THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR:

EVIDENCE OF ITS VALIDITY, RELIABILITY AND NORMATIVE

CHARACTERISTICS FOR MANAGERS IN AN AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT

DAVID LAMOND

Macquarie Graduate School of Management

Macquarie University

NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA

Telephone: +61 2 9850 8984

Fax: +61 2 9850 9033

email: david.lamond@mq.edu.au
 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:
Evidence Of Its Validity, Reliability And Normative Characteristics For Managers In An
Australian Context

ABSTRACT

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is widely used as a selection and training and

development tool in Australian organisations. While a great deal of accessible information for

the American samples on which it was developed is available, to date, there has been little in

the way of published data to guide its use in an Australian context. The purpose of this paper

is to review the available literature concerning the reliability and validity of the MBTI and to

present the results of the administration of the instrument to a group of 523 Australian

managers, as a basis for establishing an appropriate set of relevant norms. The results indicate

that the MBTI is a valid and reliable instrument in an Australian organisational context. At

the same time, it is argued that, while the MBTI is a valid and reliable instrument for this

group, its use should continue to be carefully circumscribed, especially in the absence of

demonstrable links between personality type and managerial behaviour.

 INTRODUCTION

Psychologists and academics have advocated the use of personality measures as part of the

decision-making battery for managerial selection for many decades (Dissanayake 1993:9).

However, psychological tests (cognitive and personality tests) were, until recent times, used

only irregularly (Thomas 1993:96). In Britain during the 1980s, for example, personality tests

were only used by a third of companies, and in those companies which did use them, 70% did

so in less than half their selection processes (Robertson and Makin, 1986:47). Similar

patterns appeared in Australia (Patrickson and Haydon, 1988; Vaughn and Maclean, 1990)

and in the South-East Asian republic of Singapore (Chew and Yeo, 1991).

Coincidentally, this sporadic use of personality tests reflects the doubts of Guion’s and

Gottier’s (1965:160) conclusion that “it is difficult in the face of this summary to advocate,

with a clear conscience, the use of personality measures in most situations as a basis for

making employment decisions”. Criticism about the use of personality measures as part of

the personnel selection process has continued since that time (see, for example, Fletcher,

Blinkhorn, and Johnson, 1991; Guion, 1991; Spillane, 1994), and writers continue to urge

caution in the use of personality measures for personnel selection (for example, Macy, 1994).

Indeed, the search for personality correlates and determinants of occupational behaviour has

been described as akin to the search for the Holy Grail - it has been long standing, replete with

myths and legends and, to date, largely unsuccessful (Furnham and Stringfield, 1993:827-

828). Nonetheless, researchers and practitioners continue to try to identify these relationships

and, in more recent times, this pessimism has been tempered considerably (see, for example,

Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).

In regard to explaining and predicting managerial behaviour, the two main sets of personality

measures in use are those that measure the “Big Five” factors of personality (cf Barrick and

1
Mount, 1991) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers and McCaulley, 1985).

These two approaches represent fundamentally different philosophies about personality, the

former firmly rooted in a trait-based pedigree (Digman, 1990; Costa and McCrae, 1993) and

the latter a type-based product of analytical psychology, informed by the work of Carl Jung

(1971). The trait or dimensional approach relies on correlational techniques to uncover linear

relationships between behaviours across a population, and so reveal the sources of behaviour.

The typological approach, on the other hand, seeks patterns of similarity/dissimilarity of

behaviours among a population and, by one of a number of cluster-analytic methods, to reveal

homogeneous groups of people (Bolz, 1977:270).

While the MBTI is widely used in Australia, there is little in the way of validity, reliability

and normative data to inform its use with managers in an Australian context. The purpose of

this paper is to present the results of a study that included the administration of the MBTI to a

sample of more than 500 Australian managers. The results provide evidence of the validity

and reliability of the MBTI for this group, but also point to differences in the distribution of

type amongst Australian managers when compared to managers in the US and UK. The paper

begins by describing the MBTI and the current literature on its reliability and validity. The

methodology for the current study is then explained, with emphasis given to presenting details

about the sample so that the reader is able to draw independent conclusions about the veracity

of the resultant normative information. The implications of the results for the use of the

MBTI in Australian organisations are then considered.

THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a paper-and-pencil, self-report questionnaire,

which is used to measure Jung’s psychological types (Myers, 1962; Myers and McCaulley,

1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk and Hammer, 1998). The MBTI was developed initially in

2
the late 1940s, as a way of operationalizing that part of Jung's overall theory which is

specifically concerned with the systematic differences in the way individuals consciously

prefer to use their perception and judgement, and the corresponding differences in their

interests, reactions, values motivations, and skills (Myers, et al, 1998:3). There are 16

possible types, derived from measures of four dichotomies: Extraversion (E) - Introversion

(I); Sensing (S) - Intuition (N); Thinking (T) - Feeling (F); and Judgement (J) - Perception (P).

The questionnaire comprises a series of pairs of behavioural preferences or self-descriptive

adjectives. Each is designed to elicit a preference for one of the functions, attitudes or

orientations, with a score of 0, 1 or 2 given to the answer to indicate the weight of preference.

These scores are tallied to give a weighting for each of the eight preferences. These, in turn,

are converted to a preference score along each of the four dimensions, reflecting the

preference for one pole over the other (cf Myers and McCaulley, 1985:9). A brief account of

the eight preferences is presented in Table 1. Taken together, the four preferences indicate a

person’s MBTI type. For example, a person with a preference for extraversion (E) over

introversion (I), for intuition (N) over sensing (S), for thinking (T) over feeling (F), and for

judging (J) over perceiving (P), would be an ENTJ.

Table 1 about here

The MBTI has become the most widely used personality questionnaire in America for non-

psychiatric populations (Murray, 1990) and more than 4,000 research studies, journal articles

and dissertations have been written about the MBTI since 1962, producing a great deal of

analytical and normative data (Myers, et al, 1998:10). Proponents argue that the data

generated about individuals and groups from the MBTI (McCaulley, 1990a) are useful in

vocational and other forms of counselling (eg, McCaulley, 1990b); in learning and teaching

3
(eg, Cooper and Miller, 1991); and in refining the understanding of leadership styles (eg,

McCaulley, 1990c).

Distribution of the various preferences in the Australian population has been difficult to

establish, since no large random sample of the population has ever been undertaken. Myers

and McCaulley (1985:40) presented the type profile of a group of Australian MBA students,

while, more recently, Myers, et al (1998:379) reported the results of a survey of Australian

high school students. However, neither constituted a random, representative sample of the

Australian population. Power (1989) has reported the results of approximately 2,400 MBTI

workshop participants, but the data are so biased as to be not particularly useful, being records

collected mostly from individuals who had an affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church,

and who lived in Brisbane or in provincial areas of Victoria. None lived in Sydney.

Myers, et al, (1998:379) present type distribution for national normative samples of adults in

the US (n = 3,009) and the UK (n = 1,634). An adapted version of this table is presented in

Table 2 to show the distribution of type in two countries which are culturally similar to

Australia (cf Hofstede, 1980; 1991). Chance distribution of 16 types in the 4 x 4 matrix in

Table 2 would produce 6.25% per cell, and so casual inspection suggests a non-random

distribution of types. At the same time, Table 2 also shows that, even where countries share

similar cultures, there is some variation in the distribution of type. Myers, et al (1998:384)

caution about use of the inventory on people culturally different from those with whom it was

developed.

