OKA frequently receives e-mails with questions about type. How do I help a team with similar types experience all the preferences? How do I present the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment to a virtual team? Here, we provide the questions – and the answers! Visit again for new additions!
I am encountering a similar situation in two separate teams: In each team, the leader shows very clear ISTJ behaviors, but reports ENTJ on the Indicator. Even when we discuss "best fit" type, they still think they are ENTJs. This is very confusing to their teams. Any suggestions in working with these leaders or teams?
Your question is great and complex. At what point does a manager/leader stop reflecting his/her own preferences and start exhibiting the organization's qualities and expectations? It is very hard to say. All good NTs have a competency check-list against which excellence is measured. What happens when the NT competency check-list is populated with SJ (command, control, organize, etc.) behaviors or expectations? You can get an NT doing some SJ things. Also, when you have a senior leader around mid-life who is NT, you would expect his/her type development to be bringing about some more Sensing function into their behavior.
My course of action when I am in this position is to help the person validate a preference, and then let them know when they are acting outside of their preferences. If she/he is clearly an ENTJ, throw the question back on her/him as to (1) why are they so hooked into SJ behaviors and (2) grappling with the ramifications (confusion, for instance) of these mixed signals within the team. Type, in this instance, is NOT an answer to these questions. Type becomes the vocabulary through which leaders and teams talk about expectations, desires, preferences and goals.
I have a client who is specifically interested in measuring the benefits of type training. Any suggestions?
Great question! There are so many factors to effective behavior change, and good metrics around this issue are challenging to get. Here are some ways that we have addressed this need.
1. Action Plans - For metrics to take place the training must have ended with each participant writing an action plan. Action plans can be simple or complex (generally, I find the more simple they are, the more likely they are to be filled out and put to use). In essence a good action plan boils the training event's content into a couple/few core learnings and allows the participant to put these learnings into action statements--commitments to apply these ideas at a specific time and with a specific person, within a specific context.
2. Action Plan Follow-up - If every participant, at the end of a training, makes a commitment to take certain actions, a great way to follow-up (and through this follow-up, documentation and verification of a long-term benefit from the training can be gleaned)would be to have someone check-in with each training participant between a week and two weeks from the training event to inquire about the action steps committed to, asking: "What were your action steps? Did you do them? If so, how did it go? If not, why not, and how can I support your doing it?" It is great if the leader of the group (the assumption is that she/he participated in the training event as well) does this follow-up personally. The leader gets to share her actions and the extent to which she has used the material from the training while also checking on the participant's action steps. Participant goals can even be woven into annual evaluation criteria. This is a great way to keep training content alive within a group and boost the chances of long term behavior change. External trainers can also do this follow-up step; they have built-in authority with the participants having delivered the initial training event.
3. Participant Surveys - This is a questionnaire that asks the training participants their opinion of the training and its impact. Most training evaluations are submitted at the end of the session itself--at which time what is most evaluated is the engagement factor, entertainment value or level of interest held by the event or the trainer herself (or himself). A better approach to measure behavior change is to distribute the surveys at some future date, once the halo effect of the training event has faded. Participant surveys are easy and inexpensive.
4. Goal Setting - If you set out to do outcome-driven training, it is important first to establish the goals the training is to achieve. It is wise to make these goals narrow and specific. For instance, "improve communication among team members" is a bit too nebulous; whereas, "presenting and giving team members practice on using a personal feedback model" is specific and attainable. Make sure your goals are your client's goals and that they are ones you feel confident to achieve.
5. Benchmarking - If a client is really after some hard metrics about improvement and change, it important to do measurement before the training--not just after. Craft questions that relate to the effectiveness of their current approach to teams, communication, conflict or whatever. Use these responses as a baseline. Using the same questions a week or two after the training--make sure you have participants engage in the action plan--survey the participants again to see the movement. It is wise to give the leader a role in disclosing her/his action steps, following up with the participants and/or doing something in the system to support the content and its adoption into the culture.
