PAPERS MBTI Personality Types of Project
Managers and Their Success:
A Field Survey
Yuval Cohen, The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Hana Ornoy, The Lander Academic College, Jerusalem, Israel; The Open University of Israel,
Raanana, Israel
Baruch Keren, SCE—Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-Sheva, Israel
ABSTRACT ■
This paper describes a survey of 280 project
managers that reveals both their personality
types (via Myers-Briggs personality inventory)
and their success in project management. The
results show that a project manager’s personali-
ty is better suited for functioning with partial
data and under ambiguity than the rest of the
population. These traits were found for both
women and men. The conclusion is that project
managers (females and males) have a unique
personality-type distribution that distinguishes
them from the general population. The findings
can contribute to better understanding the traits
that characterize the project management popu-
lation, and their relationship to project success.
KEYWORDS: project management; person-
ality; key success factors; personality types;
Myers-Briggs; MBTI
Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, 78–87
© 2013 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21338
78 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION ■
N
ominating a project manager with a personality profile that matches
the project he or she will be heading is one of the most influential
decisions for the success of a project (Turner & Müller, 2006). For
any project that requires substantial management effort, the com-
petency of its project manager is an essential ingredient for its success
(Müller & Turner, 2010). Bredillet (2008) also identifies the project manager
as affecting project success while presenting the success as one of the nine
major research perspectives on project management. Turner, Huemann,
Anbari, and Bredillet (2010) develop and discuss these “nine schools of proj-
ect management” and dedicate a chapter to the subject under consideration
titled “Choosing appropriate project managers: Matching their leadership
style to the type of project.” In this chapter, they identify the project manager
as a major factor related to project success and discuss the relationship
between his or her leadership style and the success or failure of projects.
Project success factors are parts of a broad field of research and there are
many other such factors in addition to the project manager’s personality
(Cooke-Davies, 2002; Fortune & White, 2006; Westerveld, 2003).
This paper describes a survey of 280 project managers, which reveals both
their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality traits (Hammer &
Barger, 1996) and their success. The paper uses the survey to study the rela-
tionship between the MBTI personality type classification of project man-
agers and the success of their projects. In general, personality may be regard-
ed as a complex system of traits (Mischel & Shoda, 1995); the MBTI focuses
on a relevant part of that system and describes it using major four dichoto-
mous traits. The combinations of these traits and their implications are well
documented in MBTI literature (e.g., Hirsh & Kummerow, 2007; Michael,
2003).
Compared with other managers, project managers must be more suited
to tackling non-routine activities and uncertain environments (Leybourne &
Sadler-Smith, 2006); this requires both creative thinking and quantitative
analysis (Tullett, 1996). The survey clearly shows that, in comparison with
the rest of the population, project managers have personality types charac-
terized not only by a willingness to risk making decisions with partial data,
but also less readiness to give up thorough analysis of the scant data they
have. These personality types characterize managers who can logically spec-
ulate about the future and would feel more comfortable doing so than the
rest of the population.
 Project managers face more chal-
lenges in planning, organizing, and
motivating efforts. The fit between a
project manager’s personality and the
nature of the project that he or she con-
ducts has received relatively scant
research attention (Dolfi & Andrews,
2007). Traditionally, more attention has
been paid in the literature to findings
about the qualifications of managers in
general (Colinson & Hearn, 1996;
Cromie, Callaghan, & Jensen, 1992) and
their psychological profiles (Kets de
Vries, 1991; Zaleznik, 1966). In recent
years, the differences between projects
and the different managerial practices
required for managing them have
attracted growing attention (e.g.,
Crawford, Hobbs, & Turner, 2004;
Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 2004).
The relationship between a project man-
ager’s personality and the project type
was studied by Crawford et al. (2004),
and the implication of this relationship
on project success was studied by
Turner and Müller (2006), using MBTI.
Only a few previous studies have
addressed the personalities of project
managers and their influence on proj-
ect performance and success: Dolfi and
Andrews (2007) studied the effect of
optimism on a project manager’s ability
to overcome obstacles. A study based
on person–organization (P–O) theory
and Holland’s (1997) classification of
vocational personalities was presented
by Dvir, Sadeh, and Malach-Pines
(2006) and Sadeh, Dvir, and Malach-
Pines (2007). The P–O theory is based
on the fit between the individual’s
needs, desires, and preferences and the
position offered within the proposing
organization. In this study, the focus is
on whether the personality of the indi-
vidual project manager fits the job.