Table 2 about here

Evaluation of the MBTI as a Measure of Personality

Despite the MBTI being administered to more than three million people each year (Spoto,

1995), it continues to be the subject of extensive criticism in the literature (cf Bayne, 1995;

4
Boyle, 1995; Carlson, 1985, 1989; Healy, 1989; Lorr, 1991; and Stricker and Ross, 1963,

1964). At the same time, there has been a plethora of research to examine the validity and

reliability of the MBTI, and generally the data support the view that the MBTI scales are valid

(see, for example, Murray, 1990; Thompson and Borrello, 1986; Tzeng, Ware, and Bharadwaj,

1991; Wiggins, 1989) and reliable (see, for example, Howes and Carskadon, 1979;

McCaulley, 1990a; Myers and McCaulley, 1985; Pearman, 1993). However, a problem

identified by Carlson (1989:485), is the theoretically unsystematic (scattergun) way in which

MBTI data have been gathered. The result is that it is difficult to summarise conveniently the

literature in order to make a case for its validity and reliability. The following sections will

attempt to overcome the “haphazard fashion” of the reports (Carlson, 1989:485).

Validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

Myers and McCaulley (1985) point to an abundance of data which demonstrate that

individuals as disparate as patients with psychological problems and students express

preferences about treatment modalities and learning choices consistent with type expectations,

as indicative of the construct validity of the MBTI. Support for the construct validity of the

MBTI is mixed, but the majority of the evidence is consistent with the view that the MBTI

does measure important dimensions of personality that approximate those in Jung’s typology.

Myers and McCaulley (1985:176-208) report a series of correlations between the MBTI

scales and personality characteristics measured by other questionnaires and selected on the

basis that, according to MBTI theory, the questionnaires would be measuring either the same

construct as one of the scales or one that should be associated with a scale. The correlations

range from –0.77 to 0.75, varying according to the scale and characteristics, but they are all

statistically significant and in the expected direction. Other reports show similar and even

5
higher correlations (see Brown and DeCoster, 1991; Murray, 1990; Myers, 1962; Steele and

Kelly, 1976; Wakefield, Sasek, Brubaker and Friedman, 1976).

In regard to item factor structure, there have been conflicting reports. Tzeng, Outcault, Boyer,

Ware, and Landis, (1984) report a four factor structure matching the MBTI scales, but Sipps,

Alexander and Friedt (1985) report a six factor structure, with four equating to the MBTI

scales. Using a second-order factor analytic technique, Thompson and Borrello’s (1986)

analysis of data from 359 college students arrived at a four-factor solution, with only three

test items loading on incorrect factors, and so lending support for the construct validity of the

four MBTI scales. In a later study by Sipps and DiCaudo (1988), analysis of the responses of

185 psychology students to the EI and JP subscales supported the EI scale as a measure of

sociability and the JP scale as a measure of impulsivity.

Linked to the variable clusters, is the extent to which each of the scales is relatively

independent of each other. This has generally been found to be the case except for the SN and

JP scales. Myers (1962) reported a correlational analysis showing EI, SN, and TF scales to be

independent, while there was a correlation between the SN and JP scales. McCaulley (1977)

also reported a significant correlation between the SN and JP scales. Myers and McCaulley

(1985:150-154) address this by saying that this reflects

a fact about the types themselves. Sensing types typically prefer to rely on past experience,
and dislike unexpected events that require rapid assessment of new possibilities … Intuitive
types, on the other hand, are attracted to future possibilities and new construction of events

… [Therefore] … sensing types are more likely to be J and intuitive types P.

Looking at the distribution of types in the US and UK populations given in Table 2, this

seems to be the case, with SJ (47%) and SP (26%), while NJ (8%) and NP (18%).

Croom, Wallace, and Schuerger, (1989) have been able to develop regression equations to

predict MBTI scores from Cattell’s 16PF Questionnaire scores, based on intercorrelations

6
given in the handbooks for the two instruments. These were cross-validated using data from

two samples of varying populations (students and managers). In terms of ability to predict

both single preference scores and the 4-letter type, accuracy was found to approximate the

short-term test-retest reliability of the MBTI. These findings provide further evidence of the

convergent validity of the MBTI constructs from a different theoretical context.

McCrae and Costa (1989) compared the scores of 468 respondents on the MBTI and the

NEO-PI and found positive correlations between four of the five NEO-PI scales and the four

MBTI scales, viz: Extroversion and Extraversion, Openness and Intuition, Agreeableness and

Feeling, and Conscientiousness and Judging, in the range 0.44 to 0.74. There was, of course,

no correlation between the NEO-PI Neuroticism scale and the MBTI scales. McCrae and

Costa (1989) formed the view, that there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures

truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types; instead, they argued that the

instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions. They believe their data suggest

that Jung's theory is either incorrectly or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and

cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it. They argue that the 5-factor model provides

an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared

conceptual framework. This view ignores the fact that the findings reported by McCrae and

Costa (1989) are consistent with expectations of both trait and type theorists. One would

expect, for example, an Extraverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Judging (ENFJ) type to score more

highly on the extraversion scale (by definition if nothing else), and on the Openness to

Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness scales respectively, and this is what

McCrae and Costa (1989) found. This appears to offer evidence of convergent validity.

Carlyn (1977) concludes, and the studies examined above appear to support the view that,

“the individual scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator measure important dimensions of

7
personality which seem to be quite similar to those postulated by Jung. The indicator appears

to be a reasonably valid instrument which is potentially useful for a variety of purposes.”

Reliability of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

The reliability of the MBTI as a measure of Jung’s typology has been established in a number

of the conventional ways. In regard to the internal consistency of the MBTI, for example,

Myers and McCaulley (1985:165-169) present a selection of split-half reliabilities and

conclude that they are “consistent with those of other personality instruments, many of which

have longer scales than the MBTI”. The internal consistency has also been measured by way

of coefficient alphas (Cronbach, 1951), where scores for the continuous scales have been

reported to range from 0.64 to 0.85 (Myers and McCaulley, 1985).

In an early examination of the reliability of the MBTI, Stricker and Ross (1964) found the EI,

SN, and JP scales to have good internal consistency reliability (α = .75 - .85) and retest

stability (α = .70). The TF scale, however, showed low internal consistency (α = .44) and

stability (α = .48). Myers (1980) maintains that this lower retest reliability on the TF scale is

a function of the lower maturity of the sample group that was used to test the measure. This

view is consistent with type development theory, and found support from McCaulley (1977)

who showed in a summary of internal consistency reliability studies of the TF scale that the α

ranged from 0.44 in 8th grade to 0.8+ in high school seniors and college students.

It was crucial to establish test-retest reliability, as a measure of the stability of the MBTI, for

one principal reason. Both Jung (1921/1971) and the developers of the MBTI (Myers and

McCaulley, 1985; Myers et al, 1998) saw personality type as invariant. If this is the case,

then test-retest reliabilities should be high. Again, Myers and McCaulley (1985:170-174)

report studies where the between-test period has ranged from four to five weeks to five years.

Reliability is consistently good, with correlations between continuous scores mostly in the

8
range 0.77 to 0.89. After a five-week period, agreement for preferences ranged from 77% to

92%, with approximately half the sample remaining the same on all four scales, a result

significantly better than chance (Myers and McCaulley, 1992:173). Even when the mood of

the respondents was deliberately elevated or depressed prior to the second administration,

results were consistent with those already mentioned (Howes and Carskadon, 1979). As

McCaulley (1990a:187) says, in about three-quarters of the cases, the retest will show the

same three or four letters, with changes occurring when the original preference score was low.