These are some general ideas on how to generate metrics and "proof" that this kind of personal development training really has a benefit. I hope they help you build and strengthen the relationships you have with this and all your clients.
Top of Page
There seem to be some discrepancies in the statistics as to the percent distribution of Extraverts and Introverts. Can you clarify what you believe the distribution is?
E/I is the dichotomy whose figures are in most dispute due to differing studies and projections over the years. Isabel Myers originally (based on her own research and projections) reported a 75% E and 25% I split in the population, later revised to a 70% E and 30% I split. Research done in the late 1990’s (now printed in the Manual) suggests a more even split (closer to 50%/50%), with I’s even being a slight majority. This was a radical shift from the former party-line of 70%/30%.
The issue with this statistic (for me) is the methodology that produced it. The process is one of collecting a random sample from the most recent census, randomly selected and dialed on the phone. Respondents who engage with the call, agree to participate in the study and turn their forms in on time become the US representative sample. In general, this is sound, but does the fact that this process yielded ISTJ as the nation’s modal type reflect truth or the fact that ISTJs were the one most likely to be home, answer the phone, responsibly participate in the study and dutifully turn the forms in on time. Type bias plays in there somewhere.
Our own data base, which is considerable, and experience in the field show more Es than Is, but the study in the manual, which is statistically reliable, does not. In the years since this study, OKA has most often split the difference in the E/I dichotomy and reported a 60%/40% split, trying to honor or at least acknowledge the different studies and opinions we have.
Top of Page
We are seeking a long-lasting plan for inducing our SP students to do their homework properly - they just don't seem interested. Any suggestions?
Your question regarding ways in which parents can motivate SP children/students to do homework is a good one. I believe the problem is reflected in your very question, “. . . a long lasting plan for inducing SPs to...” The nature of SPs is to focus on the immediate; there is not relevance or meaning in the future. In addition, a plan is a structure we made in the past to govern the future.
All of these things—the past, a structure, the future—are irrelevant in the face of the needs of any given moment and the options they present. The rule may be that I come home and do homework before I play or watch TV, but today, it is particularly sunny and my friends—whom I hear and see playing right outside—trump the stale confines of that agreement, which made sense at the time of its establishment but has little relevance now.
An SP who is successful in school is one who learns (on his or her own or more likely through a loving and patient role model or authority figure) how to make the assignment a game that continues to hold attention. SP parents (and teachers) must learn how to (and stay open to) bargaining and negotiating with the student continuously regarding the need to do assignments and ongoing school work—especially when that work is routine and has no immediate or obvious payoff or application.
Many other types assume once we have had that discussion, we need not have it again. For most SP students, having once means we’ve had it today, but tomorrow—or even later today—is a whole other issue. SP students can be highly focused, energized learners who are wide open to experience, connections and creative ways to put their learning to use. They also, however, require a different approach not needed (or even allowed) by the other temperaments. Your question beautifully frames this tension.
Top of Page
My question concerns type frequency. Why do we have so many SJ and SPs in the world relative to NT and NF?
The question of why there are so many SPs and SJs compared to NFs and NTs is not an easy or obvious one to answer. Research tells us that the frequencies are what they are, but research does not speak to why. Since there is a 70/30 split between Sensors and iNtuitives in the general population, we should expect there to be fewer NFs and NTs as well, of course, but this expected distribution does not speak the essence of your “why” question. The only response I have—and this is my personal thought and feeling on the matter, not reflective of any data or research—is that as a species, we are better off having a majority who primarily deal with the world as it IS (Sensing) and with a minority who engage with the world primarily through engaging in future possibilities (N).
A sociological/evolutionary explanation is that we have evolved in a way that best serves the continuation of us as a human system. About a third of the collective is practical, naturally seeks to structure, order, perpetuate and control the world (SJ). Another third is practical, creative and open to change, seeking hands-on, immediate experience of life (SP). About 1/6 of the collective is future focused, impractical but visionary—driven to counter authority and push the limits of thought and performance (NT). And about 1/6 is focused on human issues and relationships, acting as the interpersonal grease that holds our human systems together (NF).
