How Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Impacts Leadership - Case Study Example

How MBTI Impacts Leadership Name Course Institution Abstract The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality inventory used to clear up the complexity in the psychological theories related to the influence of judgement and perception on the behaviors seen among people. It was formulated by Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Meyers. Katharine Briggs was intrigued and inspired upon her contact with the work of Carl L. Jung in the book, Psychological Type. An example to the use of the MBTI and its development shows the different angles through which the subject undergoes observation. The MBTI instrument stands out among all other psychological personality instruments and tests because it sorts out preferences and is not used for the measurement of traits. It is also not used for the measurement of character and abilities. The MBTI is often used alongside other personality tests such as the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) instrument. Further research shows the importance of the use if the MBTI in the evaluation of the best candidates for project leadership and management. The results can be utilized by the people hiring the project managers or existing project managers to highlight the areas that need change, training, and development[Dea07]. There is the critique on its reliability where Pittenger explains that the instrument is not consistent. Pittenger (1993) also criticizes its viability where he states that the process of measuring does not take into account the gender, racial, and cultural factors that affect the expression of people in their academics and decisions. The use of the MBTI reveals the traits of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as different but successful. The findings settle on the ENTJ type for Steve Jobs. Jobs consistently sought to produce external results. Gates is an INTJ as presented by the MTPI results. That indicates that similarity in leadership styles is not what causes success but the implementation methods and maximizing the strong traits of leaders. Introduction The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a personality inventory used to clear up the complexity in the psychological theories related to the influence of judgement and perception on the behaviors seen among people. The indicator describes perception as the different methods applicable to an individual to gain awareness of individuals, things, ideas, and events. Judgement is the process and decision made about things, people, or events about the perceived information. The fact that people are different in how they perceive and judge things, it is only natural for them to have different perceptions, values, preferences, skills, and motivations. The MBTI is an instrument that was formulated by Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Meyers. Katharine Briggs was intrigued and inspired upon her contact with the work of Carl L. Jung in the book, Psychological Type. After the development of the tool, the Education Test Service (ETS) began the distribution of the same for research to determine its reliability. The link between job performance and the personality of a person was also theoretically mentioned in the book. The purpose of the formulation of the instrument was to increase the accessibility and improve the understanding of the theory of types to groups and individuals. The instrument is the typical implementation of the Psychological Types Theory by Jung[Gey10]. There were two main goals onto which they focused while formulating the instrument. The first was to identify the basic points carried in each of the dichotomies of the theory of Jung. The theory consisted of four dichotomies. The other goal was related to the sixteen types of personalities that develop from the interactions between the preferences of a person. The goal was to explicitly and identify all the preferences as intended by Jung. Carl G. Jung introduced the Psychological Type Theory in the 1920s. The MBTI, however, was not developed until the 1940s when Isabel Briggs Meyers developed an interest in it. Original detailed research of the tool occurred in the 1940s and 1950s. The research continues up to date while the application of the instruments continues to gain popularity in the measurement of personality types[The173]. An example to the use of the MBTI and its development shows the different angles through which the subject undergoes observation. For instance, there is the element of the ‘Favorite World.’ It is concerned with how the person prefers to see the world. Does the person prefer to lay his focus on their personal inner world or the physical outer world? It determines the nature of the person by the determination of their Introversion (I) or Extraversion (E). The other is based on ‘Information.’ It checks to know the preference of a person in the way they take in information. Whether the person takes information as it is presented-in its most basic form, or whether the person prefers to add meaning onto the information that is presented to her. It refers to Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)[Isa98]. The MBTI also leans onto how the person takes and makes ‘Decisions.’ For instance, does the decision-making process of a person lean towards the preference of the consideration of the logical and consistent information available, or does she look into the circumstances of the people involved and the people? This is referred to as Thinking (T) or Feeling (F). The other guide related to ‘Structure.’ Structure focuses on the preference of a person to either decide on things or to be flexible and open to any upcoming options and information. This refers to Judging (J) and Perceiving (P). Finally, the instrument finishes off with the determination of the ‘Personality Type’ of the person taking the test. One arrives at the decision on their personality type after the determination of their preferences on each of the categories presented to them. The personality type is presented in the form of four letters, each of which represents the preference of the individual in each of the categories. The combinations lead to sixteen personality types. MBTI results reveal that 85.5 percent of people in executive positions almost equally combine their preference for thinking and judging[Ric13]. The MBTI instrument stands out among all other psychological personality instruments and tests because it sorts out preferences and is not used for the measurement of traits. It is also not used for the measurement of character and abilities. It is viable and reliable in the measurement of personality types because more than forty years of study render it valid and dependable. A lot of research has been done based on the instrument, including the comparison and determination of the impact of culture and values on the personalities of people[Cha10]. Literature Review and Critique The MBTI is used widely in schools, the work place, counselling departments, and even dating sites to try and match people with people, jobs, and career paths that are best compatible with them. It is used in psychometric tests by certified counsellors and psychologists. Research by Pittenger shows that the MBTI focuses on the bi-modality of psychological types[Dav05]. The Trait theory describes the existence of personality differences on continuous variables. That means that people experience a mix of features which are then summed up together to determine their personality. Research describes that traits refer to the distinguished characteristics of a person that cause them to react to things and situations in certain ways. The MBTI makes it easy to arrive at the personality types of the people by the use of the tool. The test helps people recognize and appreciate the different personalities that there are[Ric13]. Aranda & Tilton (2013) also hails the use of the MBTI in the success of physicians in positions of leadership away from clinical0related careers. It makes it possible to analyze the reasons behind the success or failure of some clinicians found in non-clinical jobs and positions of leadership. Their traits are influenced by their prior careers where they learn to take charge in the healthcare setting. MBTI results reveal that 85.5 percent of people in executive positions almost equally combine their preference for thinking and judging. The research shows the various uses for the MBTI such as the recognition of possible areas of improvement for the positions that the people hold at the work place or other areas. As mentioned, the environments mold the trait personality of a person. It is for that reason that people from a certain field such as healthcare (physicians) and onto a different setting with a position of leadership can manage to see what traits are dominantly associated with their previous careers and the required adaptations in their current jobs[Ric13]. Further research shows the importance of the use if the MBTI in the evaluation of the best candidates for project leadership and management. Such determination is not too complex because such roles require certain traits among the individuals considered for the same. They look at the traits, characteristics, and the level of the competence of the involved party. There is also the consideration of the attribute of the person. The PMCD framework, for instance, looks as three primary areas in the determination of the competency of individuals. They include the knowledge of the person in relation to project management, their performance as they apply their knowledge, and their personal traits. The use of the MBTI helps in comparing the presented traits with the competency list which enhances the accuracy of the selection of appropriate project managers. The results can be used by the people hiring the project managers or existing project managers to highlight the areas that need change, training, and development[Dea07]. The MBTI is often used alongside other personality tests such as the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) instrument. The LPI helps in the determination of the compatibility of the skills and personality of a person with their leadership roles. People can get the leadership competencies among themselves using the LPI. There is focus on thirty behaviors of leadership as selected from each of the five categories. Six are selected from each category. There is the combination of the results of the scores submitted by the individual and those submitted by the observer after which the average is used to classify such a person. The use of the MBTI in conjunction with the LPI helps increase the emotional intelligence and personal awareness among individuals. The research even puts the LPI and the MBTI into a comparison where it is evident that the MBTI is a self-assessment tool whereas the LPI measures all the way round by including the participant and an observer. Further research shows the usefulness of the use of the MTBI in the identification of leadership traits and the most effective placement of individuals in the leadership positions by the orderly classification of their traits. That is especially possible and essential because the desirable leadership traits are mostly distinct and precise. For instance, the facilitation of information exchange, analysis, and evaluation which include discrete communications and the evaluation of consequences and logical elaborations and calculations are some of the task-related leadership functional characteristics. There are also socio-emotional behaviors that involve motivation, handling conflict, the fulfillment of non-task needs, and