MBTI^® and Type: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

OKA frequently receives questions about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^® (MBTI^®) assessment and type. How do I help a team with similar types experience all the preferences? How do I present the MBTI assessment to a virtual team? Here, we post our answers. Visit again for new additions, or post your own question at the base of the page.

I have an ethical question regarding the MBTI^®.  Is it unethical to administer the MBTI to an individual who self discloses that he/she is currently taking antidepressants or in therapy?

No—is the quick answer. The MBTI^® assessment is a self-assessment that allows folks to have some insight into their own preferred ways of gathering data and making decisions.  Depression (and medication for depression) will certainly affect the degree of engagement that someone has with the questions and with the self-exploration process, but there is nothing about this assessment that this condition renders inappropriate.  Also, there is nothing in the MBTI assessment that will cast a light on his/her depression.  It is not a diagnostic tool. That said, a good knowledge of self and this model would only help feed the therapeutic process that this person is already engaged in.

I had 5 participants take the assessment, but not attend my workshop.  The HR Director asked me for their reports.  I feel that I should send the reports directly to the participants.  Since they missed the workshop, I think that I need to ask the HR Director to  purchase workbooks for the 5,  and then I should email their reports directly to them.  Can you advise?

Your question is an important one and goes to a contracting question/agreement that should always be made with the client up front (before the work is done)—that is, what happens to the report forms for those who do not attend the feedback session?  Because face-to-face feedback and client access to you (the certified practitioner) are so important, it is the general ethical stance in the field that no one can get the report forms except for the individual clients themselves.

In other words, if a participant who has taken the assessment is not in attendance, one of the following two options will come about:  (1) He/she simply does not get the report form. (2) He/she must get some face to face feedback—in a make-up group session or one-on-one coaching session with you or some other trainer/coach certified to give MBTI^® feedback.  This should be discussed clearly up front and then written into whatever written agreement you have with the client.  Remember that you have already paid for the assessment (on-line or paper) and its scoring at presentation time—whether the client shows up or not. This should not be a cost you absorb.  I hope this helps you—it is a question that becomes very real when you start doing the work you are doing.

I’m developing a team type table. In a couple of the dichotomies, the team is very close to a tie. Should I apply the same tiebreaker rules to the team that apply for the individual (INFP-leaning)?

No, do not apply the same tie-breaking formula on a group that you do to an individual respondent with the MBTI^® assessment. The assessment, based on a theory that postulates hard-wired preferences, must sort everyone in an either/or manner, but groups are different.

Group theory asserts, and I certainly believe this and have seen it play out, that groups will have a group type (a composite set of preferences from its membership). When dichotomies are closely distributed or even tied, this means that the group will still have a preference emerge for each of the dichotomies. Which preference that will be is not clear from the numbers alone. In other words, a ten-person group with 5 Introverts and 5 Extraverts does not, on paper, reveal the likely values and norms that will develop (regarding air time usage, expression, social interaction, et cetera). I would mark down that the team is tied (E/I) on that dichotomy and be alert (having them also be alert) to what needs/behavioral tendencies tend to evolve from the group.

Recently, I was asked to administer the MBTI^® to a small team and to facilitate the feedback/team session virtually. Since virtual teams are becoming much more of a reality in the corporate world and travel budgets are getting strained, what are your thoughts about conducting virtual MBTI sessions?

Virtual sessions are becoming more and more a business reality we need to cope with, as well as a benefit in many ways. There are quite a few folks I’ve hooked into engaging with type who would not have come to the tool if the cost of forced engagement of a traditional class had been the only option. Here are some ideas to keep in mind when putting your virtual introduction together.

Remember that the goal of this training is the same as any introduction. You are trying to give the participants as much clarifying data as possible for them to be able to self-assess their type preferences and then validate their MBTI results once returned to them. All these steps are to lead to some action that will put the insights to work. These goals do not change in virtual training.

