Abstract

Personality-predictor theories have been used by many companies for decades in an attempt to correctly identify the personality traits or characteristics of potential employees in order to find their best fit in an organization. This paper attempts to address the question of whether or not personality-predictor theories are too simplistic to be of any value to the contemporary international business manager. While multiple personality-predictor theories and models exist, two of the most popular and widely-used—the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator and the Big Five Personality or Five Factor Model—will be critiqued.

After first providing an overview of why personality-predictor theories are used in business contexts, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Five Factor Model are explained in greater detail. Moving to a critique of those models, evidence is extrapolated from scholarly journals and personal accounts, suggesting that the models are severely limited in their explanatory and predictive power. Finally, an analysis of possible beneficial uses of personality tests in business is provided.

The Use of Personality Tests in Business Settings

Originating in the psychological research of the early twentieth century, basic personality tests quickly became used for recruitment in both the public and private sectors, serving as a means to screen candidates. As theories of personality evolved, more formalized tests were developed to measure specific traits within individuals, purportedly identifying them as fitting within certain types, and thereby allowing companies to asses potential hires in order to hire those best suited to particular positions and also effectively manage existing employees.

Risk avoidance comprises the foundational logic behind utilizing personality tests within the business world. Modern companies continually face undesirable scenarios such as employee-driven lawsuits against employers, workplace harassment, and deviant employee behavior, all of which can lead to decreased productivity and profit. Including personality tests in hiring and decision-making processes arguably provides a basis for weeding out individuals with predilections toward such behaviors, thereby reducing the risk of encountering any of the aforementioned situations. Given the high costs of replacing employees, managers seek to minimize turnover. Conversely, desirable hires would possess traits that fit with an organization’s vision and mission, and would be more likely to be retained over long periods.

For existing employees, personality tests are often believed to be a means of predicting behaviors and more effectively managing individuals and teams. Test results arguably serve as a means of driving management techniques, as supervisors can analyze employee personality types and adjust their interactions accordingly in both daily operations and professional development. An organization can thus improve overall efficiency and stability.

Closely tied to these rationales, the weeding out of personalities that are not well suited for the needs of an organization creates space for personnel who are better equipped to contribute to its ultimate goals. The inclusion of such individuals directly impacts the working atmosphere for others, which in turn can maximize an organization’s collaborative efforts. Thus, the ultimate motivation for employers in utilizing personality tests can be summarized in a single term: profit. The avoidance of risk, effective management of employees and increase in efficiency all contribute to increased profitability for companies.

 

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Despite being among the first in the field, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is arguably the most popular and widely used personality-predictor model in existence today, and serves as the foundation for many of the existing personality tests. Eighty-nine of the Fortune 100 companies and eighty percent of the Fortune 500 companies use personality tests based on the MBTI and its derivatives. Isabel Briggs Myers began research on psychological types in the 1940s and, with the help of her mother Katherine Briggs, first published her work in 1962. The model they developed draws upon the work of Carl G. Jung (1875 – 1961), a Swiss psychiatrist largely considered the founder of analytical psychology. Jung introduced many psychological concepts, including dream interpretation, archetypes and synchronicity:

The aim of his psychology is the so-called process of individuation, which is the accomplishment of the Self (the union of the conscious with the unconscious) and other guide marks, such as the archetypes, the collective unconscious, the assimilation of anima/animus and shadow, etc. (Carl Jung, 2012)

Jung and his successors believed that a limited number of psychological archetypes, often guided by unconscious processes, could account for the entire spectrum of human personality traits, and could be measured and predicted, hence the introduction of the MBTI.

The MBTI and its offshoots typically take the form of query-based psychometric tests. These tests or questionnaires are designed to evaluate the mental traits, abilities and behaviors of an individual. According to the Myers Briggs Foundation:

The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^® (MBTI^®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people’s lives. The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment. (My MBTI Personality, 2003)

Briggs Myers and Katharine Briggs attempted to develop the MBTI in a manner that would make the insights of type theory accessible to groups and individuals, enabling them to better understand their own desires, motivations and behaviors. When applied in practice, the goal was thus to develop an understanding of each of the four dichotomies from Jung’s theories, and to identify and describe the sixteen combinations of personality types that might occur from the interactions of these preferences.