Most reviewers of the MBTI see these as positive results, being consistent with the test-retest

reliabilities of trait tests, such as the NEO-PI (Costa and McCrae, 1985, 1992). For example,

Pearman (1993:67) observes that the MBTI reliability studies show that it is more consistent

than either the California Psychological Inventory or the Adjective Check List, both of which

are considered “premiere personality instruments measuring traits.” However, Pittenger

(1993:472) argues this is a poor result, since the MBTI is not a trait theory and “implies a

dichotomy where the classes are mutually exclusive … The reliability data suggest that an

accurate and durable assessment of type cannot be made for those subjects whose scores are

close to the zero point and have a high probability of crossing that boundary”. This actually

fits well with Jung’s (1921/1971:549) theory, since he did not believe that everyone could be

accurately typed and, when discussing extraversion and introversion, he stated:

There must be two fundamentally different general attitudes which would divide human
beings into two groups – provided the whole of humanity consisted of highly differentiated
individuals. Since this is obviously not the case, one can only say that this difference of
attitude becomes plainly observable only when we are confronted with a comparatively
well-differentiated personality.

Jung’s caveat, of course, is that the identification of the two groups assumes that “the whole

of humanity consist[s] of highly differentiated individuals”. Instead, Jung (1921/1971:515-

516) argues, there is a third group, the least differentiated and most numerous, where it is hard

9
to say whether they are introverted or extraverted, and only careful observation will ensure a

correct classification. In the same way, the developers of the MBTI do not claim the MBTI

will always provide an accurate classification of type. Rather, “no questions, however

accurate, can explain all human complexity. The MBTI results are a first step toward

understanding the respondent’s true preferences (Myers and McCaulley, 1985:53).

Notwithstanding Carlson’s (1989:485) concern about the haphazard patterns of the reports

about the validity and reliability of the MBTI, one of the many reviews of research on the

MBTI, has concluded that the MBTI’s indices of reliability and validity have been judged

acceptable, and the constructs underlying the MBTI have been supported by correlations with

other measures (Murray, 1990). Indeed, “[e]ven the most serious critics of the MBTI

recognize the validity of the instrument and acknowledge that it can be an effective

assessment tool” (MacDonald and Holland, 1993:303).

MBTI and Managerial Behaviour

The distributors of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) promote it as particularly

appropriate for use in team building, career development, organization development and

leadership development (Consulting Psychologists Press, 1994:7) and its use for these

purposes has not gone unnoticed. Coe (1992) remarks on the increasing use of MBTI for

team building, strengthening communications, decision-making, diagnosing organizational

dysfunction and for management selection and development. The broad claim of the sponsors

of the MBTI in management selection is fairly simple - “matching the personality with the

position is essential for success” (Barr & Barr 1989, p1).

This “personality-centred approach to management” (Isachsen & Berens, 1989) argues that

management style - “the way in which an individual determines what needs to be done and

then create (sic) the necessary conditions to achieve the desired results” (Isachsen & Berens

10
1989:118) - is a function of personality and so differences in personality mean differences in

the ways in which people manage. In other words, if you know a person’s personality type,

you will also know that person’s management style. In order to increase the chances of

selecting the manager with the “right” style, one need only determine the person’s personality

type using the appropriate personality test – the MBTI.

In an organizational context, the MBTI is used inter alia, as a basis for explaining individual

differences in occupational choice (eg, Myers, 1980), ‘leadership’ style (eg, Barr and Barr,

1989; Keirsey and Bates, 1984), ‘management’ style (eg Benfari, 1991, 1995; Isachsen and

Berens, 1989) and managerial style (Margerison and Lewis, 1981). Again, it is claimed that

managers’ styles (ways of planning, organising, leading, coordinating and evaluating) will

vary according to their personality type. In general terms however, there is a paucity of type

research into managerial behaviour, matched by a general lack of rigour in the research that

has been done (Gardner and Martinko, 1996:64).

In a wide ranging review of the research on type and managerial behaviour, Gardner and

Martinko (1996) summarise what research has been undertaken to date in terms of four

categories – descriptive-qualitative, descriptive-quantitative, predictive-analytical/non-

experimental, and predictive-analytical/experimental – according to the research purpose and

design. In light of the research on MBTI type in general, the research results described by

Gardner and Martinko (1996:59-77) are utterly unsurprising. First, they show that TJs are

over-represented in the manager group (cf Myers and McCaulley, 1985:40; Myers, et al,

1998:299; see also Table 3 below). Second they show that the characterisation of manager Ss,

Ns, Ts, Fs, Es, Is, Js and Ps is identical to that of the general population. Importantly, the

results highlight the fact that managers tend to report themselves as behaving according to

type in the work context. For example, Judging managers behave in a planned, conscientious

11
and methodical manner, while Perceivers are more spontaneous, flexible and creative

(Gardner and Martinko, 1996:75).

Two studies not reviewed by Gardner and Martinko (1996), one English and one from Hong

Kong, are worthy of discussion here and they are considered in turn. Taken together, these

latter studies highlight the importance of ensuring that any analysis is cognisant of country

and cultural differences amongst the respondents, as these are likely to influence the direction

of the resultant findings.

An early attempt to examine the relationship between personality type and managerial style is

that of Margerison and Lewis (1981:3) who proffered what they claimed to be “Jung’s theory

of personal (motivational) preferences ... applied ... to industrial and commercial

organizations.” They presented a type distribution for 849 UK managers attending business

school short courses, which is compared with the UK national distribution of type in Table 3.

Examination of Table 3 clearly shows that not only are certain types of people attracted to

managerial roles, but also that certain types are selected more often.

Table 3 about here

Margerison and Lewis (1981:17) note that 52.8% of their managers are STs and so, they say,

these managers “will be concerned first and foremost with practical and logical problems.

They will also prefer problems that are concrete and specific rather than ambiguous and

abstract and, hence, their impatience and distrust of issues that to them seem nebulous and not

based on tangible factors”. Margerison and Lewis (1981:17) also note that those concerned

with people issues – SFs (15%) and NFs (10%) – are outnumbered 3:1 by those most

concerned with technical problems – STs (53%) and NTs (22%) – and suggest that this

perhaps “explains the need for ‘interpersonal’ skill courses for managers”.

12
More recently, Furnham and Stringfield (1993) compared the MBTI scores of a group of

Chinese (n = 222) and European (n = 148) managers working for a successful international

airline based in South East Asia, with behavioural ratings of their managerial practices (eg,

decision-making, planning and innovation). Furnham and Stringfield (1993) do not report

their findings by way of the traditional ‘type table’ (see, for example, Tables 3.2 and 3.3) so

one is not able to judge whether the type distributions for these two groups are similar to other

manager groups. Using continuous scale scores, Furnham and Stringfield (1993:837) report

significant differences between the Chinese and European groups: compared to the Chinese

sample, the Europeans were significantly more extraverted, more intuitive, more feeling, and

more perceiving. The average profile for the Chinese sample was ISTJ, while for the

European sample, it was ESTJ (Furnham and Stringfield, 1993).

In light of the reliability and validity findings outlined above, together with the evidence

suggesting sector, culture and country differences in type distribution, the aim of the current

study was to see whether the MBTI is a valid and reliable measure when used with managers

in Australia. A further aim was to report the MBTI type distribution as normative data, and so

increase the utility of the MBTI in the Australian context.