A more recent paper (Thal & Bedingfield,
2010) used the five-factor model (FFM)
for a similar purpose. Although FFM is a
descriptive model, Myers-Briggs was ini-
tially developed as a job matching and
assignment tool during World War II;
since then, this tool has improved and is
used by many job specialists and
human resource corporations (Myers-
Briggs & Myers, 1980; Rushton, Morgana, &
Richard, 2007). It is estimated that mil-
lions of people are assigned jobs annual-
ly around the world and many of them
are diagnosed by derivatives of the
Myers-Briggs questionnaire (Hammer &
Barger, 1996). Thus, the appointment of
a project manager, as well as other job
assignments, is more closely associated
with the Myers-Briggs personality ques-
tionnaire (e.g., Wideman, 2002) than
the FFM; therefore, this paper uses the
Myers-Briggs personality question-
naire, which is widely used by job
assignment specialists.
The remainder of the paper is struc-
tured as follows: the next section describes
the main themes in the Myers-Briggs
personality analysis method (typically
used in job fitting); then, a section is ded-
icated to the description of the survey
details and its administration; an addi-
tional section describes the results and
discusses their implications; and the
last section concludes the paper.
Myers-Briggs Personality Type
Classification
Although there is no real consensus yet
in psychology on what exactly consti-
tutes personality, intelligence, or lead-
ership, the wide use of scaling methods
is prevalent in describing them (e.g.,
MMPI, IQ, and CLI, respectively) and
other abstract psychological terms.
Trait theory in psychology is a trend to
emphasize the importance and central-
ity of stability parameters in human
personality. Carl Jung is considered to
be one of the first to emphasize this
approach (Jung, 1990; Quenk, 2009;
Rushton et al., 2007); hence, different
models have been developed around
Jung’s theory. One of the better known
theories is the “Big Five Personality
Traits” that characterize humans by
placement in one or more of the follow-
ing five traits: Openness, Conscientiou-
sness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Neuroticism. Another model is the
Enneagram, a method that describes
nine personality types. According to
June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
this theory, these nine types are subdi-
vided into three separate groups: the
triad of “feelings,” characterizing per-
sons with possible “feelings” problems;
the triad of “doing,” characterizing
problems related to performance; and
the triad of “power,” characterizing
problems related to control by power.
The Keirsey and Bates (1984) model
of personalities is also based on Jung’s
theories but gives them new and differ-
ent meanings. According to Keirsey’s
Temperament Theory, people can be
classified into four categories of Temper-
aments (Artisans, Guardians, Rationals,
and Idealists). Each of Keirsey’s four
scales detects a respondent’s preference
for Expressive versus Attentive, Obser-
vant versus Introspective, Tough-Minded
versus Friendly, and Scheduled versus
Probing.
One of the oldest and most popular
methods for classifying personality
traits as part of job fitting is the Myers-
Briggs personality type indicator
(Furnham, 1996; Hammer & Barger
1996). The Myers-Briggs type indicator
(MBTI) technique is a method based on
the personality theory of Jung (1990).
The technique was developed by
Katharine C. Briggs and her daughter
Isabel Briggs-Myers during World War II
to assist in fitting a person to a job and
vice versa (Quenk, 2009). The technique
involves answering a short questionnaire,
which enables classification of a person’s
traits according to four dichotomous
types: (1) Extrovert (E) versus Introvert (I);
(2) Sensing (S) versus Intuitive (N);
(3) Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F); and
(4) Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). The
letters in parenthesis above are used
to symbolize each of the traits used to
describe personality, as shown in Table 1.
Thus, any person can be classified into
one of the 16 personality categories
shown in Figure 1.
The personality categories are use-
ful for matching a person to a job or a
task. The MBTI technique proved to be
useful during World War II and has been
popular ever since; for example, it was
reported that over two million MBTI
79
 MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey
PAPERS
Extroversion
Personality focused on the outside world,
gets its motivation from interaction with
other people and by doing things.
Thinking
Person decides by logic and unbiased
analysis of cause and effect. Decisions try
to be objective without involving feelings,
as much as possible.
Sensing
Person decides based on facts and trusts
palpable current facts, figures, and details.
Judging
Person judges quickly and takes sides or
decides, wants to be part of the game—not
a spectator. More organized than
spontaneous.
Table 1: The four dichotomies of the Myers-Briggs technique.
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
Figure 1: The 16 possible personality types of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
questionnaires were administered dur-
ing 2006 (Rushton et al., 2007).
