Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: a literature review and research agenda

Journal of Management, Spring, 1996 by William L. Gardner, Mark J. Martinko

More than five decades ago, Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers began work on an instrument to operationalize Jung's (1921/1971) theory of psychological types. Today, over three million people a year (Center for Applications of Psychological Type, CAPT, 1992a) complete the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Major corporations administer nearly 40 percent of these instruments for applied purposes such as team building and management development (Moore, 1987). Paralleling these applications has been an increase in research relating psychological type to managerial behaviors such as decision making (Nutt, 1986a, 1989, 1990), conflict management (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975; Mills, Robey & Smith, 1985) and leadership (Roush & Atwater, 1991). Evidence of relationships between psychological types and organizational roles (Steckroth, Slocum & Sims, 1980), information systems (Davis & Elnicki, 1984) and managerial effectiveness (Gardner & Martinko, 1990) is also available. Accompanying this increased attention, however, have been legitimate concerns about the conceptual foundations and psychometric properties of the MBTI, as well as the rigor of much of the research which employs it (Cowan, 1989; DeVito, 1985; Garden, 1991; Hicks, 1984, 1985; McCrae & Costa, 1989; Schweiger, 1985; Sipps & Alexander, 1987; Sipps, Alexander & Friedt, 1985; Sipps & DiCaudo, 1988; Tzeng, Outcalt, Boyer, Ware & Landis, 1984; Tzeng, Ware & Chen, 1989).

Given the increased usage of the MBTI by researchers and practitioners, as well as concerns about the indicator and associated theory and research, this paper asks: "To what extent is the MBTI a reliable and valid instrument for studying the relationships among managerial personalities, cognitions, behaviors, effectiveness and situational variables?" The reasons for asking this question are threefold. First, as management research using the MBTI expands, the need to assess its utility for these purposes likewise increases. Second, an assessment of the rigor of management type research is required to ascertain the validity of the results. Third, a critical review is needed to explicate the implications of these results for management theory and practice, as well as avenues for future research. Thus, addressing this question will help clarify whether enthusiasm or skepticism about the MBTI is more warranted.

Theoretical Background

Psychological type theory proposes that people have preferred modes of perception (sensing [S]/intuition [N]) and judgement (thinking [T]/feeling [F]), as well as "attitudes" which reflect their orientation of energy (extraversion [E]/introversion[I]) and their orientation toward the outer world (judging [J]/perceiving[P]). These four sets of preferences combine to form 16 distinct personality types. An understanding of type preferences and their interactions serves as the core of "type theory." Table 1 summarizes the focus, preferences, and potential strengths and weaknesses of alternative types (Barr & Barr, 1989; Myers & Myers, 1980). While a complete description of these dimensions and the 16 combinations is beyond this paper's scope, Jung (1921/1971), Myers and Myers (1980), and Myers and McCaulley (1985) provide the necessary background.

Jung also asserted that people develop a dominant function and an auxiliary function for balance. To determine if the judging or perceiving function is extraverted and/or dominant, Myers' added the JP scale. She reasoned that since Es focus outwardly, the JP preference directly indicates their dominant function. Conversely, the dominant function for Is is their preferred mode for dealing with their inner world. Because the JP scale reflects their extraverted function, the relevant dimension is the opposite of their JP preference. For example, feeling is dominant for INFPs and intuition is auxiliary (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Psychometric Properties of the MBTI

The available MBTI Forms include Forms F, G, G - Self-scorable, J and K. Form G is now the standard instrument. The 50 item "Abbreviated Form" [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] (Form AV) was discontinued due to reliability and validity problems. Every form produces preference scores for the four dichotomous scales. Continuous scores can also be computed using the formula provided in the MBTI Manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Reliability

The available evidence (see Table 2) suggests that the "estimated reliabilities of type categories appear to be satisfactory in most cases" (Carlyn, 1977, p. 465). The split-half reliabilities of continuous scores for numerous samples repeatedly exceed .75 for each scale (Carlyn, 1977; Carlson, 1985; Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Test-retest reliabilities for continuous scores usually exceed .70 and often surpass .80. However, dichotomous type scores yield lower reliabilities. McCarley and Carskadon (1983) found that only 47 percent of their subjects scored the same on all four scales after five weeks. Since the chance probability of choosing all four preferences on a retest is only 6.25 percent and the percentage of preferences that remained unchanged on three scales exceeded 80, MBTI type scores appear to be relatively stable. Still, continuous scores are more reliable than type categories, and hence better suited for research.