness and evaluate cause and effect. So, they have analytical and objective abilities to make a decision (Fretwell et al., 2013; Ahrens, 2005). On the other hand, Feeling types use their values when making decisions so their decisions are more subjective. They can easily show sympathy, empathy, and compassion. Therefore, they are unable to give unpleasant feedback (Gardner & Martinko, 1996). Thus, thinking people internalize feelings and values while feeling types try to understand the difficulty of feelings and values (Pelley, 2006). For example, to an employee who asks for an off day because of not feeling well, a Thinking type manager may evaluate his absence’s cause and effect. However, a manager who has a Feeling type may show more empathy without excessive evaluation.
Judging-Perceiving (J-P) Preferences
Firstly, the J-P dimension defines how people organize and motivate themselves to the outer world. Judging types concerned with controlling their environments, making a decision, planning operations, or organizing events toward the completion of tasks (Ahrens, 2005; Myers & McCaulley, 1988). They judge very quickly and they want to be part of the game (Cohen et al., 2013). On the other hand, Perceiving types are more relaxed and adaptable. They try to discover new situations rather than control them (Fretwell et al., 2013). They are motivated to follow a schedule, but they value the acquisition of additional information over meeting a deadline. Thus, judging types look for “the joy of Closure” while perceiving types look for “the joy of discovery” (Pelley, 2006). For example, in a team project, Judging types are more likely to organize the team to ensure success. However, Perceiving types are more likely to adapt to the team.
See the 16 combined different personality patterns!!
Strengenths of the Indicator
Firstly, it is important to know that MBTI has no right or wrong answers. Also, one type is not better than any other type. The purpose of the MBTI is to identify the self-report of easily recognized reactions and basic preferences so there will be 16 combinations of people’s behaviors, perceptions, and judgments. It has been also known by “the most widely used personality instrument for nonpsychiatric populations.” For some studies, MBTI has shown a significant predictor for different work-related behaviours (Furnham & Stringfield, 1993). Also, the current manual provides great normative data for high school and university student samples (Capraro & Capraro, 2002; Boyle, 1995).
Weaknesses of the Indicator
Firstly, some studies have shown the reliability and validity of the instrument is not consistent with other research evidence. Another criticism concerns gender weighting. Particularly, on socialization effects, different weights are applied for men and women on the “Thinking-Feeling” scale based. So, it causes difficulty to compare men and women on this scale (Capraro & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Furthermore, for some studies, the current manual has shown a bit lacking data for general adults and work-related behaviors. There is also little empirical information on minorities or working-class populations (Boyle, 1995; Furnham & Stringfield, 1993).
Feel free to test your personality via Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) !!!
References
Ahrens, B. (2005). Analysing prosody in simultaneous interpreting: difficulties and possible solutions.
Bayne, R. (1997). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A critical review and practical guide. Nelson Thornes.
Boyle, G. J. (1995). Myers‐Briggs type indicator (MBTI): some psychometric limitations. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 71-74.
Brownfield, K. M. (1993). The Relationship between the Myers-Briggs Personality Types and Learning Styles.
Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-briggs type indicator score reliability across: Studies a meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 590-602.
Cohen, Y., Ornoy, H., & Keren, B. (2013). MBTI personality types of project managers and their success: A field survey. Project Management Journal, 44(3), 78-87.
Fretwell, C. E., Lewis, C. C., & Hannay, M. (2013). Myers-Briggs type indicator, A/B personality types, and locus of control: where do they intersect?. American Journal of Management, 13(3), 57-66.
Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1993). Personality and work performance: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlates of managerial performance in two cultures. Personality and individual Differences, 14(1), 145-153.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of management, 22(1), 45-83.
Lerch, Á. (2005). The concept of preference and its manifestation in Hungarian verbal conflict sequences. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 52(1), 41-75.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1988). Myers-Briggs type indicator: MBTI. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Pelley, J. W. (2006). Effect of concept mapping on Myers-Briggs personality types. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 82-85).