Keirsey and Bates (1984) adopted
the MBTI typology and used it to exam-
ine Jungian psychological preferences
known as temperament types. While
the MBTI uses 16 psychological types,
Keirsey and Bates categorized observed
behavior into four broad temperament
groups, which were suggested by prior
research: (1) sensing and judging (SJ),
(2) sensing and perceptive (SP),
(3) intuitive and thinking (NT), and
(4) intuitive and feeling (NF). Each of
the 16 psychological preferences could
80 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Introversion
Personality focused on the inner world,
gets its motivation from thought,
information, ideas, and concepts.
Feeling
Person decides with emphasis on the
expected effect upon feelings of others
and the self. The decision may be based
on gut feeling, tries to harmonize and
satisfy others.
Intuition
Person decides based on intuition, rela-
tionships, and speculations.
Perceiving
Person tries to be a spectator and leave
themselves all the options open as long
as possible. Very slow to judge.
be categorized into one of the four tem-
perament types. The research of Keirsey
and Bates has shown that SP and SJ
temperaments each represent approxi-
mately 38% of the general population,
whereas NT and NF temperament
types, each represents roughly 12% of
the general population.
Wideman (2002) compared the
characteristics of successful project
managers with the distribution of
MBTI types across the population, as
identified by Keirsey and Bates (1984).
Wideman categorizes the MBTI types
into groups that can be summarized as
follows:
1. Project leaders: INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ,
ESTJ (—, —, T, J)
2. Project leaders and followers: INTP,
ENTP, ENFJ, ESFJ (—, N, T, P; E, —, F, J)
3. Project followers: INFJ, ISFJ (I, —, F, J)
4. Unsuited/Questionable: INFP, ISFP,
ESFP, ENFP, ISTP, ESTP (—, —, F, P; —,
S, T, P)
The results of our study (see Table 5)
show that the reported project success
rates of these groups did not reveal sig-
nificant differences.
Survey Details and Its
Administration
The survey was conducted using four
different questionnaires, each completed
by all participants, as follows:
(1) Self-developed questionnaire (based
on Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz,
2001), which examines how project
managers judge their project success
and performance in four dimen-
sions:
1. Project manager satisfaction with
following the planned framework
(e.g., spending within budget,
completion time within schedule,
performance meets specs).
2. Customer satisfaction with the
project (e.g., satisfaction based on
performance and deliverables).
3. Managerial satisfaction with the
project’s contribution to the orga-
nization’s overall success.
4. Overall satisfaction with the pro-
ject’s contribution to the future of
the organization (e.g., new research
and development capabilities).
The answers to the questions were
given on a Likert-type scale (1 to 5), with
1 being the lowest level of satisfaction
and 5 the highest (a non-applicable
option was marked by filling “99”). Prior
to the study, a test case of 10 project man-
ager participants was chosen to answer
the questionnaire; their answers revealed
that two questions were misunderstood,
so they were subsequently corrected.
Some minor changes in wording were
also made; however, most of the ques-
tionnaire remained unchanged.
All the participants’ answers were
converted to standard grades on a scale
of 0 to 100, and the mean grade for each
question was computed. Cronbach’s a
(alpha) of our questionnaire was 0.73,
validating its internal consistency.
(2) The Three Personality Factors ques-
tionnaire proposed by Jung (1921).
This questionnaire includes 33
questions, which are categorized
into three major personality charac-
teristics: (I) stability, (II) organiza-
tion, and (III) extroversion. The
grades are normalized to a scale of
0% to 100%, where 0% reflects the
 lowest level of the feature and 100% The students came from various com- Data Analysis Method
is the highest level of the feature. panies in a variety of businesses and The data were entered onto an Excel
(3) The Myers-Briggs questionnaire typically picked participants from their spreadsheet, and averages and stan-
(Myers-Briggs & Myers, 1980), which home organization; therefore, the 280 dard deviations as well as distributions
reveals personality orientation along participants who volunteered to answer and statistical tests were computed on
four dichotomous scales: (I) Internal the questionnaires can be considered a copies of this spreadsheet.
versus external attention focus: representative sample. The question-
Introversion versus Extroversion; naires were given to the participants
The Survey Results
(II) Style of receiving outside infor- between January and February of 2010. Empirical Type Distribution Among
mation: Sensing versus Intuition; The participants were given an explana- Project Managers
(III) Decision-making style: Feeling tion of the research objective and Several studies discuss the general
versus Thinking; and (IV) Style of detailed guidance about how to fully personality-type distribution in the
involvement in the world arena: and accurately fill out the question- population (e.g., Ball, 2001; Wideman,
Judgmental versus Perceiving. naires. Filling out the questionnaire typ- 2002) and others explore the personali-
(4) A self-developed socio-demographic ically took 20 to 30 minutes and was ty-type distribution of special popula-
questionnaire, which examines the conducted under the supervision and tions (e.g., Allison & Hobbs, 2010, for
gender, age, education level, marital with the assistance of the MBA students, natural resource managers.)