METHODOLOGY

The results reported here are part of a larger research study which involved asking members

of the alumni of a prominent NSW business school, resident in Australia, to complete a postal

paper-and-pencil survey questionnaire related to person and situation antecedents of

managerial behaviour (Author, 2000). The nature of the main research questions required a

large sample size for meaningful comparison and contrast of individual perceptions, as a basis

for reaching generalisable conclusions. The alumni group, at over 2,700 individuals, provided

a useful sample group, but it simply would not have been possible to administer the survey on

13
an individual, face-to-face basis or bring the individuals together in a series of locations for

group administration. Notwithstanding problems associated with low response rates, the mail

survey option provided an opportunity to collect a large amount of data in a relatively

economical and efficient manner.

The survey group (managers with management qualifications) was, in turn, chosen for two

reasons. First, as Fayol (1949) points out, while managerial functions are not limited to those

who are called ‘manager’, the more a person is embedded in the management cadre, the more

s/he will engage in managerial rather than other technical organizational functions. Since the

focus of the wider research was on managerial behaviour, it was appropriate to sample from a

group of people who are more likely to have wide experience and engagement in the range of

managerial behaviours (planning, organising, leading, coordinating, and evaluating) under

consideration.

The second reason for choosing this group for the respondent sample relates to a theoretical

consideration on the influence that the experience of gaining a postgraduate management

qualification may have on both preferred and enacted managerial style. The literature on

management education (cf Bilimoria, 1998; French and Grey, 1996; Porter and McKibbin,

1988) has not directly considered the impact of the experience on individuals’ management

style (at least as it is defined in this research). At the same time, exhortations to ‘improve’

management education (cf. Anon, 1991; Bilimoria, 1998; Commonwealth of Australia, 1995;

Das, 1994; French and Grey, 1996) certainly suggest that different management development

experiences can play a part in shaping individual enactment of managerial responsibilities. If

this is the case, then having a sample in which all its members possess a management

qualification should eliminate the variability associated with the possession (or not) of a

management qualification.

14
It is not enough though, to use the simple marker of a postgraduate management qualification.

A search of the Internet sites of the more than 40 business schools in Australia teaching at

postgraduate level reveals a diversity of philosophy, course contents and teaching and learning

resources. The business school whose alumni group was involved in the research is no

different in seeing itself as presenting a unique perspective on management and management

education, with its emphasis on the social and organizational context of management and its

use of syndicate groups as a key learning process (More, 1999). If the management learning

experience does influence preferred/enacted managerial style, it is likely that different

experiences will lead to differences in preference/enactment. The selection of a sample from

one business school therefore reduces the variability that would result from differences in the

learning experience.

The Research Instrument

The full research instrument was a paper-and-pencil survey questionnaire, which comprised

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a Managerial Style Measure developed by the author for the

wider research program, Rotter’s (1966) locus of control measure, Quinn’s (1988) Competing

Values Organizational Effectiveness Instrument, and a series of questions related to the

individuals’ biodata. The presentation order of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the

Managerial Style Measure was reversed for half of the questionnaires distributed, in order to

compensate for any order of presentation effects, but the forms were otherwise identical.

The specific version of the MBTI was ‘Form G’, a 94-item forced-choice questionnaire that

can be hand scored by the respondent or the administrator. The 94 items comprise 49 sets of

behavioural statements (all of which have two alternatives, except for three statements that

have 3 alternatives each) and 45 pairs of self-descriptive adjectives. Form G was selected

because it is a self-administering questionnaire, with instructions for its completion, and is

15
therefore appropriate for inclusion as part of a written survey. One might note that much of

the previously cited validity data originates from this form, as part of a written survey.

Respondents were told that the MBTI was the personality measure employed. This was done

because, as graduates of the particular business school and practising managers, they had all

been exposed to the MBTI in a variety of contexts. They were asked to read the directions

carefully then complete all questions. They were reminded there were no "right" or "wrong"

answers to the questions; rather, their answers would help to show how they like to look at

things and how they like to go about deciding things. The respondents were asked to read

each question carefully and circle the letter that corresponded to their answer, not to not think

too long about any question, and, where they felt more than one answer described them, to

choose the answer that described them more of the time.

A total of 2733 questionnaire packets were mailed to those alumni resident in Australia at the

time of the study, according to the School’s maintained alumni database. The packet

forwarded to each potential respondent contained the questionnaire, an individually addressed

and signed covering letter seeking the respondents’ cooperation, an ethics consent form, and a

reply paid addressed envelope in which to return the completed instrument and consent form.

Recognising the difficulties associated with mail-out surveys in terms of their response rates,

efforts were taken to maximise the response rate for this survey. For example, each letter was

individually addressed in School envelopes, and respondents’ status as School alumni was

referred to in seeking their cooperation. The use of reply paid, pre-addressed envelopes for

return of the survey was to maximise the chances that the survey was returned, and returned to

the correct address. As an added incentive, respondents were advised that they would receive

an Executive Summary of the key findings, along with an individual profile of their survey

responses.

16
A total of 523 responses were received (241 Form A responses and 282 Form B responses).

This represented a response rate of 19.5%. Once the surveys were returned and catalogued,

they were forwarded to a data entry house for ‘double keyed’ data entry according to an SPSS

statistical software protocol developed by the author. When the data were keyed, a

subsequent check and data cleaning process were carried out as an extra precaution to ensure

the integrity of the data base. First, a random check of the completed surveys against the

entered data was completed. This showed an extremely high level of accuracy. A frequency

check of the data, using the SPSS software package identified a small number of mis-keyed

data. Those variations between the keyed data and the expected data were checked with the

original questionnaires to determine the correct value and the data file was adjusted

accordingly.

The Respondent Characteristics

The following series of tables indicate the nature of the sample that provided responses. Table

4 summarises the demographic data for the respondent group, revealing nothing surprising.

For example, that three-quarters of the respondents are male reflects the enrolment patterns of

the School over its three decades of existence and, one might note, the past and current trends

for employment of women in management positions in Australia. The modal age group of the

respondents is 40-49 years. Again, this reflects the School’s practice of selecting experienced

managers for its award educational programs.

Table 4 also shows that most respondents were born in Australia. Of the 15% of respondents

born in a non-English speaking (NES) country, the largest sub-group is Asian (40% of NES

group). Finally, the table shows that most (60%) respondents have an MBA/DBA as their

highest management qualification, and that most occupy a middle (32%) or senior

management position (46%). The categories of ‘Non-Management’ and ‘Junior Management’

17
had small numbers of respondents and so were combined. Even then, the respondents in this

combined category represent only a small percentage (6%) of the total respondent group.

Table 4 about here

Taking all these characteristics into account and comparing them with the School alumni

group as a whole, it is reasonable to state that the sample here is representative of the wider

School alumni population. In order to establish whether there were systematic variations in

the sample demographic and organizational variables, a correlation analysis was carried out.

The results of the analysis are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5 about here

Table 5 shows that there are several small but significant correlations between sex and age

group (more males in the older age groups), management qualifications (males have higher

management qualifications), and sector (females are more likely to work in the public sector).

None of these findings is surprising or unusual. The older respondents (and therefore earlier

graduates) are more likely to be male. With the development of the Postgraduate Diplomas

and the Masters of Management have come more female graduates (who may not have the

personal circumstances permitting the completion of the lengthier, though qualitatively

undifferentiated, qualification). The correlation between age and level in the organisation

(older people hold higher positions) is expected. There are no significant relationships

between birthplace and any of the other individual variables.

Based on the results of the correlation analysis, the nature of the identified relationships was

further explored, by way of χ2 analysis, the significant results of which are summarised here

in Table 6. Individually, these results are only of passing interest. Taken together, however,

they do highlight significant, systematic differences in the respondent group, related to sex

18
and age. As such, they provide insights that may afford important detail for interpreting

subsequent findings.