the development of positive atmospheres among groups, among other traits[Rob77]. Further research shows and details the impact of personality on the determination of the extent of decision-making, taking the initiative, and even solving problems. This research combined various measurement strategies, including the MTBI for the analysis of the personalities of the participants[And03]. The widespread use of the MBTI is further accentuated by its use by large international groups and bodies such as the air force group of the United States. One case study considered the use of the MBTI for the determination of the ease of collaborative efforts and execution of important tasks in the implementation of the protection of the US national security. The findings suggested the existence of many similarities among enlisted personnel. The same applied to the leaders. The two groups also showed significant differences in their traits and overall personalities[MSc10]. Some of the significant traits included the preference to work alone in silence without letting go of the essential skills of problem-solving and decision-making among the enlisted members and the officers. Their features of judging and perception were also different where more judgmental traits were seen among the officers that in the enlisted members. Various other tests revealed many similarities between the officers and the enlisted members as well. The study even included the detailed analysis of the traits by associating them with the left and right hemispheres of the brain for more comprehensive results. The most sought leadership trait is the ability to pass on influence to other people. Unlike management, leadership is not entirely dependent on training and education. The personality traits of leaders influence their success as leaders. There are various circumstances that challenge the leadership styles of various leaders where the circumstances require modifications and focus on certain weak areas of leadership. That was the case with Pearl Young who realized that virtual teams require different leadership approaches as opposed to physically available teams. It was for that reason that she took up the initiative to the MTBI for self-understanding and the subsequent self-improvement and personal development. There is the realization that despite the similarity of virtual and physical teams, the virtual teams experience challenges in effective communication and the interpretation of information and gestures. The test results I the realization of the importance to modify her communication and monitoring styles as people prefer different levels of freedom in the execution of their tasks[Pea01]. A critique by Pittenger (1993) described the inadequacy of the MBTI in the measurement of the information it should measure. Despite the prevalent use of the MBTI, Pittenger argues that there are many gaps in the determination of its reliability in the measurement of the personality a person and those of others. The testing of the tool by the ETS in 1957 ended with the ETS finding the instrument unsatisfactory upon numerous research and internal reviews. However, the Consulting Psychologists Press requested to have access to the tool and provided extensive marketing that made it widespread and popular. It is now available to many, including the licensed psychologists and counsellors. There is the critique on its reliability where Pittenger explains that the instrument is not consistent. Personality is something that remains consistent over a period with only rare cases of extreme changes, or slight changes among the majority. However, results collected using the MBTI show sharply contrasting variations within periods as short as five weeks. It also criticizes the classification of the personality types into a rigid dichotomy through the four main groups. Peternsen (2006) also points out the issue of the distinct separation of the various categories such as the SN and TF categories which are considered to be independent of each other without proof. Pittenger (1993) also criticizes its viability where he states that the process of measuring does not take into account the gender, racial, and cultural factors that affect the expression of people in their academics and decisions. Research also claims that it only measures book intelligence and ignores common sense. A factor analysis of the MBTI also shows considerable measurement error margins. According to this research, it seems that the MBTI does not conform to many of the standards of the psychological test. This is further linked to its rejection by the ETL in 1975 concerning the difficulty experienced in the determination of its reliability and validity. Some critiques even attribute its popularity to the marketing strategies applied in popularizing it and the body behind the marketing. Case Studies The following are the case studies of two prominent and successful leaders as is evident in their success. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are leaders that experienced all the challenges that leaders could face when starting their risky ventures and sustain them altogether. Bill Gates, for instance, had a persistent and stubborn personality that pushed him to pursue that which he believed in despite the threat to get discontinued from the university which happened eventually anyway. Steve Jobs, on the other hand, experienced all forms of opposition and obstacles in his startups and innovations to the point where he was thrown out of a company he had founded from his ‘irrational decision-making' which was believed to be a threat to the company. The same risk-taking attitude led him to his great success with Apple products. I. Steve Jobs The findings settle on the ENTJ type for Steve Jobs. Jobs consistently sought to produce external results. His auxiliary and primary functions had experienced