status, number of children, years of who had been specially trained by the In Table 2, we compare the personality-
work experience, years of experi- researchers. The participating project type distribution in the survey with the
ence as a project manager, industry managers were assured that their priva- same distribution estimated by the Myers-
type, and organization’s name. cy would be protected (i.e., the results Briggs Institute. The estimated frequency
would not be linked back to participants of the total population is taken from the
Sample Population and be used only for research purposes). Myers & Briggs Foundation and was
The participants were 280 managers
with experience in project manage-
Survey Population vs. Total Population
ment, working in a variety of business
areas: software, construction, banking, Description Breakdown by Type Total
communications, food, engineering, IJ INTJ INTJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ
security, transportation, and education. Survey Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.3% 1.2% 7.3% 20%
The participants’ average age was 38.7 Population % 2.1% 1.5% 13.8% 11.6% 29%
years. In terms of gender: 72% were males
Difference ⫺7.1% ⫺0.8% 12.6% 4.3% 9%
and 28% were females. Other studies and IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP
Project Management Institute (PMI) data Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.7% 2.3% 8.8% 23%
suggest a male female distribution in
Population % 3.3% 4.4% 8.8% 5.4% 22%
Difference ⫺5.9% 1.7% 6.5% ⫺3.4% ⫺1%
project management of approximately
66% male and 34% female (Cartwright & EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP
Gale, 1995; Gale & Cartwright, 1995;
Empirical PM % 11.9% 4.2% 0.8% 4.6% 22%
Population % 3.2% 8.1% 8.5% 4.3% 24%
Stackman & Henderson, 2010; Tullett,
Difference ⫺8.7% 3.9% 7.7% ⫺0.3% 3%
1996). So, the percentage of men versus
women in the survey is biased toward
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ
Empirical PM % 12.7% 3.5% 2.7% 16.9% 36%
men (but is still less than two standard
Population % 1.8% 2.4% 12.3% 8.7% 25%
deviations from the population per- Difference ⫺10.9% ⫺1.1% 9.6% ⫺8.2% ⴚ11%
centage). The average education level of
Total NT NF SF ST Total
men in the study was 15 years and for
Empirical PM % 43.1% 12.7% 6.9% 37.7% 100%
women 14.8 years (practically identi- Population % 10.4% 16.4% 43.4% 30.0% 100%
cal); however, their experience as a proj- Difference 32.7% ⫺3.7% ⴚ36.5% 7.7% 0%
ect manager is very different (8.1 years
Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI
for men and 2.8 years for women).
results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP,
Research Procedure Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-
type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp
The participants were selected by a
group of MBA students who conducted Table 2: Total population personality type comparison: The project manager survey versus the
the field research as part of their studies. general population.

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 81

 MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey
PAPERS

compiled from a variety of MBTI results of the females are the SF type, this phe- sidering many possibilities. Myers-Briggs
between 1972 and 2002, including data nomenon excludes close to 50% of (1962) claimed that the possibilities that
banks at the Center for Applications of women from taking part in the project the NT people choose are often theoret-
Psychological Type; CPP, Inc.; and management profession. ical or technical, whereas the human
Stanford Research Institute (SRI). The conclusion is that project man- elements are more or less ignored. It
Table 2 shows major gaps in the SF agers (females and males) have a seems that these NT characteristics are
(Sensing, Feeling) and NT (Intuitive, unique personality type, in terms of the prevalent characteristics of project
Thinking) columns. Overall, the survey MBTI distribution, which distinguishes managers. Tables 3 and 4 depict the
population has 36.5% fewer SF people them from the general population. The male and female distribution of project
than the total population and 32.7% population of project managers has managers compared with the general
more NT people than the total popula- many fewer SF types than the general public distribution.
tion. These results are in line with studies population and many more NT types.