Table 6 about here

RESULTS

Reliability and Validity

It was noted earlier that two forms of the research instrument were used – Form A presented

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator first and Form B presented the Managerial Style Measure

first. This was done to compensate for any order of presentation effects. The final data set

contained 241 responses from Form A and 282 responses from Form B. To test whether the

ordering of the questions had affected the respondents’ answers to the MBTI, the reliability of

the MBTI was determined separately for the two forms. Before doing so, some re-coding was

necessary. Five of the ninety-four MBTI questions asked the respondent to choose between

three rather than the standard two responses. These questions were re-coded into

dichotomous variables.

The MBTI questions from each questionnaire were then subjected to a Principal Components

factor analysis, specifying a four-factor solution with Varimax rotation and pairwise deletion

of missing values. For Form A, the order of the factor loading for the scales was SN, JP, EI,

and TF, with four of the 94 items not loading in conformance with the theory (three from the

JP scale and one from the TF scale). For Form B, the order of the factor loading for the scales

was SN, TF, EI, and JP, again with four items not loading in conformance with the theory

(two from the JP scale, one from the TF scale and one from the IE scale). To determine

whether the reliability of the MBTI scales would be affected by the incorrect loading of these

items, reliability analysis was performed for each of the scales, with reverse coding of the

19
items that had loaded negatively on their respective factor. The results of this analysis are

shown in Table 7.

The reliability for all four scales in both forms of the research instrument was very good, with

coefficient alphas ranging from 0.76 to 0.88, and evincing little variation between the two

forms. Removing items that did not load correctly did not lead to a significant improvement

in the coefficient alphas. These reliability scores are consistent with those generally reported

in the literature (Gardner and Martinko, 1996:48). It can be concluded, therefore, that the

order of presentation of the MBTI and managerial style items had no significant effect on the

MBTI results, and so the cases from both forms of the research instrument can be combined

and treated as a single sample.

Table 7 about here

The factor and reliability analyses were repeated for the total sample. The order of the factor

loading for the scales was SN, JP, TF, and EI, with three of the 94 items loading incorrectly

(two from the JP scale and one from the TF scale). Table 7 also shows that the reliability

scores for the total sample are excellent, being in the range 0.80 to 0.86. Again, no increases

in reliability could be achieved by removing items from the scales. The reliability of MBTI

for this sample of respondents was therefore established.

The literature generally indicates that the four MBTI scales are relatively uncorrelated, except

for the SN and JP scales, where coefficients in the order of 0.4 - 0.5 are common (Gardner

and Martinko, 1996:48). A correlation analysis was undertaken to determine the extent of the

correlation between the four continuous MBTI scales (cf Myers and McCaulley, 1985:9). The

results of the analysis are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 about here

20
As expected there is a significant correlation between the SN and JP scales (r = 0.51, p <

0.01). There are also significant correlations between the other scales, although these are

small and not unusual (cf Thomas, 1984:568; Myers and McCaulley, 1985: 151-153), the size

of the correlations depending to a large degree on the distribution of types in the sample. As

Myers and McCaulley (1985:154) point out, “larger than expected scale intercorrelations can

often be attributed to a greater representation than normal of a particular preference”. As

Table 9 shows, this is definitely the case for the current sample of managers, where the type

distribution is clearly non-random, and particular types are significantly over-represented.

Normalisation of the type distribution, by creating weightings for the different types, was not

attempted. The US and UK type distribution data presented earlier shows that populations do

not fall equally into the 16 types, and so using weightings to create equality between the types

would be inappropriate. Further, there is no reported distribution of type for the Australian

population and so the appropriate weightings for an Australian sample are not known. In any

event, the use of weightings is not standard practice for MBTI or other personality descriptor

research. The type distribution for the total sample is shown in Table 9.

Table 9 shows that the respondent group is balanced in terms of extraversion-introversion

(52% to 48%), more intuitive (61%) and judging (67%), and overwhelmingly thinking (88%).

Chi-square analysis was undertaken to determine the extent to which the distribution in Table

9 was non-random. Without a population-based type distribution from which to derive the

expected cell counts, it was assumed for the purpose of the analysis that the expected cell

count for each cell was 32.62 (the sample size, n = 522, divided by the number of cells, 16).

Table 9 about here

21
As expected from inspection of Table 9, chi-square analysis showed that the type distribution

is clearly non-random (χ2df = 9 = 518.21; p < 0.000). In particular, E/ISTJs and E/INTJ/Ps are

over-represented, while there are fewer E/INFJ/Ps and E/ISFJ/Ps than expected. The most

obvious result from Table 10 is that relating to the TF distribution in the respondent group.

This is a sample that is overwhelmingly T in its ‘collective’ function.

There are also sex differences in MBTI type distribution, at least as reported for the most

recent US national samples (Myers, et al, 1998:157:158), such that, on the TF dichotomy, a

significantly greater proportion of females (76%) than males (44%) are Fs, while a

significantly greater proportion of males (56%) than females (24%) are Ts. Table 10 presents

the type distribution for the current sample by sex.

Table 10 about here

It was not possible to carry out a chi-square analysis of the distribution of type by sex because

16 cells (47.1%) had an expected count of less than five. Nonetheless, visual inspection of

the data indicates that ISTJs constitute a much larger percentage of the male sample (20%)

than for the female sample (5%). At the same time, the female group (20%) has a larger

percentage of INTJs than the male group (13%). These differences are reflected in the SN

dimension, where the SN split for males is approximately 60:40, while for females it is 70:30.

It might also be noticed that 52.3% of the current sample are NTs, constituted by 61.3% of the

female group but only 48.6% of males.

As can be seen from Tables 9 and 10, the main types are E/ISTJ, E/INTJ, and E/INTP. The

most obvious feature of the type distribution, whether for the sample as a whole or by sex, is

the preponderance of Ts and Js. In this regard, a comparison of interest is that presented in

22
Table 11, between the current sample and a sample of 228 respondents from the School in

1980, previously noted as being reported in Myers and McCaulley (1985:39-40).

Table 11 about here

Myers and McCaulley (1985:39-40) commented on the high percentage (62%) of “tough-

minded TJs” in the 1980 sample. This percentage is reflected almost unchanged (60%) in the

current sample. Indeed, the most striking characteristic of Table 11 is the extent to which the

two profiles are similar in almost every respect, even though they are separated by almost two

decades, and the latter sample is nearly double the size of the earlier one.

DISCUSSION

The MBTI has been widely used in Australia for personality assessment, particularly as a

selection and development tool for managers. In the absence of appropriate, published local

norms, Boyle (1995) has cautioned against its routine use, especially in organizational and

occupational settings. The evidence presented here suggests his concern is well-founded, for

three main reasons.

First, comparison of the results presented by Myers and McCaulley (1985) and Myers, et al

(1998) clearly indicates that the distribution of types differs between countries (cf Table 2).

While these differences are not large in raw percentage terms, it does mean, for example, that

there are twice as many INTJs in the US compared to the UK, while there are 50% more

ENFJs and ENTJs in the UK, compared to the US. This alerts us to the fact that it is unlikely

that the distribution of type in Australia will simply match that of either the US or UK and

there is a need to develop norms based on the Australian population.

Second, the results from Margerison and Lewis (1981) and Myers, et al (1998) show that, for

the UK at least, the distribution of type amongst managers differs markedly from that for the

23
general population (cf Table 3). This means that, even if the norms for the general population

are available, they cannot be simply applied to a particular sub-sample, for example,

managers. Finally, the results of the current study show that the distribution of type for a

sample of Australian managers is not only different from the UK sample as a whole, there are

also sex differences within the Australian sample (cf Tables 3, 9 and 10). Further, it is likely

that these results are consistently different over time (cf Tables 3 and 11).