optimal development, the Te/ Ni, which is the reason behind the global success of Apple. Despite the perception of the majority, Jobs held onto the engineering activity of Woz. The extent of the immaturity of the Fi of Jobs was the reason for his weaknesses where he did not hide his frustrations and reacted on the same upon those that were unlucky. As a perfectionist and aggressive visionary, the employees of Apple Inc. occasionally experienced unethical demands where they came to work overtime and on weekends for the sake of meeting deadlines. He believed in bending reality if need be. Jobs ignored the feelings of those around him but had all the time to listen to ideas. The strong work ethic and transmission of insight to the employees are some of the traits that made Jobs the successful leader he was[Wal12]. According to documented research, Jobs often screamed at the employees and even fired those that were unlucky. The sense of self-confidence and decision-making skills were exclusive as seen in the reaction to the situations that threatened the Apple Inc., the company for which Jobs is most famous. It is for that reason that the managerial skills of Jobs remained exquisite. Jobs had exceptional controlling power that made it possible for Jobs to make and re-make it significant even after being thrown out of previous partnerships that he had previously founded and the decline of the sales of Apple Inc. He managed to make a dysfunctional team regain discipline and ensure the completion of tasks on time and efficiently despite his demanding schedule. Steve Jobs Bill Gates Favorite World: Introversion (I) or Extraversion (E) Extraversion -E Introversion -I Information: Sensing (S) or Intuition (N) Intuition -N Intuition -N Decisions: Thinking (T) or Feeling (F) Thinking -T Thinking -T Structure: Judging (J) and Perceiving (P) Judging -J Perceiving -P II. Bill Gates Gates is an INTJ as presented by the MTPI results. According to the video and further secondary research, Bill Gates is introverted but decisive. He admits to having tried to turn Microsoft into a monopoly. Gates had enough boldness to make critical decisions along the way, most of which were clearly thought of, thus the level of surety in himself and the minimization of the main business mistakes. I initially classified him into an INTJ because of his significant success in the creation of a major multi-billion company. However, further research only reveals him as an INTP. His physical appearance on the video found on the webpage and the nature of his relaxed posture is different from that of Steve Jobs who sits upright and seems uptight by the sight of it. The way that Gates first looks into the distance before responding to questions as in 10:18 shows the Ne side of him. According to further research, Gates was deviant and focused n what he believed to be hot path despite the consequences. He even got suspended from the university for knowingly breaking the rules with experiments that he believed in. Despite the magnitude of the dismissal as many would view it, Gates was unperturbed and focused on the research all the more. Methodology This article is organized into four research parts. The first is the abstract, followed by a detailed introduction, then a literature review. The fourth consists of the case studies. The introduction gives a detailed overview of details of the MBTI whereas the literature review condenses the ideas of research from academic journals and scholarly works in relation to the MBTI, its use, its relevance, and the related criticisms. It is followed by the case studies of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The case studies also include an analysis of the leadership styles, the differences and similarities, and the main reasons behind their success as revealed by the type test using the MBTI instrument. There is the additional use of observation using a video of the two legendary leaders when seated together and others of each in their setting. The physical presentation of each is a great determiner of their personalities. For instance, Jobs is the more uptight leader as seen in his sitting posture whereas Gates is the relaxed type that gets things done without the extra pressure and harshness shown in the leadership style of Jobs. The methodology applied in the determination of the kind personality of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs begins with the prior research of the two in different settings. There is the consideration of making similar decisions or making decisions under similar circumstances where the preferences of each are taken into consideration in the classification of either into the MBTI groupings. The opinions are gathered from various interviews with the press and publications in relation to the decisions made in certain circumstances at certain times. The same approach is applied for both where the most similar situations are considered to ensure that the classifications are fair and as accurate as possible. After that, there is the preparation of the MBTI classification groups in tables for the easy addition of the various traits collected from the different sources of information. It is impossible t reach Steve Jobs directly because he passed on, and it was also difficult to directly contact Gates because of his busy and closely monitored schedule. It is for that reason that all the information is collected from the most reliable secondary sources. There is the additional consideration of the opinion of the employees of each. This relates to the way that each related to the employees and the extent of collaboration shown by the employees and colleagues. The information is gathered from review websites where the comments people that work for Microsoft are viewable and verifiable. In addition to that, the various major decisions made in relation to the