that relate project management to intu- In general, people in the NT category Risk Preferences Among Project
ition and thinking (e.g., Leybourne & focus on analyzing possibilities in an Managers
Sadler-Smith, 2006; Tullett, 1996). Berens ambiguous environment, whereas peo- While the MBTI personality type index
(2006) called the NT personality type ple in the SF category base their focus is not directly related to risk prefer-
“Theorist,” whereas the SF type was on gathering facts and human relations. ences, some researchers reported that
either “Stabilizer” or “Improviser.” Also, Because many projects are carried out in such a relationship exists. For example,
of the judgmental (J) types in the first an uncertain environment, project man- Henderson and Nutt (1980) found in
and fourth rows, the survey has 10% agers have to manage their projects their study that SF managers are likely
more extroverts (EJ) and 9% fewer based not only on facts but also by con- to be risk takers, whereas the NT
introverts (IJ) than the general popula-
tion. The slant toward extroverted
judgmental-type project managers may MALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population
be associated with communication Description Breakdown by Type Total
skills required for project leadership. IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ
The goodness of fit test was used in Empirical Male % 7.0% 2.2% 1.1% 6.5% 17%
order to test the hypothesis (H0) that our Male pop. % 3.3% 1.3% 8.1% 16.4% 29%
280 project managers (observed data) Difference 3.7% 0.9% ⫺7.0% ⫺9.9% ⴚ12%
have the same MBTI distribution as in
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP
the general population (expected data).
k (O ⫺ e ) 2
Empirical Male % 8.1% 2.2% 1.6% 10.8% 23%
i i
The statistic is x2 ⫽ a p with Male pop. % 4.8% 4.1% 7.6% 8.5% 25%
i⫽1 ei Difference 3.3% ⫺1.9% ⫺6.0% 2.3% ⫺2%
9 degrees of freedom and it shows that
H0 must be rejected for any a ⬍ 0.01. The EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP
conclusion is that project managers
Empirical Male % 12.4% 4.3% 0.0% 5.4% 22%
Male pop. % 4.0% 6.4% 6.9% 5.6% 23%
form a special population.
Difference 8.4% ⫺2.1% ⫺6.9% ⫺0.2% ⫺1%
Although these differences were
found for both males and females, they EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ
were much more significant in females. Empirical Male % 12.4% 2.7% 3.8% 19.4% 38%
While 23.6% fewer SF types were found Male pop. % 2.7% 1.6% 7.5% 11.2% 23%
among the males of our project man-
Difference 9.7% 1.1% ⫺3.7% 8.2% 15%
agers’ sample (compared with the total Total NT NF SF ST Total
male population), 48.4% fewer SF types Empirical Male % 39.8% 11.3% 6.5% 41.9% 99%
were found in the sample females Male pop. % 14.8% 13.4% 30.1% 41.7% 100%
(compared with the total female popu- Difference 25.0% ⫺2.1% ⴚ23.6% 0.2% ⫺1%
lation). Furthermore, 25.0% more NT Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI
types were found in males (compared results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP,
with the total male population), and Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-
type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp
44.1% more NT types were found in
females (compared with the total female Table 3: A comparison of the male project manager personality type distribution with the overall
population). Since approximately 56% male population distribution.

82 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 into two major dimensions: input risk
FEMALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population
preference and output risk preference.
Description Breakdown by Type Total
On the input side the sensing (S) project
IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ manager is risk averse (decides by facts,
Empirical F. PM % 14.5% 2.6% 1.3% 9.2% 28% see Table 1), and the intuitive (N) project
Female pop. % 0.8% 1.6% 19.4% 6.9% 29% manager is a risk taker (decides by intu-
Difference 13.7% 1.0% ⫺18.1 2.3% ⴚ1% ition and speculation). However, on the
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP output side, the thinking (T) project
Empirical F. PM % 11.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 24% manager is risk averse (decides by logic
Female pop. % 1.8% 4.6% 9.9% 2.4% 19% and unbiased analysis), and the feeling
Difference 10.0% ⫺0.7% ⫺6.0% 1.5% 5%
(F) project manager is more of a risk
EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP taker (may decide by gut feeling). Since
Empirical F. PM % 10.5% 3.9% 2.6% 2.6% 20% project managers from the NT type
Female pop. % 2.4% 9.7% 10.1% 3.0% 25%
are more prevalent, they tend to manage
Difference 8.1% ⫺5.8% ⫺7.5% ⫺4.0% ⫺5%
projects with less data and rely more on
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ their intuition. On the other hand, they
Empirical F. PM % 13.2% 5.3% 0.0% 10.5% 29%
tend to be cautious and analyze whatever
Female pop. % 0.9% 3.3% 16.9% 6.3% 27%
Difference 12.3% 2.0% ⫺16.9% 4.2% 2% data they have in order to make a good
decision. Our insight is that intuitive (N)
Total NT NF SF ST Total
project managers can live with ambigui-
Empirical F. PM % 50% 16% 8% 26% 100%
Female pop. % 5.90% 19.20% 56.30% 18.60% 100% ty and less data better than others; there-
Difference 44.1% ⫺3.4% ⴚ48.4% 7.7% 0% fore, they can take more risks on the
input side, meaning that collecting data
Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI
and facts is not as critical for them as for
results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP,
Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality- the sensing (S) project managers.