This means that whatever script and structure you have for traditional training, you can keep for this virtual process. Word lists, stories, examples, questions/answers, they can all work over the phone, or through online technologies such as chat features or breakout group boards (technology permitting).  As for experiential components, here are a few options:

• Rather than doing experiments for each dichotomy, pick one or two to do experiential work on, to minimize both repetition and added time pressures given the virtual environment.
• Depending on your technology options, experiential work can be done both as an introverted exercise (individuals taking their own notes locally during a few minutes of quiet time), or online, using chat features or electronic break-out sessions. (For example, separate chat boxes can be used to generate exercise input from two separate groups.)
• Once folks have the time to write their answers, you can either ask for a sampling of responses from participants on the call (if they have worked offline), or compare the data generated from the online tools (chat lists and breakout sessions). If you have reported type results, you can select, without disclosing why you are making the selections, people with clear or very clear preferences as a means of contrasting the data you are likely to get.
• You can also have slides that show the data that you have gotten from past training events displayed in either photographs or transcribed data.

You will need to decide how much time you will need to design for – attention spans online can be significantly lower than in a live environment. Make sure you take some kind of break after no more than 50 minutes. Keep your content sharp and focused, and build in time for questions and structured questions and discussion but the overall structure, flow and goals of the design are the same as traditional training.

Once you have had folks self-assess their preferences, I would then send each person his/her report electronically, and give some time to read about their results and begin the process of self-validation. A second (perhaps optional) session to follow up some time later to field questions about the report form or the validation process is a great way to follow-up.

I want to do exercises that help highlight the strengths and blind spots of different preferences, but I am worried about people taking it personally, or having things turn into personal attacks. How can I minimize the risk of that?

When I use type, I try to focus on preferences and behaviors, not the people themselves. For example, we tend to avoid the wording “What I like/dislike about people preferring…” Instead, we ask, “In what way does (preference) benefit the work of this team? What challenges does (preference) present to the work of this team?” This helps participants frame benefits and potential liabilities and then see the link between the two. I would like everyone to see that any preference can be beneficial AND when overdone or misapplied, can become hurtful or a hindrance. That is a discussion about choices, preferences and behaviors—not people.

What are the different options for administering the MBTI^® with a group? What are the advantages and downsides of each?

The MBTI^® assessment is a restricted psychological tool, so you need certification training to administer most forms of it with others. Once certified, you have lots of options for administration, both paper and computer-based. Open OKA’s MBTI^® Administration Fact Sheet for an overview of the most popular MBTI Form M administration methods, with their pros and cons.

I am encountering a similar situation in two separate teams: In each team, the leader shows very clear ISTJ behaviors, but reports ENTJ on the Indicator. Even when we discuss “best fit” type, they still think they are ENTJs. This is very confusing to their teams. Any suggestions in working with these leaders or teams?

Your question is great and complex. At what point does a manager/leader stop reflecting his/her own preferences and start exhibiting the organization’s qualities and expectations? It is very hard to say. All good NTs have a competency check-list against which excellence is measured. What happens when the NT competency check-list is populated with SJ (command, control, organize, etc.) behaviors or expectations? You can get an NT doing some SJ things. Also, when you have a senior leader around mid-life who is NT, you would expect his/her type development to be bringing about some more Sensing function into their behavior.

My course of action when I am in this position is to help the person validate a preference, and then let them know when they are acting outside of their preferences. If she/he is clearly an ENTJ, throw the question back on her/him as to (1) why are they so hooked into SJ behaviors and (2) grappling with the ramifications (confusion, for instance) of these mixed signals within the team. Type, in this instance, is NOT an answer to these questions. Type becomes the vocabulary through which leaders and teams talk about expectations, desires, preferences and goals.

I have a client who is specifically interested in measuring the benefits of type training. Any suggestions?

Great question! There are so many factors to effective behavior change, and good metrics around this issue are challenging to get. Here are some ways that we have addressed this need.