The four different dichotomies that Jung hypothesized include Extroverted (E) versus Introverted (I), Sensing (S) versus Intuitive (I), Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F), and Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). Extroverted individuals are outgoing, sociable, and assertive, whereas introverts are quiet and shy. Sensing types tend to be practical and prefer routine and order, often focusing on details in work and leisure. In contrast, intuitive individuals rely more on unconscious processes and look at the “big picture.” Thinking types use reason and logic to handle problems, while feeling types rely on their personal values and emotions as a means of making decisions. Finally, judging types desire control and prefer their world to be ordered and structured, whereas perceiving types tend toward flexibility and spontaneity. When participants complete MBTI-based questionnaires, their cumulative results place them in one of sixteen possible personality classifications:[1]

 

The Big Five Personality Model

The Big Five Personality Model, also known as the Five Factor Model (FFM), is based on a body of research that spans fifty years of work from various psychological researches that have contributed to its formulation. Unlike the MBTI, which draws upon a theoretical basis, the FFM derives from lexical analysis, meaning its components were formulated through the systematic classification of adjectives used to describe personality. Thus, it acts as an evolution of the MBTI instrument and, unlike most other models, reflects an ontological perspective that does not rely on an overarching theory of personality. (Howard, 1995)

Taking into consideration the fact that the FFM was not developed by one specific psychologist, but has been developed by many different professionals over the years, some of the terms used in describing the components may differ depending on what source a person references. However, there are five generally agreed upon terms used to describe the different dimensions in regions in which the FFM has gained a foothold. Extraversion is a personality dimension describing someone who is sociable, gregarious, and assertive. Agreeableness describes someone who is good natured, cooperative and trusting. Conscientiousness reflects people who possess responsible, dependable, persistent and organized characteristics. Emotional Stability is a dichotomous dimension that alternately reflects calmness, self-confidence and security (positive traits), versus nervousness, depression, and insecurity (negative traits). The last of the dimensions, Openness to Experience, characterizes individuals who exhibit imagination, sensitivity and curiosity.

 

Critique of Personality Tests in Business Settings

Despite being embraced by many recruitment agencies and corporations, personality-predictor theories still exhibit significant flaws that limit their utility in business. A growing body of evidence has admittedly demonstrated that the Big Five Model—and even to some degree the MBTI—accurately identify personality traits in individuals, but the extent to which the associated test results can be applied remains in question. Numerous lines of criticism have been published, but they largely fall under two distinct areas: the explanatory and predictive capacities of these theories in practical settings.

First examining the efficacy of the MBTI-based tests, it must be emphasized that neither the Jungian principles nor the tests themselves have been convincingly validated through statistical analysis, immediately placing their merit in question in regard to decisions made in hiring and management, which involve actions that may significantly impact the future course of a business. (Llorens, 2010) Indeed, the original objective of the MBTI and other related theories of the time focused on providing individuals with the means to increase their self-understanding and their awareness of others—not to predict employee behaviors and drive major decisions within organizations. (Aviles, 2001) Regardless, given that MBTI-based tests can be and are used for such purposes, they may be critiqued in other respects.

The structure of the MBTI encompasses four distinct, dichotomous divisions, each of which is represented by specific queries within the tests. Because cross-correlation among them would diminish the explanatory power of the model, factor analysis on each of the four components should be expected to indicate independent correlation of the associated questions, thus providing sufficient explanatory power to account for differences between individuals. Yet according to Dr. David Pittenger (1993), “factor analysis of the MBTI has not produced convincing results… In sum, the statistical analysis of the test does not support the theory used to describe the MBTI.”