employees of both Jobs and Gates while under pressure are reviewed. Their relationship with the employees and colleagues ate also studied through watching videos and literature reviews to ensure that there is accuracy in the reading of their emotions and gestures in their expressions. Such accentuate the real personality of a person as opposed to mere words. The opinions of people that directly interacted/ interact with Jobs and Gated are also gathered from surveys sent out to the responsible parties. The surveys focus on the leadership styles and temperaments of the two. They also concentrate on the empathy of the two personalities and the influence of such traits on their decision-making strategies. After that collection of the varying information and the subsequent grouping of the information in the four MBTI categories, there is the final division of the traits into the specific traits. It is through the final classification that Jobs is classified as an ENTJ and Gates as an INTP. Narrowing down from a broad spectrum of information requires a lot of focus and concentration for the accurate determination of where certain information falls. Data Analysis Gates and Jobs exhibit different leadership styles and personality types, yet both succeed in the business and innovation world. There are differences in their personality traits as seen in the way they deal with different situations and pressures. The differences are also evident in the physical postures of both. Each runs his company in a different way, but both equally achieve success. Their personalities cause differences in the nature of their relationships and the work environments where Jobs is known to have been loud and sometimes heartless whereas Gates is a little laidback and introverted. They are only similar in their preference for thinking and intuition in the MBTI tests. For instance, there is the consideration of the actions taken by Steve Jobs in all his previous companies, including the fallouts experienced with the boards of directors on occasion. In addition to that, there is the consideration of the individual reactions of Jobs during times of crisis or instances when the company experiences undeniable losses. His mode of operation when under the pressure of strict deadlines and the methods used in the motivation of his staff to work harder and faster also determine his classification where Jobs falls into the Thinking (T) and Judging (J). Gates applies a more participative style of leadership where he puts faith in the input of all his employees for the collective success of Microsoft. Jobs, on the other hand, did not understand the concept of collective functioning as a team with his employees. He was an autocrat and wants things done his way or nothing. The enthusiasm and hardworking attitudes of Bill Gates are undeniably visible as seen in the circumstances that surround his start up and the continuity of the discovery. His dictatorship makes the work environment difficult for those with who Jobs worked. However, the same trait pushes for the success of Apple despite the opposing market forces. Jobs can be considered as an extreme risk-taker as most of his innovations are riskier than they are safe. He makes made significant mistakes but was known to learn from them and grow. The combination of a risk-taker and dictator is possible the secret behind his success because of the compensatory nature of the two. Jobs once said, “People only know what they want when it is shown to them.” Jobs was more of a motivational speaker, and his talent-identification techniques were successful yet different from those of Gates, the leader that was better at teamwork. The research collected shows that although Jobs and Gates are successful, Gates is not as creative as Jobs. Jobs pushed for his ideas which come up frequently. On the contrary, Gates takes into consideration the advice offered by those that surround him in his business place and molds them into game changers in the technology of today. He is a genius from that and his creation of the microchip. Conclusion The leadership styles of Jobs and Gates are completely different but equally successful and innovative. Whereas Gates follows the leader-follower model of leadership, Jobs is on the leadership path completely. Despite their differences, they exhibited high levels of dedication to their ideas and research, passion for their work, and perseverance in times of crisis, the most important trait of leadership[Alb141]. Both experienced challenges throughout the process of running their businesses but neither quit. Both understood what needed to happen and had the bigger picture in mind even as they implemented the smaller tasks. Most leaders today lack the bigger picture of the direction of other companies and what they hope to achieve at the end of it all. The MBTI instrument helps understand the two legendary leaders responsible for some of the most useful technologies in the world. It is evident that the MBTI is useful in the determination of the position of a leader in relation to their preferences about different issues. The tool can be used to classify leadership, identify areas that require improvement, and determine the best roles for various employees. References Dea07: , (Gehring, 2007), Gey10: , (Geyer, 2010), The173: , (The Myers and Brigggs Foundation, 2017), Isa98: , (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), Ric13: , (Aranda & Tilton, 2013), Cha10: , (Craig, Francis, & Barwick, 2010), Dav05: , (Pittenger, Cautionary Comments Regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 2005), Rob77: , (Lord, 1977), And03: , (Thatcher & Cour, 2003), MSc10: , (Devlin & Singh, 2010), Pea01: , (Young, 2001), Wal12: , (Isaacson, 2012), Alb141: , (Silva, 2014), Jos15: , (Haynam, 2015), Appendices Fig 1: The different Personality Groups-Interactive Table [Jos15] Read More