1. Action Plans – For metrics to take place the training must have ended with each participant writing an action plan. Action plans can be simple or complex (generally, I find the more simple they are, the more likely they are to be filled out and put to use). In essence a good action plan boils the training event’s content into a couple/few core learnings and allows the participant to put these learnings into action statements–commitments to apply these ideas at a specific time and with a specific person, within a specific context.
2. Action Plan Follow-up – If every participant, at the end of a training, makes a commitment to take certain actions, a great way to follow-up (and through this follow-up, documentation and verification of a long-term benefit from the training can be gleaned)would be to have someone check-in with each training participant between a week and two weeks from the training event to inquire about the action steps committed to, asking: “What were your action steps? Did you do them? If so, how did it go? If not, why not, and how can I support your doing it?” It is great if the leader of the group (the assumption is that she/he participated in the training event as well) does this follow-up personally. The leader gets to share her actions and the extent to which she has used the material from the training while also checking on the participant’s action steps. Participant goals can even be woven into annual evaluation criteria. This is a great way to keep training content alive within a group and boost the chances of long term behavior change. External trainers can also do this follow-up step; they have built-in authority with the participants having delivered the initial training event.
3. Participant Surveys – This is a questionnaire that asks the training participants their opinion of the training and its impact. Most training evaluations are submitted at the end of the session itself–at which time what is most evaluated is the engagement factor, entertainment value or level of interest held by the event or the trainer herself (or himself). A better approach to measure behavior change is to distribute the surveys at some future date, once the halo effect of the training event has faded. Participant surveys are easy and inexpensive.
4. Goal Setting – If you set out to do outcome-driven training, it is important first to establish the goals the training is to achieve. It is wise to make these goals narrow and specific. For instance, “improve communication among team members” is a bit too nebulous; whereas, “presenting and giving team members practice on using a personal feedback model” is specific and attainable. Make sure your goals are your client’s goals and that they are ones you feel confident to achieve.
5. Benchmarking – If a client is really after some hard metrics about improvement and change, it important to do measurement before the training–not just after. Craft questions that relate to the effectiveness of their current approach to teams, communication, conflict or whatever. Use these responses as a baseline. Using the same questions a week or two after the training–make sure you have participants engage in the action plan–survey the participants again to see the movement. It is wise to give the leader a role in disclosing her/his action steps, following up with the participants and/or doing something in the system to support the content and its adoption into the culture.

These are some general ideas on how to generate metrics and “proof” that this kind of personal development training really has a benefit. I hope they help you build and strengthen the relationships you have with this and all your clients.

There seem to be some discrepancies in the statistics as to the percent distribution of Extraverts and Introverts. Can you clarify what you believe the distribution is?

E/I is the dichotomy whose figures are in most dispute due to differing studies and projections over the years. Isabel Myers originally (based on her own research and projections) reported a 75% E and 25% I split in the population, later revised to a 70% E and 30% I split. Research done in the late 1990’s (now printed in the Manual) suggests a more even split (closer to 50%/50%), with I’s even being a slight majority. This was a radical shift from the former party-line of 70%/30%.

The issue with this statistic (for me) is the methodology that produced it. The process is one of collecting a random sample from the most recent census, randomly selected and dialed on the phone. Respondents who engage with the call, agree to participate in the study and turn their forms in on time become the US representative sample. In general, this is sound, but does the fact that this process yielded ISTJ as the nation’s modal type reflect truth or the fact that ISTJs were the one most likely to be home, answer the phone, responsibly participate in the study and dutifully turn the forms in on time. Type bias plays in there somewhere. OKA has most often split the difference in the E/I dichotomy and reported a 60%/40% split, trying to honor or at least acknowledge the different studies and opinions we have.

I often present MBTI overview workshops to small groups that are very type alike (little type diversity in group). Can you suggest how to illustrate the different types when the group is so alike?