At the same time, the results of the current study provide evidence of the reliability and

validity of the MBTI when used with Australian managers. These results also constitute a

significant contribution to the construction of an appropriate set of norms for ongoing use in

an Australian organisational setting. As such, they overcome one of the key concerns

expressed by Boyle (1995). Notwithstanding this important advance, it is argued that, even

though we now have a more solid foundation on which to base the use of the MBTI with

Australian managers, there are two sets of issues that suggest its use should continue to be

circumscribed. The first relates to the limitations of the current study, while the second relates

to whether, in any event, the MBTI is an appropriate tool for managerial or wider employee

selection.

A key potential limitation of the present study is that it involved a postal questionnaire with a

20% response rate. While this response rate is quite respectable in terms of postal surveys in

general, it is low. It might be argued that, given the low response rate, this is a group that

differs systematically from the non-respondents. On the other hand, the type distribution for

the current sample was almost identical to that of the earlier School group (cf Table 11) and

that survey was administered in a classroom context. Further it has already been noted that

the sample was representative of the alumni group as a whole. Of more concern is the

representativeness of the sample in relation to Australian managers in general.

24
We know that certain psychological types are drawn to management as a career (cf Tables 2

and 3). There is some evidence to suggest that the group may not be representative of even

this narrower subset. For example, while the proportion of NTs in the current sample (52%)

is consistent with that of the earlier MGSM sample (47%, cf Table 11), it is significantly

higher than that for other population subgroups. Table 2 showed that the proportion of NTs in

the US and UK general population is between 9-10%, while Table 3 showed the proportion of

NTs in a general group of managers at 23%. Myers and McCaulley (1985:47-48) report much

lower percentages for US mature-age college students, whether female (13%) or male (24%).

It is not surprising that a group of people interested in possibilities, theories and concepts

might find their way to a post-graduate management education program, but these findings do

suggest that the alumni group carry with them a set of preferences that may not be common to

their non-degreed counterparts.

Given the preponderance of TJs and the apparent increasing social desirability of these

‘tough-minded’ types in organizations, another limitation is related to the possibility of faking

with the MBTI (Boyle, 1995; Furnham, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c; Gardener and Martinko, 1996).

Most of the examinations of ‘faking’ have been concerned with the use of the MBTI in job

selection. In this study however, the respondents were involved in research rather than job

selection, and their responses were provided on a confidential basis. It is unlikely then,

although not impossible, that social desirability was a major issue. That the result was so

similar to the sample from two decades earlier, when the MBTI was much less well-known,

adds further confidence that social desirability was not a major problem.

The limitations highlighted above point to the importance of further research to determine the

extent to which the findings here are replicable with other Australian managers. This could be

carried out as a part of a wider administration of the MBTI to a random, representative sample

25
of the Australian population. On the other hand, given the evidence of the differences

between managerial and broader populations, the research with additional manager samples

could proceed without the wider study. This brings us to the second set of issues concerning

its restricted use – even if we can use it, should we use it?

Use of the MBTI as a selection tool presumes some degree of predictive or criterion validity.

While this study has leant support to the content and construct validity of the MBTI, it has not

examined links between MBTI scores and the work behaviour of the respondents. It is not

possible therefore, on the basis of these results, to comment on whether the respondents

would exhibit certain managerial behaviours given a particular MBTI type. Indeed, there is

no published evidence linking the MBTI and managerial behaviour, broadly defined.

Previous literature concerning the relationship between personality as measured by the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator, and managerial behaviour, can be grouped into two broad categories.

The first includes those studies that have atomised type and behaviour, focussing on one of

the dimensions of psychological type, for example SN or TF, and a specific managerial

behaviour, eg decision-making (cf Gardner and Martinko, 1996). The other category

comprises those books and articles that have made prognostications about managerial

behaviour based on defining managerial behaviour in terms of type, and so producing a self-

fulfilling prophecy (see, for example, Barr and Barr, 1989; Benfari, 1991, 1995; Isachsen and

Berens, 1989; Margerison and Lewis, 1981). The common assumption of these authors is that

type is directly related to managerial style.

What is needed in the circumstances is research, based on an operationalisation of

‘managerial behaviour’ that is independent of MBTI type, which examines whether

knowledge of MBTI type can be used to predict particular styles of managerial behaviour.

Even then the question arises as to whether there is one best ‘type’. Perhaps it might be more

26
fruitful in selection and development to apply the principle of equifinality (cf Morgan,

1997:41; see also von Bertalanffy, 1950; von Foerester and Zopf, 1962). In this way, we

might benefit from the diversity, rather than the attempted homogenisation of management

and managerial behaviour.

27
 REFERENCES

Anon (1991) “MBAiling: have business schools lost touch with business?” The Economist

April 20, 13-14

Author (2000) Person and Situation Determinants of Managerial Behaviour. Unpublished

PhD Thesis, Macquarie University, Australia.

Barr, L and Barr, N. (1989) The Leadership Equation. Austin: Eakin Press.
Barrick, MR and Mount, MK (1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Benfari, R (1991) Understanding Your Management Style. New York: Lexington Books.
Benfari, R (1995) Changing Your Management Style. New York: Lexington Books.
Bilimoria, D (1998) From classroom learning to real-world learning: A diasporic shift in

management education. Journal of Management Education, 22,265-268.

Bolz, CR (1977) Typological theory and research. In RB Cattell and RM Dreger, (eds)

Handbook of Modern Personality Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 269-292
Boyle, GJ (1995) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some Psychometric Limitations.

Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 71-74.

Brown, VL and DeCoster, DA (1991) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a developmental

measure: Implications for student learners in higher education. Journal of College

Student Development, 32(4), 378-379.

Carlson, JG (1989) Affirmative: In support of researching the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 484-486.

Carlyn, M (1977) An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 41(5), 461-473

Chew, I and Yeo, A (1991) Human resource practices in Singapore: A survey of local firms

and MNCs, Asia Pacific Human Resource Management, 29(3), 30-38

Coe, CK (1992) The MBTI: Potential uses and misuses in personnel administration. Public

Personnel Management, 21(4), 511-522.

Commonwealth of Australia (1995a) Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and

Management Skills (Chair: David Karpin) Canberra: Australian Government Printing

Service
Consulting Psychologists Press (1994) 1994 Catalogue. Palo Alto, California.
Cooper, SE and Miller, JA (1991) MBTI learning style-teaching style discongruencies.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(3), 699-706.

28
Costa, PT and McCrae, RR (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, Fla.:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, PT and McCrae, RR (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO

Five Factor Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, Fla.: Psychological Assessment

Resources.
Costa, PT and McCrae, RR (1993) Ego development and trait models of personality.

Psychological Inquiry, 4, 20-23.

Cronbach, LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,

297-334
Croom, WC, Wallace, JM and Scheurger (1989) Jungian types from Cattellian variables.

Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 9(1), 35-40.

Das, TK (1994) “Educating tomorrow’s managers: The role of critical thinking” The

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2(4), 333-360.

Digman, JM (1990) Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Dissanayake, C. (1993) Personality vs Cognitive Ability: Unique Sources of Information to an

Assessment Centre. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cranfield University, England.

Fayol, H (1949) General and Industrial Management. (trans. C Storrs). London: Pitman
Fletcher, C, Blinkhorn, S and Johnson, C (1991) Personality tests: The great debate.

Personnel Management, 23(9), 9, 23, 8-42.

French, R and Grey, C (1996) (eds.) Rethinking Management Education. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.
Furnham, A (1990a) Can people accurately estimate their own personality test scores?