Further anatomizing the underlying structure of the MBTI reveals another glaring flaw in that it places test-takers in categories that do not exhibit multiple dimensions. Thus, individuals who score at the lower boundary of one trait would be identified as equivalent to those who score high in that same characteristic. In essence, the MBTI-based tests thus fail to account for the wide range of behaviors and traits that characterize personality. The results can provide a framework for understanding broad patterns of behavior, but the available research indicates that everyone is ultimately an individual who may not conform to the results, and may thus act contrary to the predictions applied to each of the component dimensions. (Denham, 2002) Thus, the both the descriptive and predictive powers of the MBTI remain limited to generalizations of employee behavior.

In essence, business managers who utilize that information for major decisions related to individual employees—particular potential hires—overlook the fluid dynamics of the MBTI:

Because of its apparent simplicity, the MBTI may be misused unintentionally by some people. A manager, for example, may come to believe that only certain personality types are appropriate for specific jobs. After learning about type, such a manager may conclude that only ISTJs make good accountants whereas the best people for the sales force will be the ESFJs. Thus, the type label may bias a manager’s decisions on hiring, firing, evaluating, and promoting. Similarly, employees may use type labels inappropriately. Thus, one might feel that “She’s an INFP, so I will never be able to work with her on an assignment,” or that “I’m an ESTP and don’t do well when it comes to details.” (Pittenger, 1993)

Moreover, any such actions taken on the basis of test results place managers and corporations in jeopardy, as they may foster a climate of employee dissatisfaction and drops in productivity. External liabilities such as lawsuits may also arise, as rejected applicants could cite discrimination on the basis of their personality types. These dangers, linked with its underlying flaws, prevent the MBTI from being a more effective tool in a business manager’s arsenal.

Unlike the MBTI, the FFM has received widespread support among the academic community in regard to the accuracy of its personality type descriptors, and its use in business settings has steadily increased in recent decades, primarily through the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R). Yet similar to its predecessors, the FFM was not created for such far-reaching purposes, as pointed out by John (1999):

The Big Five taxonomy was never intended as a comprehensive personality theory; it was developed to account for the structural relations among personality traits. Thus, like most structural models it provides an account of personality that is primarily descriptive rather than explanatory, emphasizes regularities in behavior rather than inferred dynamic and developmental processes, and focuses on variables rather than on individuals or types of individuals.

Furthermore, as is the case with MBTI-based tests, the NEO-PI-R and other FFM-based tests contain other deficiencies in business application.

First and foremost, the predictive strength of the FFM model—being based on lexical analysis—weakens insofar as it primarily remains confined to descriptive linguistics.  Despite its more precise results in testing, the model has faced criticism for its failure to account for the entire range of personality traits, as indicated by Goldberg and Saucier, who categorized a large number of adjective groups and associated personality traits as falling outside its groupings. (Jackson, 2000) Indeed, several versions of the FFM exist, and versions translated into other languages, such as Hungarian, have been proven erroneous in their ability to reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the personality traits in the countries of origin.

Compounding this issue, the FFM possesses an even more limited application in the modern business world, as it does not fully account for differences across cultures and nationalities. (John, 1999) This is a particularly significant point for contemporary business managers, who must both work with employees of varying ethnicities, and also interact with representatives of other global corporations, many of whom may possess personalities not adequately described by FFM-based tests. While the FFM components do demonstrate consistency across highly Westernized cultures, their precision rapidly deteriorates when applied to others. (Suh, 2002) With much of the global wealth and business shifting to the Asian Pacific regions, such flaws must be taken into consideration before utilizing FFM-based tests in business settings.

Ultimately, despite the more accurate results produced by the FFM and its associated tests, critics point to a number of issues that suggest businesses managers should think twice before using them for any critical decisions. With no basis in a single theory, overly general components, and lingual and cultural shortcomings, “the Big Five dimensions are too broad and heterogeneous, and lack the specificity to make accurate predictions in many real-life settings.” (Boyle, 2008)

 

Personality Tests in Practice: A Case Study

Based on these rationales, personality-predictor theories may be too simplistic to be of any value to the contemporary international business manager insofar as the complexity of the human mind and individual personalities inhibit the predictive power of such models. By extension, applying the results of personality tests in business can lead to erroneous decisions, as scores may vary over time, and lack any significant predictive or explanatory powers.