type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp However, project managers will then
Table 4: A comparison of the female project manager personality type distribution with the overall perform a full analysis of whatever limit-
female population distribution. ed data they do have. These traits and
capabilities are very important for a per-
son who manages projects.
and the NF groups take moderate risks, and The opposite findings of Henderson and
ST managers are the risk-averse group. Nutt compared to those of Filbeck et al. Types and Project Success
Filbeck, Hatfield, and Horvath (2005) may be attributed to the difference in Project success was estimated using
explored the relationship between the framework presented to the subjects by many questions regarding compliance
personality type (MBTI) and risk toler- the different questionnaires. For exam- with time, budget, and specifications,
ance of investors in the expected utility ple, the gap could be better explained if as well as stakeholder satisfaction and
theory framework. Their results conflict Filbeck et al. present stock purchasing project effectiveness, and its contribu-
with those of Henderson and Nutt and, in a way that F and N subjects perceive tion to the organization and its strategy.
in fact, arrive at the opposite conclu- as a risky gamble, whereas T and S sub- The answers were normalized to a scale
sions. Filbeck et al. concluded that indi- jects perceive stock purchasing as a of 0 to 100, and the average grade for
viduals with a preference for thinking statistical problem. An additional expla- each personality type was computed.
(T) tend to be more risk tolerant than nation may be the different types of Table 5 depicts the success estimation
those with a preference for feeling (F). subjects (managers and workers versus as a function of personality type.
Moreover, they concluded that individ- students) and a different distribution of The results in Table 5 show that,
uals with a preference for sensing (S) characteristic combinations. although NT is the most prevalent type,
are willing to tolerate more upside or One of the main findings in this the NT project managers have the low-
downside potential than those with a paper is that project managers are much est reported success rates. At the other
preference for intuition (N), but the more NT than the population and much end, while the fewest project managers
sensing-intuition dimension did not less SF (Table 2). The question is how this are SF types, these project managers
indicate any differences in risk toler- fact might be related to the risk preference report the highest success rates. The
ance as measured by variance. Note of project managers. The MBTI classifica- average grade of success in the survey is
that the results of our study are closer tion implies that the risk in a project man- 74 (on a scale of 0 to 100). Although the
to the results of Henderson and Nutt. agement environment can be categorized SF combination is rare (7% of project

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 83

 MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey
PAPERS

and the qualifications needed to be

Overall Project Success Estimates by Personality Types
project managers.
IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ 2. They manage unique projects, in
Scores 71 71 82 73 74 which the SF type is an advantage.
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP 3. The success perception of these SF
Scores 71 75 83 70 75 respondents is inflated compared to
EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP other groups.
Scores 73 78 78 76 76 4. There were only 19 project managers
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ in the SF group, which might not be a
Scores 71 75 73 75 74 large enough group to establish the
Total NT NF SF ST Total phenomenon.
71 71 82 73 74 Gender Effects
NT vs. SF test All the above findings are consistent for
both genders, with very slight differences.
Avg. St. Dev.
The gender differences in our study, as
NT score 71 1.00 they emerge from the socio-demographic
SF score 82 4.55
survey are depicted in Table 6.
Pooled St. Dev for Avgs 1.2 Note that the male and female expe-
Z-value 6.22 rience in the workplace is 9.9 and 8.9
Alpha ⬍ 0.0001
years, respectively (only one year differ-
Table 5: The average reported success scores of various personality types and a comparison of NT ence); however, their experiences as
with SF scores.
project managers are very different: 8.1
years for males and 2.8 years for
females. Also, the males are on the aver-
Male Female Difference age 4 years older than the females; thus,
we must conclude that the female proj-
Percentage in the survey 72% 28% 44%
ect managers had begun working in
Average age 38.7 34.9 3.8 project management positions only
Average number of children 2.4 1.7 0.7 in the last decade or two, whereas the
male project manager had been holding
Average education level 15 14.8 0.2 project management positions for quite
Average years in the workplace 9.9 8.9 1 some time. This also explains the large
percentage of male project managers
Average years as a project manager 8.1 2.8 5.3
and their higher number of children.