When facilitating small groups with underrepresented preferences, I often take data in with me that the non-represented preference has generated (or would have generated). For instance, with an “All P” group, everyone could work together on a J/P task and then contrast what they do with J data you bring in from another group. If you do not have archived data, you can construct ahead of time the kind of data you are accustomed to seeing from Js when they have that assignment. That way, not only can the event still be experiential, but you’ll have the benefit of talking about the implications of that preference not being present. Also, don’t feel the need to do an exercise for each dichotomy. Espe

cially with so few folks, doing an activity for 2 of the 4 dichotomies would be plenty of activity and also help mask the group’s overwhelming similarities.

Can my MBTI type change with age? I’ve been told that type is hardwiring that does not change. Also, how might types change when people are going through life changing events? There seem to be contradicting view points.

According to theory, type – the hard-wired way we gather data and make decisions – does not change. Once an ESTJ, always an ESTJ. However, type development and behavior change readily and frequently -; including when one is facing a life change. Type development is how – and how well – we access each of our functions (S, N, T and F). Let’s take an ESTJ, for example. An ESTJ with good type development prefers S and T, and generally approaches the world with behaviors associated with these preferences. Good type development would allow this person to also use intuitive perceptions (N) and feeling judgments (F) when needed with an adequate degree of skill. This does not represent a change in Type, but merely a flexing outside of preference. This type development is natural, and while it can be worked on purposefully, it also happens without conscious deliberation.

In general, accessing the less-preferred functions is easier at age 60 than at age 40 – and easier at 40 than at age 20. Jobs, specific tasks or experiences, expectations, and other environmental issues can make anyone’s type development stronger and more successful or hindered. The summary statement is that Type is inborn and unchanging, but the experience of our preferences and the degree to which our Types are developed within us is very much dependent on our environment, which is always changing.

As people grow older and develop their non-preferred preferences – a natural result of type development – do they general report lower preference scores on the MBTI assessment? If I prefer S, but have been developing my non-preferred N, am I likely to report a lower preference score for S over time?

Let’s answer your question from a statistical point of view. In general, the older someone gets, the clearer their preferences becomes. This happens even while the person is developing the non-preferred functions. Older respondents do not tend toward the middle of the scale at or after mid-life. Development of a function–learning to use a new tool–does not mean my preference has changed; it only means that now that I am more developed, I have more tools to choose from if needed. I still prefer the ones I always have. This is the theory, and the numbers of the instrument support that idea.

I have been asked to conduct an MBTI workshop with a team that is geographically dispersed; do you have tips for conducting a debrief virtually?

These conditions are becoming more often the norm. Though not optimal, good trainers need to deliver the best service possible with the technology and logistical realities that clients have. Here are some ideas:

• You (the trainer) must know the clients’ results—even if those clients are dispersed around the globe. To do this, we recommend administering the on-line MBTI assessment through CPP’s SkillsOne program. If you have not set up an account, you can do so through CPP.
• If your clients can video conference, do so, and work to keep the groups relatively small. A ten to twelve person co-located group is rather small, but this many in a teleconferenced training session is quite large. It is worth the extra work to do more small trainings to compensate for the distance.
• The basic training design that you use with a co-located group is the same one that you use with a teleconferenced group. The big difference is that you can not have as many (or any) group exercises to explore or punctuate type with this format without excluding a lot of participants. You can have participants experience the preferences by giving an assignment (“describe time” or “define conflict and your reaction to it”, for instance) and having each participant reflect and write their answers down—giving the group a few minutes to do so. You can then show them content that the different preferences usually produce and have them decide which preference is more like them. This is simply an introverted way of doing experiential exercises.
• As for managing visuals, there are technological means by which you could have a presentation running that all participants can tie into. A lower tech -; yet effective – solution is to produce a handout packet (OKA has an Introduction Workbook for this) that covers the content in a logical flow. Mail these packets or workbooks ahead, so that each person can follow along with your presentation.
• Paginate all packets/workbooks well, and refer often to what page you are on. When you ask if there are any questions, ask people by name, and ask individuals to share their experiences and ideas as the discussion unfolds.
• When you finish the content and participants can predict their type preferences, then e-mail the participants an electronic file of their type profile. Take a break from the training and give the participants some time alone to review their report forms and to read and reflect upon their profiles. The group should convene again—once everyone gets, reads and has time to reflect upon their results—for a question/answer session and a next step and/or action planning summary.