To illustrate this point, one of the authors took three free online personality-tests. The first two tests were Jungian typology tests available at www.humanmetrics.com and www.similarminds.com, and the third, also available at www.similarminds.com, derived from the FFM structure. As each of these tests was based on the models selected for analysis, the results were expected to reflect some of the aforementioned flaws, most notably generalized results and a failure to indicate how one might act in specific situations and professions.

According to the results from www.humanmetrics.com, the test-taker’s personality type was ESTJ, with scores of 56% Extraverted, 12% Sensing, 38% Thinking and 44% Judging. The Myers & Briggs Foundation describes ESTJs as practical, realistic and matter-of-fact types of people. They are decisive and quickly move to implement decisions, and seek to organize projects and people to accomplish goals in the most efficient way possible. ESTJs maintain a clear set of logical standards that they systematically follow, while also expecting others to follow them. Finally, ESTJs can be forceful in implementing their plans.

Upon completion of the questionnaire, links to additional websites were provided, each of which further described the ETSJ personality type and identified potential careers that that are best suited for this particular personality type. One of these, www.keirsey.com, classified the test-taker as a “Supervisor,” which falls under the broad categorization of a “Guardian”^[2] The recommended career fields for ESTJ personality-types are divided into three categories. The first recommended career field is management in the business or public sectors, stock brokerage or accounting. The second career field reflected more technical fields such as engineering or specialized construction. The third and final career field focused on law enforcement roles, such as military training or police and security services.

According to the second MBTI-based test on www.similarminds.com, the test-taker’s personality type was ISTJ. The results of this test were also tabulated as a percentage of each of the four different dimensions used in the Jung typology. According to the results the test-taker was 50% Extraverted and 50% Introverted, thus possessing no practical inclination toward one or the other.[3] The other scores included 73.53% Sensing versus 26.47% Intuitive, 78.79% Thinking versus 21.21% Feeling, and 75% Judging versus 25% Perceiving. ISTJs are broadly described as quiet and serious individuals who seek to earn success by thoroughness and dependability. They are practical, matter-of-fact, realistic and responsible. They decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. ISTJs take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized—whether at work or home—and they value traditions and loyalty in their lives.

While it is possible to attribute the variation in the results of the MBTI-based questionnaires to factors such as the semantic qualities of the questions or the algorithms used to determine the results, it may also indicate that such tests reflect an ontological reality: Individuals may simply differ in personality based on situational and temporal factors. This was confirmed by one of the other authors, who indicated that his personality type as identified by MBTI-based tests changed dramatically over the course of a decade. As indicated by critical research, these results failed to provide the consistent, detailed data one would presume necessary to make significant business-related decisions.

The third questionnaire from www.similarminds.com reflected the FFM-based personality traits of the test-taker, providing scores of 64% in Extroversion, 88% in Orderliness, 66% in Emotional Stability, 30% in Accommodation and 58% Inquisitiveness.  The moderately high score in extroversion suggests periods in which individuals may be talkative, outgoing, sociable and apt to interact with others, all at the expense of developing individual interests and internal identity. High scores in Orderliness suggests that such individuals are overly organized, neat, structured and restrained at the expense, often at the expense of flexibility, variety, spontaneity, and fun. Moderately high scores in Emotional Stability indicate relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic traits. The low result in Accommodation indicates selfishness, an unwillingness to cooperate and a demanding nature, often at the expense of the well-being of others. Finally, the results in Inquisitiveness were moderately high, which suggests that such individuals are intellectual, curious and imaginative, but may not very practical in their decisions.