Average number of subordinates 15.8 7.8 7.9 Also, on the average, male project man-
Average project budget (US$ millions) 80.7 36.8 43.9 agers are heading higher budget projects
(average of US$80.7 million budgets for
Table 6: Differences between male and female characteristics in the project manager survey. men and US$36.8 million by women).
Finally, the distribution of sectors
between male and female project man-
agers in the survey was significantly
manager survey population) compared grade (74). The FP project managers
different. Figures 2 and 3 depict these
with the NT combination (43% of the (12% of the survey population) also
distributions. For example, it is evident
survey population), the SF success have a higher than average grade (78).
that there are more female project
grades are significantly higher than This is important, because FP types rep-
managers in education and finance and
those of the NT project managers. This resent approximately 30% of the general
fewer in the construction and software
is tested and shown at the bottom of population.
industries than there are men.
Table 5. The ISF combination is only 3% The following reasons may explain
of the total project management popu- the success reported by the SF project Conclusions
lation, but 22% of the general popula- managers (and other rare types) in our This paper presents an empirical,
tion. Moreover, the ISF project managers study: exploratory study based on a survey of
are shown to be extremely successful 1. The few SF people who become proj- 280 project managers. The main survey
(82.5) in comparison with the average ect managers have special talents findings show that:

84 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 1. Project managers have a unique dis-
tribution of personality type (MBTI),
Electronics and Security
Communications
which separates them from the gen-
1%
eral population.
Tourism and 6%
Entertainment 2. There are significantly more NT
7% (Intuitive, Thinking) type project man-
Construction agers than their percentage in the
Transportation 10%
5% general population. The NT project
managers base their decisions on intu-
Education ition and analysis. This is expected,
14% because project managers must make
decisions in the face of ambiguity and
Software
Finance uncertainty and have to rely on intu-
18%
7% ition while lacking some of the facts.
3. There are significantly fewer project
managers of the SF (Sensing, Feeling)
Government type than those found in the general
Medical Retail 5%
13% population. These SF project man-
Marketing 7%
7% agers base their decisions on full
sensory data while cognizant of com-
Figure 2: Distribution of the female project manager survey population by industry sector. passion and the other human feel-
ings of their peers and subordinates.
4. The special group of ISF, represent-
ing 23% of the general population
formed only 3% of the project man-
ager survey population. This is a
strong sign for their inadequate pro-
file; however, the 3% ISF reached the
Electronics and highest project success scores. This
Communications finding points at their being placed
Manufacturing 7%
3% Tourism and in special projects.
Entertainment 5. The results were found for both
3%
Aviation women and men. In terms of gender,
2% Security females are about 28% of the project
3% manager survey population. They
were as successful as males, but sig-
Software nificantly younger than the male
24% project managers in the survey which
reflects their absence from project
management in previous decades.
Construction
31% A word of caution is in place: As stated
1%
in the code of ethics of the Center for
Marketing
2% Applications of Psychological Type–CAPT
(2010, Interpreting MBTI® Results, para. 3):
Medical Technology
Retail “One should not state or imply that type
5% 2%
8% explains everything. Type does not reflect
Finance
3% Education
an individual’s ability, intelligence, likeli-
2% hood of success, emotions, or normalcy.
Government Agriculture
2% 2% Type is one important component of the
complex human personality.” Also, this
Figure 3: Distribution of the male project manager survey population by industry sector.
study did not control the project type;

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 85

 MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey
PAPERS
however, the subject of matching project
manager personality to a project type is
important and is left for future research.
Moreover, the issue of finding relation-
ships between certain success metrics to
personality traits also requires more data
collection and further research.
Despite the limitations of the study
as an exploratory study, its findings
have important theoretical and practi-
cal implications. The findings con-
tribute to better characterization of the
project management population and
the relationship between certain com-
mon project manager characteristics
and project success. ■
References
Allison, H., & Hobbs, R. (2010). Natural
resource management at four social
scales: Psychological type matters.
Environmental Management, 45(3),
590–602.
Ball, I. (2001). Gender differences in
the distribution of types in Australia.
Australian Psychological Type Review,
3(1), 15–16.
Berens, L. V. (2006). Understanding
yourself and others: An introduction to
the 4 temperaments. West Hollywood,
CA: Telos Publications.
Bredillet, C. N. (2008). Exploring
research in project management: Nine
schools of project management
research (Part 6). Project Management
Journal, 39(3), 2–6.