European Journal of Personality, 4, 319-327

Furnham, A (1990b) Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for

different purposes. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9(1), 46-55.

Furnham, A (1990c) The fakeability of the 16PF, Myers-Briggs and FIRO-B personality

measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(7), 711-716.

Furnham, A and Stringfield, P (1993) Personality and occupational behaviour: Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator correlates of managerial practices in two cultures. Human Relations,

46(7), 827-848.
Garden, A (1991) Unresolved issues with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of

Psychological Type, 22, 3-14.

29
Gardner, WL and Martinko, MJ (1996) Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study

managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(1), 45-

83.
Guion, RM (1991) Personnel assessment, selection and placement. In MD Dunnette and LM

Hough (eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd Ed). New

York: Houghton Mifflin Publishing, 327-397.

Guion, RM and Gottier, RF (1965) Validity of personality measures in personnel selection.

Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.

Healy, CC (1989) Negative: The MBTI: Not ready for routine use in counseling. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 67, 487-488.

Hofstede, G (1980) Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-

Hill.
Howes, RJ and Carskadon, TG (1979) Test-retest reliabilities of the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator as a function of mood changes. Research in Psychological Type, 2, 67-72.

Isachsen, O & Berens, L V (1989) Working Together: A Personality Centered Approach to

Management (2nd Ed). Coronado, Calif.: Neworld Management Press.

Jung, C G (1971) Psychological Types. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (originally

published 1921).
Kiersey, D. and Bates, M. (1984) Please Understand Me (5th Ed). Del Mar, CA: Prometheus

Nemesis Books.
Lorr, M (1991) An empirical evaluation of the MBTI typology. Personality and Individual

Differences, 12(11), 1141-1145.

Macdonald, DA and Holland, CJ (1993) Psychometric evaluation of the Singer-Loomis

Inventory of Personality. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 38, 303-320.

Macy, GJ (1994) The selection of general managers: Some potential problems and

suggestions. Journal of General Management, 19(3), 76-87.

Margerison, C J and Lewis, R (1981) Mapping managerial styles. International Journal of

Manpower, 2(1) 2-24.

30
McCaulley, MH (1977) Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Medicine and

Other Health Professionals. HRA Contract 231-76-0051, US Department of Health,

Education and Welfare.

McCaulley, MH (1990a) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A measure for individuals and

groups. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 181-195.

McCaulley, MH (1990b) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in counseling. In CE Watkins and

VL Campbell (eds.) Testing in Counseling Practice. Vocational Psychology. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 91-134.

McCaulley, MH (1990c) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and leadership. In KE Clark and

MB Clark (eds.) Measures of leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of

America, 381-418.
McCrae, RR and Costa, PT (1989) Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the

perspective of the five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40.
More, E (1999) Personal communication. Professor More was Deputy Director of the

Macquarie Graduate School of Management in the period 1991-1996 and has been

the Director since 1997.

Morgan, G (1997) Images of Organisation (2nd Ed). Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.
Myers, IB (1962) Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service.
Myers, IB (1980) Introduction to Type (3rd Ed). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.
Myers, IB and McCaulley, MH (1985) Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Marwal, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press

Myers, IB, McCaulley, MH, Quenk, NL and Hammer, AL (1998) MBTI Manual: A Guide to

the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd Ed). Palo Alto,

Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press

Patrickson, M and Haydon, P (1988) Management selection practices in South Australia.

Human Resource Management Australia, 26(4), 96-104.

Pearman, RR (1993) Ethical Considerations and Criticisms of the MBTI. Proceedings of the

Tenth Biennial International Conference of the Association for Psychological Type.

Newport Beach, Cal. July 6-11, 67-71.

31
Pittenger, DJ (1993) The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Review of Educational

Research, 63(4), 467-488.

Porter, LW and McKibbin, LE (1988) Management Education and Development: Drift or

Thrust into the Twenty-First Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Power, L (1989) What type was Crocodile Dundee? Type Distributions in Australia.

Proceedings of APT Conference VIII, Boulder Colorado, 30 June- 2 July, 256-259.

Quinn, RE. (1988) Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing

demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Robertson, I T & Makin, P J (1986) Management selection in Britain: A survey and critique.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 45 -57.

Rotter, J (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control.

Psychological Monographs, 80(1), Whole No 609.

Schmidt, FL and Hunter, JE (1998) The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings

Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

Sipps, GJ, Alexander, RA and Friedt, L (1985) Item analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(3), 789-796.

Sipps, GJ and DiCaudo, J (1988) Convergent and discriminant validity of the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator as a measure of sociability and impulsivity. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 48(2), 445-451.

Spillane, R (1994) Personality or performance? The case against personality testing in

management. In AR Nankervis and RL Compton Readings in Strategic Human

Resource Management. Melbourne: Thomas Nelson, 239-247.

Spoto, A (1995) What would Jung say about the MBTI … and does it really matter?

Australian Journal of Psychological Type, 4(3), 3-12.

Steele, R & Kelly, T (1976) Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Jungian Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator correlation of Extraversion-Introversion. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 690-691.

Stricker, LJ & Ross, J (1963) Intercorrelations and reliability of the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator scales. Psychological Reports, 12, 287-293.

Stricker, LJ & Ross, J (1964) Some correlates of a Jungian personality inventory.

Psychological Reports, 14, 623-643..

32
Thomas, AB (1993) Controversies in Management. London: Routledge.
Thomas, CR (1984) Regression of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scales. Psychological

Reports, 55, 568.

Thompson, B and Borrello, GM (1986) Second-order factor structure of the MBTI: A

construct validity assessment. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and

Development, 18(4), 148-153.

Tzeng, OCS, Outcault, D, Boyer, SL, Ware, R and Landis, D (1984) Item validity of the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 255-256.

Tzeng, OCS, Ware, R and Bharadwaj, N (1991) Comparison between continuous bipolar and

unipolar ratings of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 51(3), 681-690.

Vaughn, E and Maclean, J (1990) A survey and critique of management selection practices in

Australian business firms. Asia Pacific Human Resource Management, 27(4), 20-33.
von Bertalanffy, L (1950) The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 3, 23-

29.
Von Foerester, H and Zopf, GW (eds) (1962) Principles of Self-Organization. New York:

Pergamon.
Wakefield, J, Sasek, T, Brubaker, M & Friedman, A (1976) Validity study of Eysenck

Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 26, 115-120

Wiggins, JS (1989) Review of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In JC Conoley and JJ Kramer

(eds) Tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, Lincoln, New England: University of

Nebraska Press, 537-538.