 

Compiling the most common factors within each of the results, the test-taker would be classified as extraverted, organized, matter-of-fact, logical and rational—descriptions that he agreed were representative of his personality. He described himself as an extremely well-organized person, almost to the point of being obsessive-compulsive, and has always prided himself on making logical and rational decisions. In the area of potential careers for ESTJ-personality types, the questionnaires were very accurate. Of the identified careers, the most relevant were business management in the public sector and law enforcement, specifically in reference to the military. The test-taker had received his undergraduate degree in business management and is a veteran of the United States Navy. Consequently, in those respects the personality-predictor theories may have been correct.

Other aspects of the results from the FFM-based test were more difficult for the test-taker to evaluate. In particular, he felt that the 30% score in Accommodation was not a characteristic that he could objectively assess, but rather one that should be evaluated by colleagues after the completion of a group project or through similar means. This parallels an oft-cited criticism of all personality type tests: Test-takers may consciously or unconsciously seek to answer questions to fit their self-perceptions or, in the case of employment opportunities, to answer according to their perceptions of the desired traits within the corporation to which they are applying. While test designers claim that the structural integrity of the questionnaire constructs prevent such duplicity, no research has been produced to support such assertions, again calling into question the predictive power of the tests.

Though the test-taker and authors agree that many of the identified traits in this case were broadly accurate, the results provide little indication of how they could benefit contemporary international business managers. As cited earlier, the global business environment is extremely dynamic, reflecting a wide range of cultures, nationalities and backgrounds. This has necessitated greater flexibility and dynamism on the part of managers themselves. From a practical perspective, these authors feel that the personality characteristics identified in these test results do little to indicate how the test-taker would function in specific situations in a business environment. It would thus not provide a sound basis for a hiring or retention decision; only extended interaction with the test-taker would provide an adequate basis for such an action.

Additionally, it must be acknowledged that businesses themselves can no longer remain maintain static, but must rather continually adapt their goals and strategies due to ever-shifting market conditions. As technology advances and businesses become more interconnected, these changing situations will often dictate the skills necessary for growth and success in any given corporation. Even if personality-predictor theories could provide a more accurate account of individual employees’ personalities and predict their behaviors, decisions made on that basis may not be beneficial at all stages of an organization’s development, hence further limiting their utility.

The Uses of Personality Tests in Business Settings

Given the significant flaws of the major personality-predictor models and their limited applicability in business settings, one may question whether they possess any value of note. However, despite the caution against the use of results from personality tests to aid in hiring or other imperative human resource-related decisions, other functions may still contribute to overall efficiency when appropriately applied by international business managers. Such benefits can take place on both the individual and organizational levels.

As previously noted, the FFM possesses a broad scope that limits its predictive power in regard to overall productivity, but its five components—in its most commonly accepted form—have been found to positively correlate to specific aspects of job performance. (John, 1999) Managers may find some merit in seeking out professional development opportunities for employees who possess inclinations toward particular ends of each component spectrum, thereby enabling those individuals to improve in weak areas or further refine strengths. Through an understanding of their individual personality types, individuals can recognize the issues they may face in completing tasks, as wells as determine how to better interact with those with differing traits.

Personality test results—including those based on older models such as the MBTI—may thus help employees in recognizing their own professional deficiencies, evaluating those impediments and enabling them to find solutions. (Healy, 1998) The key to such use lies in the willingness of managers to empower their personnel, exhorting them to view these tools as means of self-improvement rather than measures of performance—and by extension, tools for use in managerial decisions. The identification of personality types in employees enables companies to better adapt by utilizing that knowledge to drive efficient collaboration

However, it must again be emphasized that due to the lack of predictive correlation, any personality preferences merely indicate inclinations and do not imply causality. In short, as recognized by Aviles (2001), personality preferences cannot be equated with skill levels. On the contrary, one chief executive of a recruitment firm stated that a large majority of the employees hired in part due to positive results on a personality test were fired, and that the money invested in such testing could be put to more effective use by properly training human resources staff in effective interviewing techniques. (Gutner, 2011)