Top of Page
I often present MBTI overview workshops to small groups that are very type alike (little type diversity in group). Can you suggest how to illustrate the different types when the group is so alike?
When facilitating small groups with underrepresented preferences, I often take data in with me that the non-represented preference has generated (or would have generated). For instance, with an “All P” group, everyone could work together on a J/P task and then contrast what they do with J data you bring in from another group. If you do not have archived data, you can construct ahead of time the kind of data you are accustomed to seeing from Js when they have that assignment. That way, not only can the event still be experiential, but you’ll have the benefit of talking about the implications of that preference not being present. Also, don’t feel the need to do an exercise for each dichotomy. Especially with so few folks, doing an activity for 2 of the 4 dichotomies would be plenty of activity and also help mask the group’s overwhelming similarities. For more training design tips, we recommend OKA’s Typewatching Toolkit, which has more than 50 tips like this one.
Top of Page
Can you offer a summary of the differences between the functions and temperaments - since both have NF and NT?
The functions are pure Jung and deal specifically with brain functioning—how you take in data (S or N) and how you make decisions (T or F). The only possible combinations of these functions are ST, SF, NF and NT. These pairs—called the function pairs—are used to illuminate anything having to do with cognition (or brain functioning), which includes a wide range of activities: communication, leadership, conflict, teaching, learning and more.
Temperament, which comes from a theory of behavior (not cognition or how your brain is wired, but behavior, what you actually DO), was developed entirely independently of type, and it is a four pattern model that traces its origins back to Greek mythology and the earliest writings on human behavior. When David Keirsey, who derived temperaments, was asked if his temperament model could be found within the structure of type, he found that the type table did easily hold the four groups:
- Idealists were those who had N and F
- Rationalists were those who had N and T
- Guardians were those who had S and J
- Artisans were those who had S and P
Another way of stating this is to say that Function theory and temperament theory are different ideas that happen to overlap. The bottom line is one of usefulness. If you are looking for behavioral predictability, temperament is the way to go. You will get far more stark separation between SP and SJ than you will between ST and SF.
Top of Page
Can my MBTI type change with age? I’ve been told that type is hardwiring that does not change. Also, how might types change when people are going through life changing events? There seem to be contradicting view points.
According to theory, type - the hard-wired way we gather data and make decisions - does not change. Once an ESTJ, always an ESTJ. However, type development and behavior change readily and frequently – including when one is facing a life change. Type development is how – and how well - we access each of our functions (S, N, T and F). Let's take an ESTJ, for example. An ESTJ with good type development prefers S and T, and generally approaches the world with behaviors associated with these preferences. Good type development would allow this person to also use intuitive perceptions (N) and feeling judgments (F) when needed with an adequate degree of skill. This does not represent a change in Type, but merely a flexing outside of preference. This type development is natural, and while it can be worked on purposefully, it also happens without conscious deliberation.
In general, accessing the less-preferred functions is easier at age 60 than at age 40 - and easier at 40 than at age 20. Jobs, specific tasks or experiences, expectations, and other environmental issues can make anyone's type development stronger and more successful or hindered. The summary statement is that Type is inborn and unchanging, but the experience of our preferences and the degree to which our Types are developed within us is very much dependent on our environment, which is always changing.
Top of Page
Do you have a good temperament exercise you can offer, and thoughts about whether each temperament should be given a similar or different question?
We suggest that you do an exercise in which you give the same instruction at the same time to all of the temperament groups, rather than focus on one at a time. What makes the results so dramatic is that multiple groups (an SJ, an SP, an NF and an NT) would hear the same instruction but behave so predictably differently. This structure also is easier on the design from a timing point of view.
Instructions: Divide the class into their temperament groups and give each the same instruction, processing the results out highlighting the differences in content and process while noting the ways in which each group reflects the temperament pattern they represent. Here are two different, but very effective, exercises you can give them.
- Exercise Option 1: "Using as much or as little of your environment as you wish, create or make something.”
