Personality Type in Organisations

 Type, n. The general firm, structure or character distinguishing a particular kind, group or class of beings or objects. 

(The Compact Oxford English Dictionary p.786)

If a theory describes something people do anyway, then it's probably a good theory. (Attrib. Andrew Samuels,und. )

The broad idea of personality types dates back at least to Hippocrates, some 2500 years ago. More recently, in the earlier 20th Century, C.G. Jung identified many such approaches to personality when he introduced and later elaborated on his own theory of psychological types. Jung's contemporaries Kretschmer, Spranger and Sheldon were also major proponents of typologies in the 1920s and 1930s.

In the world of applied psychology, these ideas lost out to behaviourism and measurable traits, particularly with regard to psychological instruments. Only a trait interpretation of Jung's introversion and extraversion was considered measurable until Isabel Myers produced the Myers-Briggs Type Indicators. David Keirsey's Temperament theory, a social typology, has amalgamated all these views in recent times. Instrumentally, his view depends on the MBTI, notwithstanding that Keirsey himself questions the validity of all personality instruments

A brief clarification: Psychological instruments and personality theories are usefully divided into type and trait approaches. Type theories presume that people are born with an innate predisposition to prefer one approach to life over others. It's an inner drive which people can direct, especially once made more conscious and it's dynamic in terms of how it operates throughout life. We can choose whether to act according to our preferences, but our psychological health depends on being able to live in a way that supports and develops our core being.

A trait approach to personality implies that there are observable personal activities and attributes that can be measured in terms of amounts - how much of a particular attribute we have - as well as a trait norm against which we can be compared. Taxonomies of traits, rather than typologies, are provided by these methods. According to this view, the amount of a trait I have causes my behaviour, there's no personal choice in it. Trait theories don't presume a core personality, nor a developmental framework across the lifespan. Most management/leadership approaches follow this framework.

Should we be typing things? Current research into how human beings perceive things shows that we categorise naturally, in order to make sense of our world: e.g. left/right; up/down; masculine/feminine; Christian/Buddhist; suit/casual etc. But it also depends on how viable and meaningful the classification is. Empirical evidence is growing across many fields of enquiry, for the broad validity of Jung's typology. Its general utility is not seriously under question. Research into early childhood and the operations of the brain also gives broad support to Jung's ideas, albeit unwillingly or inadvertently in many cases.