It is perhaps this attitude that more businesses should adopt. Examining the wide range of existing tools and strategies, many of which rest on sound research and established practices, international business managers would benefit from placing less stock in unproven theories and models that could potentially create liabilities rather than assets. While they can certainly help both managers and employees gain a better grasp of their own personalities and of group dynamics, enabling them to improve their performances, the failure of personality-predictor theories to adequately account for the subtleties of employee behavior limits their use. Thorough professional development and team-building ultimately provides more cost-effective, efficient means of allowing managers to ensure stability and growth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Note: Several references were accessed through EBSCOHost, which requires users to log in with unique ids. Copies of those references can be provided upon request. Links are provided for others when applicable.

 

Aviles, C. B. (2001). A Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory: A Potential Training        Tool for Human Services Organizations.

 

Boyle, G.J. (2008). Critique of the five-factor model of personality. Humanities & Social           Sciences papers. Paper 297. (http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/297)

 

Carl Jung – Biography. (2012). (http://www.carl-jung.net/biography.html)

 

Denham, T. J. (2002). A Technical Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(tm).

 

Gutner, T. (2011). Should Businesses Hire Based on Personality? Business on Main.

(http://businessonmain.msn.com/browseresources/articles/hiringandtraining.aspx?cp-documentid=27317275#fbid=e3FZbDlERfv)

 

Healy, C. A. (1998). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and career obstacles.           Measurement & Evaluation In Counseling & Development (American Counseling    Association), 32(2), 74.

 

Howard, P. M. (1995). Buddy, can you paradigm?. Training & Development, 49(9), 28.

 

Jackson, D.N. & Paunonen, S.V. (2000). What is Beyond the Big Five? Plenty!           Journal of Personality, 68:5.

 

John, O.P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History,           Measurement and Theoretical Perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory           and research. (http://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/pubs/bigfive.pdf)

 

Llorens, J. (2010). Taking Inventory of Myers-Briggs. T+D, 64(4), 18-19.

 

My MBTI Personality Type – MBTI Basics. (2003). (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-   personality-type/mbti-basics/)

 

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI. . .And Coming Up Short. Journal Of Career          Planning and Employment, 54(1), 48-52.

 

Suh, E.M. & Triandis, H.C. (2002). Cultural Influences on Personality. Annual Review         of Psychology. 53:133–60

 

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

ISTJ
Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized – their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty.

 

ISFJ
Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home.

 

INFJ
Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions. Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the common good. Organized and decisive in implementing their vision.

 

INTJ
Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance – for themselves and others.

 

ISTP
Tolerant and flexible, quiet observers until a problem appears, then act quickly to find workable solutions. Analyze what makes things work and readily get through large amounts of data to isolate the core of practical problems. Interested in cause and effect, organize facts using logical principles, value efficiency.

 

 

ISFP
Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what’s going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others.

 

INFP
Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who are important to them. Want an external life that is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable, flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened.

 

INTP
Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.

 

ESTP
Flexible and tolerant, they take a pragmatic approach focused on immediate results. Theories and conceptual explanations bore them – they want to act energetically to solve the problem. Focus on the here-and-now, spontaneous, enjoy each moment that they can be active with others. Enjoy material comforts and style. Learn best through doing.

 

ESFP
Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy working with others to make things happen. Bring common sense and a realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt readily to new people and environments. Learn best by trying a new skill with other people.

 

ENFP
Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make connections between events and information very quickly, and confidently proceed based on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others, and readily give appreciation and support. Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability to improvise and their verbal fluency.

 

ENTP
Quick, ingenious, stimulating, alert, and outspoken. Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems. Adept at generating conceptual possibilities and then analyzing them strategically. Good at reading other people. Bored by routine, will seldom do the same thing the same way, apt to turn to one new interest after another.

 

ESTJ
Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact. Decisive, quickly move to implement decisions. Organize projects and people to get things done, focus on getting results in the most efficient way possible. Take care of routine details. Have a clear set of logical standards, systematically follow them and want others to also. Forceful in implementing their plans.