- Exercise Option 2: “In your temperament groups, answer the following questions (on flip chart paper):
What makes us show up and do our best work?
How do we most like to be rewarded or encouraged?
How do we most like to be corrected or criticized?"
Top of Page
As people grow older and develop their non-preferred preferences - a natural result of type development - do they general report lower preference scores on the MBTI assessment? If I prefer S, but have been developing my non-preferred N, am I likely to report a lower preference score for S over time?
Let's answer your question from a statistical point of view. In general, the older someone gets, the clearer their preferences becomes. This happens even while the person is developing the non-preferred functions. Older respondents do not tend toward the middle of the scale at or after mid-life. Development of a function--learning to use a new tool--does not mean my preference has changed; it only means that now that I am more developed, I have more tools to choose from if needed. I still prefer the ones I always have. This is the theory, and the numbers of the instrument support that idea.
Top of Page
I have been asked to conduct an MBTI workshop with a team that is geographically dispersed – do you have tips for conducting a debrief virtually?
These conditions are becoming more often the norm. Though not optimal, good trainers need to deliver the best service possible with the technology and logistical realities that clients have. Here are some ideas:
- You (the trainer) must know the clients’ results—even if those clients are dispersed around the globe. To do this, we recommend administering the on-line MBTI assessment through CPP’s SkillsOne program. If you have not set up an account, you can do so through CPP.
- If your clients can video conference, do so, and work to keep the groups relatively small. A ten to twelve person co-located group is rather small, but this many in a teleconferenced training session is quite large. It is worth the extra work to do more small trainings to compensate for the distance.
- The basic training design that you use with a co-located group is the same one that you use with a teleconferenced group. The big difference is that you can not have as many (or any) group exercises to explore or punctuate type with this format without excluding a lot of participants. You can have participants experience the preferences by giving an assignment (“describe time” or “define conflict and your reaction to it”, for instance) and having each participant reflect and write their answers down—giving the group a few minutes to do so. You can then show them content that the different preferences usually produce and have them decide which preference is more like them. This is simply an introverted way of doing experiential exercises.
- As for managing visuals, there are technological means by which you could have a presentation running that all participants can tie into. A lower tech – yet effective - solution is to produce a handout packet (OKA has an Introduction Workbook for this) that covers the content in a logical flow. Mail these packets or workbooks ahead, so that each person can follow along with your presentation.
- Paginate all packets/workbooks well, and refer often to what page you are on. When you ask if there are any questions, ask people by name, and ask individuals to share their experiences and ideas as the discussion unfolds.
- When you finish the content and participants can predict their type preferences, then e-mail the participants an electronic file of their type profile. Take a break from the training and give the participants some time alone to review their report forms and to read and reflect upon their profiles. The group should convene again—once everyone gets, reads and has time to reflect upon their results—for a question/answer session and a next step and/or action planning summary.
Visit the Store for more training products to support your workshops!
Top of Page
Many times, clients that want us to conduct an MBTI workshop also want the reported types of the participants. I know it’s up to participants to disclose – but I need a good strategy for managing this. What do you suggest?
Many clients want to know the type preferences of their employees. If workshop participants know in advance that part of the workshop includes disclosure of their preferences, and they agree to that, then there is no problem. Most trainers, however, do not take the time up front to ask the question, or they do not ask it a way that allows a participant to confidentially--and without repercussion--decline participation. This is why tight and effective contracting with the MBTI assessment is vital to your success. Discuss with the client up front who will get the information. Here are some of the reasons that forced disclosure is a bad idea:
- People could blame type disclosure on firing, demotion, bad treatment, et cetera and bring a law suit. Type discrimination suits are not uncommon. Though these cases are hard to win, it is a hassle and risk that most businesses do not want to mess with.
- The results of the indicator are reported type, and what you most want people to disclose and use with each other is validated type, which may very well be different.
- Validated type--while easy and quick for many people to identify--will take others a long time to determine. Jung thought strongly that knowing your type resulted from a prolonged period of reflection.