Many times, clients that want us to conduct an MBTI workshop also want the reported types of the participants. I know it’s up to participants to disclose – but I need a good strategy for managing this. What do you suggest?

Many clients want to know the type preferences of their employees. If workshop participants know in advance that part of the workshop includes disclosure of their preferences, and they agree to that, then there is no problem. Most trainers, however, do not take the time up front to ask the question, or they do not ask it a way that allows a participant to confidentially–and without repercussion–decline participation. This is why tight and effective contracting with the MBTI assessment is vital to your success. Discuss with the client up front who will get the information. Here are some of the reasons that forced disclosure is a bad idea:

• People could blame type disclosure on firing, demotion, bad treatment, et cetera and bring a law suit. Type discrimination suits are not uncommon. Though these cases are hard to win, it is a hassle and risk that most businesses do not want to mess with.
• The results of the indicator are reported type, and what you most want people to disclose and use with each other is validated type, which may very well be different.
• Validated type–while easy and quick for many people to identify–will take others a long time to determine. Jung thought strongly that knowing your type resulted from a prolonged period of reflection.
• The primary benefit of the MBTI assessment is self-awareness for better self-management. Self-awareness and self-management training is wonderful and actionable. Getting into trying to manipulate others by knowing their preferences is dangerous and unwieldy. If trying to track the usefulness of training interventions (return on investment), you will have a far easier time tracking your success with type training if the focus is self.

Client concerns may indicate that a bigger issue exists in that system. If clients are pushing you to know peoples’ types, there may be some issue or problem that needs to be solved–communication, feedback, conflict, trust, team cohesion, et cetera. The MBTI can address–or contribute to the solution to–all of these issues, but simply knowing the type preferences of folks involved will not do anything to solve the problems.

I work in a police department, and recently introduced psychological type into our training program. Our idea was if we knew the trainee’s learning styles, we could tailor teaching styles on the program to get people through.

Unfortunately, despite our efforts, we continue to have a high failure rate with NF’s and NT’s. Most of the failed trainees had trouble taking charge, multitasking in the moment, learning not to trust suspects, and remembering statutes. We have used type to better reveal these Achilles’ heels and identify mitigation steps, with little success. The police job clearly requires strong STJ characteristics -; we need more NF’s and NT’s in the department, but struggle to get them through.

I understand your dilemma, but disagree with your conclusions a bit. You seem to believe that your MBTI experiment has not been successful because it failed to help you keep more NF’s and NT’s in the department. I would suggest that your findings show that your using type to help in the education of the trainees is quite successful. It has given you new insights about your trainees that help in communicating effectively, and where there are type biases in your structure and process, type will help you define and address them.

I would question the need to typologically diversify the student body. While awareness and tolerance of all styles is vital (for they comprise the audience you serve), the department need not be comprised of all these styles. You are talking about a high-stress job with well defined, exacting and critical job expectations and parameters. One of the most important elements of basic training is to simulate work conditions so that failure–where it is to occur–happens before students are on the job. If you think great potential employees are getting weeded out by a type-biased program, you have a problem. Rather, it sounds like your program is consistently weeding out people who struggle with a number of the core requirements of the job; they all happen to be Intuitive. If that is true, you don’t have a problem. Instead, you have – in type – a great tool to help put these “failures” in perspective and frame them as type preference discussions that can far better support the individual’s career development and long-term understanding and happiness.