 

ESFJ
Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time. Loyal, follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day-by-day lives and try to provide it. Want to be appreciated for who they are and for what they contribute.

 

ENFJ
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.

 

ENTJ
Frank, decisive, assume leadership readily. Quickly see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies, develop and implement comprehensive systems to solve organizational problems. Enjoy long-term planning and goal setting. Usually well informed, well-read, enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it on to others. Forceful in presenting their ideas.

 

APPENDIX B

 

Supervisors are highly social and community-minded, with many rising to positions of responsibility in their school, church, industry, or civic groups. Supervisors are generous with their time and energy, and very often belong to a variety of service clubs, lodges, and associations, supporting them through steady attendance, but also taking an outspoken leadership role. Supervisors like to take charge of groups and are comfortable issuing orders. They are cooperative with their own superiors, and they would like cooperation from the people working under them. Rank, they believe, has its obligations, but it also has its privileges.

 

Comprising at least ten percent of the population, Supervisors enjoy and are good at making schedules, agendas, inventories, and so on, and they much prefer tried and true ways of doing things over speculation and experimentation. Supervisors keep their feet firmly on the ground and would like those under their supervision to do the same, whether employee, subordinate, spouse, or offspring. Supervisors have no problem evaluating others and tend to judge how a person is doing in terms of his or her compliance with, and respect for, schedules and procedures.

 

Supervisors are unbelievably hard-working. Even as children they are industrious, and they usually respect their parents as authority figures. In school Supervisors are often model students, dutifully following directions, doing all their homework, doing it thoroughly, and on time. Above all else, they wish to do what they are supposed to do, and they rarely question the teacher’s assignments, method of instruction, standards, or authority. And their industry and perseverance only become more important to them as they grow into adulthood and take on the responsibilities of job and family.

 

Supervisors approach human relations along traditional lines. Marriage and parenthood are sacred to them, and they tend to have a large circle of friends, with many friendships faithfully maintained over the years. Social gatherings and ceremonies have great meaning for them, and they look forward to holiday parties, club dances, weddings, class reunions, awards banquets, and the like. In social situations, Supervisors are friendly and talk easily with others. Though they can seem a bit formal in their manners, Supervisors are pretty easy to get to know. At ease in polite company, they tend not to confuse people by sending double messages or putting on airs-what they seem to be, they are.

 

Guardians® (SJs) are the cornerstone of society, for they are the temperament given to serving and preserving our most important social institutions. Guardians have natural talent in managing goods and services–from supervision to maintenance and supply — and they use all their skills to keep things running smoothly in their families, communities, schools, churches, hospitals, and businesses.

 

All Guardians share the following core characteristics:

 

• Guardians pride      themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.
• Guardians make      loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.
• Guardians tend      to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and      traditions.
• Guardians are      concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, seek security, prize      gratitude, and dream of meting out justice.

 

Guardians can have a lot of fun with their friends, but they are quite serious about their duties and responsibilities. Guardians take pride in being dependable and trustworthy; if there’s a job to be done, they can be counted on to put their shoulder to the wheel. Guardians also believe in law and order, and sometimes worry that respect for authority, even a fundamental sense of right and wrong, is being lost. Perhaps this is why Guardians honor customs and traditions so strongly — they are familiar patterns that help bring stability to our modern, fast-paced world.

Practical and down-to-earth, Guardians believe in following the rules and cooperating with others. They are not very comfortable winging it or blazing new trails; working steadily within the system is the Guardian way, for in the long run loyalty, discipline, and teamwork get the job done right. Guardians are meticulous about schedules and have a sharp eye for proper procedures. They are cautious about change, even though they know that change can be healthy for an institution. Better to go slowly, they say, and look before you leap.

Guardians make up as much as 40 to 45 percent of the population, and a good thing, because they usually end up doing all the indispensable but thankless jobs the rest of the population takes for granted.

 

 

---