- The primary benefit of the MBTI assessment is self-awareness for better self-management. Self-awareness and self-management training is wonderful and actionable. Getting into trying to manipulate others by knowing their preferences is dangerous and unwieldy. If trying to track the usefulness of training interventions (return on investment), you will have a far easier time tracking your success with type training if the focus is self.
Client concerns may indicate that a bigger issue exists in that system. If clients are pushing you to know peoples’ types, there may be some issue or problem that needs to be solved--communication, feedback, conflict, trust, team cohesion, et cetera. The MBTI can address--or contribute to the solution to--all of these issues, but simply knowing the type preferences of folks involved will not do anything to solve the problems.
Top of Page
Have any studies of brain connections been done for the MBTI? In a recent session on Emotional Intelligence, our speaker used a slide that showed the length of the pathway from the thalamus to the emotional trigger was shorter than to the rational trigger. The first thing I thought of was the E/I difference. Anything about this in the literature?
There have been a few studies looking at brain physiology and type. The most often referenced one is included in both the MBTI Manual (page 189-190) and the Journal of Psychological Type (JPT Volume 18). The study is by Wilson and Languis (1990). "Differences in Brain Electrical Activity Patterns Between Introverted and Extraverted Adults" is the name of the article in the JPT. The bottom line of the study was that Introverts have more internal brain arousal--as shown by brain scans--than do Extraverts.
Top of Page
In temperament descriptions, NF’s are often called "seductive" and "mysterious" – can you describe what is meant by this?
“Seductive” comes from the NF’s ability/tendency to focus on the personal and emotional state of surrounding people and groups. NFs operate as if there is a radio station to which they connected, that is playing the emotional data and concerns of those around them. Taking in these data, NFs then work to understand and please those around them. There can be a magnetism and seductive quality to someone who operates on this personal and emotional level. Also, most NFs are—at least in part—motivated to have you (as in anyone around them) like them. Someone working to make a personal connection and to win your approval—if not your affection—is seductive.
NFs are constantly questing for personal identity, finding themselves, or new parts of themselves in every place, thing, relationship and activity they experience. This journey of self-discovery means that NFs are constantly emerging—constantly changing. This ever-changing quality leads to a sense of personal mystery (thus “Mysterious”) when things are going well, and frustrating inconsistency when the NF is not grounded or functioning effectively.
Top of Page
I work in a police department, and recently introduced psychological type into our training program. Our idea was if we knew the trainee's learning styles, we could tailor teaching styles on the program to get people through. Unfortunately, despite our efforts, we continue to have a high failure rate with NF’s and NT’s. Most of the failed trainees had trouble taking charge, multitasking in the moment, learning not to trust suspects, and remembering statutes. We have used type to better reveal these Achilles’ heels and identify mitigation steps, with little success. The police job clearly requires strong STJ characteristics – we need more NF’s and NT’s in the department, but struggle to get them through.
I understand your dilemma, but disagree with your conclusions a bit. You seem to believe that your MBTI experiment has not been successful because it failed to help you keep more NF’s and NT’s in the department. I would suggest that your findings show that your using type to help in the education of the trainees is quite successful. It has given you new insights about your trainees that help in communicating effectively, and where there are type biases in your structure and process, type will help you define and address them.
I would question the need to typologically diversify the student body. While awareness and tolerance of all styles is vital (for they comprise the audience you serve), the department need not be comprised of all these styles. You are talking about a high-stress job with well defined, exacting and critical job expectations and parameters. One of the most important elements of basic training is to simulate work conditions so that failure--where it is to occur--happens before students are on the job. If you think great potential employees are getting weeded out by a type-biased program, you have a problem. Rather, it sounds like your program is consistently weeding out people who struggle with a number of the core requirements of the job – they all happen to be Intuitive. If that is true, you don’t have a problem – instead, you have - in type - a great tool to help put these "failures" in perspective and frame them as type preference discussions that can far better support the individual's career development and long-term understanding and happiness.
Top of Page
Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs and MBTI are registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.