33
Table 1: Description of the Eight MBTI Preferences (adapted from Margerison and
Lewis, 1981:14)

Extravert Preference - prefers to live in Introvert Preference - prefers to be more self-

contact with others and things contained and work things out personally

Sensing Preference - puts emphasis on fact, INtuition Preference - puts emphasis on

details and concrete knowledge possibilities, imagination, creativity and
seeing things as a whole

Thinking Preference - puts emphasis on Feeling Preference - puts emphasis on human

using logic and rationality values, establishing personal friendships,
decisions mainly on beliefs and likes

Judging Preference - puts emphasis on Perceiving Preference - puts emphasis on

order through reaching decisions and gathering information and obtaining as much
resolving issues data as possible

34
Table 2: National Distributions of Type in the US and UK, rounded to the nearest
whole percent (adapted from Myers, et al, 1998:379)

COUNTRY/TYPE ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

US 12% 14% 2% 2%
UK 14% 13% 2% 1%
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
US 5% 9% 4% 3%
UK 6% 6% 3% 2%
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
US 4% 8% 8% 3%
UK 6% 9% 6% 3%
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
US 9% 12% 2% 2%
UK 10% 13% 3% 3%
US E (48%) > I (52%) UK E (53%) < I (47%)
S (73%) > N (27%) S (77%) > N (23%)
T (41%) < F (59%) T (45%) < F (55%)
J (55%) > P (45%) J (47%) > P (53%)

35
Table 3: Type distribution for Margerison and Lewis’s (1981:16) manager sample
and the national distribution of type in the UK (adapted from Myers, et al,
1998:379), rounded to the nearest whole percent

TYPE/ ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

SAMPLE
Managers 24% 6% 2% 7%
UK 14% 13% 2% 1%
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
Managers 4% 1% 3% 3%
UK 6% 6% 3% 2%
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
Managers 4% 1% 3% 4%
UK 6% 9% 6% 3%
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
Managers 21% 6% 2% 9%
UK 10% 13% 3% 3%

36
Table 4: Summary of Demographic Data for the Respondents to the Main Survey
Questionnaire

Individual Variables Frequency %

Sex
Female 119 23.2
Male 394 76.8
Total 513 100.0
Age Groups
<39 years 173 33.1
40-49 years 225 43.1
50+ years 124 23.8
Total 522 100
Place of Birth
ESB (Aust, NZ, UK, US, 444 85.1
Can)
NESB (European) 19 3.6
NESB (Asian) 32 6.1
NESB (Other) 27 5.2
Total 522 100.0
Management Qualification
PGDip 94 18.0
MA/MMgt 102 19.5
MBA/DBA 326 62.5
Total 522 100.0
Level in Organisation
Non/Junior Management 30 5.7
Middle Management 169 32.4
Senior Management 240 46.0
MD/CEO 83 15.9
Total 522 100.0

37
Table 5: Pearson Correlations of Main Survey Sample Demographic and
Organizational Variables

1 2 3 4 5
1. Sex –
2. Age Groups .13** –
3. Place of Birth -.04 -.03 –
4. Management Qualification .10** -.08 .08 –
5. Level in Organisation .05 .17** -.08 .09* –
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

38
Table 6: Chi-square analysis of individual and organizational variables

Crosstab 2statistic Comment

Sex by Age  , df =2 8.139;
2
Proportionately more females in <39 age group and
p = 0.017 less in 50+ age group
Sex by 2, df =2 10.407; Proportionately more females have MMgt and
Qualification p = 0.005 fewer have MBA
Sex by Sector 2, df =1 6.832; Proportionately more females in public/non-profit
p = 0.009 sector
Age Groups 2, df =6 19.525; p Proportionately more <39 age group in middle
by Level in = 0.003 management and fewer in Senior
Organisation Management/CEO; proportionately fewer 50+ age
group in Junior/Middle Management and more in
CEO/MD

39
Table 7: Coefficient Alpha Reliability Scores of the MBTI Scales for the two forms
of the research instrument, separately and combined

Form A Form B Form A & B

(MBTI first) (MBTI second) combined
S-N Scale 0.88 0.83 0.86
J-P Scale 0.80 0.82 0.82
J-P Scale (reduced)* 0.82 0.82 0.82
E-I Scale 0.80 0.80 0.81
E-I Scale (reduced) ---- 0.82 ----
T-F Scale 0.80 0.76 0.80
T-F Scale (reduced) 0.81 0.77 0.81
*Items that loaded incorrectly in the factor analysis were removed from the ‘reduced’ scales

40
Table 8: Pearson Product Moment Correlations of the MBTI Continuous Scales

(n = 523) IE Scale SN Scale TF Scale JP Scale

IE Scale 1.0 -.12** -.09* -.12**
SN Scale -.12** 1.0 .19** .51**
TF Scale -.09* .19** 1.0 .24**
JP Scale -.12** .51** .24** 1.0
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

41
Table 9: MBTI Type Distribution for the Total Sample (n= 523)

Sensing Types Intuitive Types

with Thinking With Feeling with Feeling with Thinking
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
n = 86 n=6 n=8 n = 76
% = 16.4 % = 1.1 % = 1.5 % = 14.5
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
n=7 n=5 n = 10 n = 52
% = 1.3 % = 1.0 % = 1.9 % = 9.9
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
n=9 n=3 n = 17 n = 68
% = 1.7 % = 0.6 % = 3.2 % = 13.0
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
n = 81 n=6 n = 10 n = 78
% = 15.5 % = 1.1 % = 1.9 % = 14.9
E = 272 (52%) I = 250 (48%)
>
S = 203 (39%) N = 319 (61%)
<
T = 457 (88%) F = 65 (12%)
>
J = 351 (67%) P = 171 (33%)
>

42
Table 10: MBTI Type Distribution for the Total Sample by Sex (Female n= 118;
Male n = 394)

Female Male
Sensing Types Intuitive Types Sensing Types Intuitive Types
with With with with with with with with
Thinkin Feeling Feeling Thinkin Thinkin Feeling Feeling Thinkin
g g g g
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
n=6 n=2 n=2 n = 24 n = 79 n=4 n=6 n = 50
% = 5.0 % = 1.7 % = 1.7 % = 20.2 % = 20.1 % = 1.0 % = 1.5 % = 12.7
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
n=1 n=1 n=2 n = 11 n=6 n=4 n=8 n = 40
% = 0.8 % = 0.8 % = 1.7 % = 9.2 % = 1.5 % = 1.0 % = 2.0 % = 10.2
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
n=0 n=2 n=5 n = 20 n=8 n=1 n = 12 n = 46
%=0 % = 1.7 % = 4.2 % = 16.8 % = 2.0 % = 0.3 % = 3.1 % = 11.7
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
n = 18 n=1 n=5 n = 18 n = 60 n=5 n=5 n = 59
% = 15.1 % = 0.8 % = 1.3 % = 15.1 % = 15.3 % = 1.3 % = 1.3 % = 15.0
E 69 (58%) > I 49 (42%) E 196 (50%) = I 197 (50%)
S 31 (29%) < N 87 (71%) S 167 (42%) < N 226 (58%)
T 98 (91%) > F 20 (9%) T 348 (89%) > F 45 (11%)
J 76 (70%) > P 42 (30%) J 268 (68%) > P 125 (32%)

43
Table 11: Comparison of 16 MBTI Types for two samples from the School,
separated by two decades. 1980 data from Myers and McCaulley,
(1985:39-40)

1998 Data 1980 Data

n= 524 n= 228
Type Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
(Expected) (Expected)
ISTJ 86 (92) 16.4 47 (40) 20.6
ISFJ 6 (9) 1.1 7 (4) 3.1
INFJ 8 (8) 1.5 3 (3) 1.3
INTJ 76 (74) 14.5 31 (33) 13.6
ISTP 7 (15) 1.3 14 (6) 6.1
ISFP 5 (3) 1.0 0 (2) 0
INFP 10 (8) 1.9 2 (4) 0.9
INTP 52 (52) 9.9 23 (23) 10.1
ESTP 9 (10) 1.7 5 (4) 2.2
ESFP 3 (3) 0.6 1 (1) 0.4
ENFP 17 (16) 3.2 6 (7) 2.6
ENTP 68 (61) 13.0 19 (26) 8.3
ESTJ 81 (80) 15.5 31 (32) 13.6
ESFJ 6 (6) 1.1 3 (3) 1.3
ENFJ 10 (9) 1.9 3 (4) 1.3
ENTJ 78 (77) 14.9 33 (34) 14.5
Missing 2 0.4 0 100.0
Total 524 100.0 228 100

44