Personality Type in Organisations

When people talk about personality typing, in particular in organisations, it's invariably Isabel Myers' development of Jung's work or an adaptation. In instrument terms, it's either the MBTI or Keirsey's unvalidated Temperament Sorter, and latterly Saunders & Johnson's controversial Personality Profile.

If I complete a type instrument, is the result really me? That has something to do with the instrument's reliability and validity. Excepting the Temperament Sorter, type instruments as defined here have high levels of reliability and validity, unless you don't like type theories.

Knowing who you are is another factor. The purpose of the MBTI, for example, is to sort you into a category (type) to which you, in theory, already belong. You are largely the judge of that, so type validation is related to your own self awareness. If you complete such an instrument according to how you are at work, or under stress, rather than from your normal approach to life, then you may not get a result that reflects your type preferences.

Type theory says that there are also no pure or perfect types, as well as much variety within each type. This is because oft he uniqueness of individuals per se as well as environmental and cultural experience. Types are caused and developed by the use of preferences (a nature and nurture perspective), so they are contingent on our experience, our gender, our culture and social background. This means that type preferences will look different while the underlying process is the same.

Type is also not skill, even though there is a presumption that you've been able to develop some skills around your preferences. However, since there are thousands of possible skills, because of your environment you may not have skills in particular areas that others of your type share.

What difference will all this stuff about difference really make? Well, it's unlikely to work in a workplace where uniformity is required, or where levels of mutual trust are low. Understanding and appreciating difference is probably essential for a well-functioning democracy. Most workplaces, quite clearly, aren't like that; even in so-called flatter structures, there is an hierarchy of power, visible or invisible. In addition the completion of personality instruments is, initially at least, the organisation's choice, not the individual's.

Even in such circumstances, knowing about people's preferences and understanding them better can assist developing a healthy and co-operative organisation, minimising conflict, stress and illness by understanding the best in people. Certainly strategic planning and developing the skills and knowledge of staff are greatly assisted by awareness of typologically-based difference.