MBTI

Generalities about MBTI

The origin of MBTI goes back to 1943 with the work of July Myers based on a typology created by Carl Jung in 1921.

Jung observed that people’s mind have four basic psychological functions:

• Two irrational functions of Perceiving (P) to collect information in two different ways with Sensation (S) or with Intuition (I).
• Two rational functions of Judgment (J) to deal with the information and reach conclusions through Thinking (T) of Feeling (F).

Two other functions come additionally: one of Extroversion and another one of Introversion (I). These two explain how people find their energy: extroverts find it with the external environment, through activities and experiences, and introverts get it through thinking, ideas, souvenirs and emotions.

The MBTI indicator is composed of four letters. The combinations of the four letters help identify 16 different types of preferences.

• Energy orientation: E (extraversion) or I (introversion)
• Gathering of information: S (sensing) or N (intuition)
• Mode of decision: T (thinking) or F (feeling)
• Type of action: J (judgment) or P (perception)

A MBTI test is typically composed of 84 forced-choice items. But there are various ways or tests to measure the MBTI indicator, in paper-pencil (more rarely so, though,) or on the Internet. For instance, the Keirsey test measures the MBTI indicator and has just 70 items. When one buys the Keirsey book, he can take it and score it on paper for free. The Myers Briggs Company (previously called CPP) based in Mountain View, CA, owns the rights on the MBTI.

The MBTI test is translated in many languages and widely sold in all countries. The Myers Briggs Company claims 4 million tests are taken each year, half of which are taken in USA. The way it quickly spread in US administration and business schools in the 1980th very much helped for its popularity.

The training to MBTI generally takes one week. The training is essentially built for coaches, consultants or HR experts.

MBTI exists in different versions, the last one: MBTI II enables to have refined measurements of the dimensions. MBTI also exists in different forms for free on the web. One better-known sub-version of the MBTI is the Keirsey temperament sorter. Some people will say they have taken the MBTI but in fact they have taken one of these other versions.

Comparison with GRI's Factor-Based Approach

Quality of measurement

MBTI cannot evidence work-relatedness and compliance with EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) regulations.

Among the four primary MBTI dimensions, the introversion/extraversion dimension is the most commonly measured among personality tests and is easier to compare with GRI's Factor 2. However, we can observe people who are measured Low 2 with GRI but are MBTI extroverts, and vice versa: some people are measured high 2 with GRI and are MBTI introverts. The content of GRI Factor 2 and I/E type of Jung - as what can be read from Jung descriptions or MBTI books - is close.

One explanation for this difference can be the imprecision of MBTI measurements. On the other hand, the question is not so much, not to be or be introvert or extrovert, but what do we more precisely mean by introversion and extraversion in terms of observable behaviors, and how often and how intense we are in these behavior repertoires. Everybody can be qualified as an extrovert or introvert to some extent. But how much will each of us qualify as introverts or extroverts in such a situation? To this question, the behavior-factor-based approach provides an answer, but MBTI doesn’t.

Few words have to be said about Jung and science. Jung was a prolific writer and influential. Unlike Freud, with whom he worked, Jung has been heavily criticized for not being scientific in his observations and research. His work on typologies is a good reflection of this non-scientific work. Taxonomies like the one coming from lexical studies and the Big Five or other fields in leadership, organization, or sociology are incomparably more rigorous, stronger, more resistant, and in the end, more valuable than the MBTI. GRI's behavior-factor-based approach is closer to these fields than anything out of MBTI. The only common aspects between GRI and MBTI are the symbolic features (see after).

Adaptation

One big difference between MBTI and GRI's behavioral-factor-based approach is the absence of a perceived role (aslo called Role)in MBTI.

Without the Role, one cannot know how much someone adapts their behavior. With the MBTI it is not possible to anticipate the limits of behavioral adaptations. The demonstration of the adaptation’s limits can easily be done with everyone’s profile by looking at GRI's "Inverted Drives". The GRI will help give feedback to a person about the adaptation measured in the Role, appreciate the effective behavior that results from it, and compare with the expectations from the job. The MBTI does not have this understanding of the Role or the Job and leaves analyses open to whatever conclusion.

The MBTI does not measure the Engagement Level, Response Level, and Adaptation as we do with the GRI. As we know, these measurements are precious to understand the individual, what goes on in their environment, and how much they adapt to it .

These aspects help make the connection with the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator): what is expected in the job, the team, and the organization. Without this connection, the individual analysis lacks what we can call the “social component”: the relationship with what’s happening out there and which is an important aspect of who someone is. These aspects of adaptation make the behavior-factor-based approach more sophisticated than the MBTI. It brings a more in-depth understanding of what’s going on today with the person and actionable items to work on.

Job Relatedness

MBTI has no technique to evaluate position demands, such as the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) survey. Several studies have been conducted with the MBTI to analyze what MBTI types may more likely be found in specific jobs. There is no genuine interest in trying to figure out MBTI dimensions since they are very abstract and not specifically related to jobs or organizational development. Consequently, the MBTI of individuals cannot be compared with jobs’ expectations and is limited to use for personal development applications and without much practical meaning on how it applies to working in organizations.

Use in Hiring

MBTI cannot be utilized for hiring or promotion. People trained on the MBTI sign an agreement — black on white — that they cannot use it for hiring purposes. To the contrary, GRI's behavior-factor-based approach has the characteristics of being used for hiring and recruitment.

One may ask: Why a test that cannot provide good psychometric qualities be so widely used? people who have been trained or exposed to it tend to make use of it beyond its capabilities. The MBTI has been well marketed early on. Much can easily be found in many books, articles, and the Internet.

Language and Symbolic Aspects

The symbolic feature is the only common aspect between GRI's behavior-factor-based approach and the MBTI. One remembers the four letters like others remember the GRI profiles and their factors. Once you have memorized the meaning of the four dimensions and their combinations, with this “in mind,” you can easily use the letters on day-to-day business and consulting. It’s mostly the power of the MBTI: being able to carry its meaning and recommendations into many situations, thanks to their easy-to-remember four letters. It does not mean the letters nor the measurements behind the letters are good, even if it "kind of works." The four MBTI letters do not carry nuanced interpretations of the factors and pigeonhole people into categories: one of the many reproaches people make to the MBTI. The behavior profiles and their factors bring more nuances than the four letters. The intensities of the factors show what the factors mean with nuances and how their meaning is affected by the other factors. The three graphs in the profile bring an understanding of how people adapt, something that a MBTI symbol cannot encapsulate.