Cartwright, S., & Gale, A. (1995).
Project management: Different gender,
different culture? A discussion on gen-
der and organizational culture–Part 2.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 16(4), 12–16.
Center for Applications of
Psychological Type–CAPT. (2010).
MBTI code of ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment
/ethical-use.htm
Colinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1996). Men
as managers, managers as men: Critical
perspectives on men, masculinity and
management. London, England: Sage.
86 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The ‘‘real’’
success factors on projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 20, 185–190.
Crawford, L., Hobbs, J. B., & Turner, J. R.
(2004). Project categorization systems
and their use in organizations: An
empirical study. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Cromie, S., Callaghan, I., & Jensen, M.
(1992). Entrepreneurial tendencies of
managers: A research note. British
Journal of Management, 3(1), 1–5.
Dolfi, J., & Andrews, E. J. (2007). The sub-
liminal characteristics of project man-
agers: An exploratory study of optimism
overcoming challenges in the project
environment, International Journal of
Project Management, 25(7), 674–682.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A.
(2006). Projects and project managers:
The relationship between project man-
agers’ personality, project types and
projects success. Project Management
Journal, 37(5), 36–48.
Filbeck, G., Hatfield, P., & Horvath, P.
(2005). Risk aversion and personality
type. Journal of Behavioral Finance,
6(4), 170–180.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing
of project critical success factors by a
systems model. International Journal
of Project Management, 24(1), 53–65.
Furnham, A. (1996). The big five ver-
sus the big four: The relationship
between the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor
model of personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307.
Gale, A., & Cartwright, S. (1995).
Women in project management: Entry
into a male domain? A discussion on
gender and organizational culture, part
1. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 16(2), 3–8.
Hammer, A. L., & Barger, N. J. (1996).
MBTI applications: A decade of research
on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Henderson, J. C., & Nutt, P. C. (1980).
The influence of decision style on deci-
sion making behavior. Management
Science, 26(4), 371–386.
Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (2007).
Introduction to Type® in organizations
(3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cpp Inc.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocation-
al choices: A theory of vocational per-
sonalities and work environments (3rd
ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types,
collected works (Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1990). Psychological types.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please
understand me: Character and tempera-
ment types. Del Mar, CA: Gnosology
Books/Prometheus Nemesis.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1991). On
becoming a CEO. In M. F. R. Kets de
Vries and associates (Eds.),
Organizations of the couch: Clinical
perspective on organizational behavior
and change (pp. 120–139). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leybourne, S., & Sadler-Smith, E.
(2006). The role of intuition and
improvisation in project management.
International Journal of Project
Management, 24(6), 483–492.
Michael, J. (2003). Using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool
for leadership development? Apply
with caution. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 10(1), 45–54.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A
cognitive-affective theory of personali-
ty: Reconceptualizing situations, dis-
proportions, dynamics, and invariance
in personality structure. Psycholgical
Review, 102(2), 246–268.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2010).
Leadership competency profiles of
successful project managers.
International Journal of Project
Management, 28(5), 437–448.
Myers-Briggs, I. (1962). Introduction to
type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Myers-Briggs, I., & Myers, P. B. (1980).
Gifts differing: Understanding person-
ality type. Mountain View, CA: Davies-
Black Publishing.
Quenk, N. (2009). Essentials of Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator Assessment (2nd
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Rushton, S., Morgana, J., & Richard, M.
(2007). Teacher’s Myers-Briggs person-
ality profiles: Identifying effective
teacher personality traits. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 23(4), 432–441.
Sadeh, A., Dvir, D., & Malach-Pines, A.
(2007). The implications of P–O fit the-
ory to project management. The
International Journal of Technology,
Knowledge and Society, 3(4), 125–136.
Shenhar, A. J. (1998). From theory to
practice: Toward a typology of project
management styles. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 41(1), 33–48.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2004). How
projects differ and what to do about it. In
J. Pinto & P. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of
managing projects. New York, NY: Wiley.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., &
Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A
multidimensional strategic concept.
Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725.
Stackman, L. S., & Henderson, R.
(2010). An exploratory study of gender in
project management: Interrelationships
with role, location, technology, and
project cost. Project Management
Journal, 41(5), 37–55.
Thal, A., & Bedingfield, J. (2010).
Successful project managers: An
exploratory study into the impact of
personality. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 22(2),
243–259.
Tullett, A. D. (1996). The thinking style
of the managers of multiple projects:
Implications for problem solving when
managing change. International
Journal of Project Management, 14(5),
281–287.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2006).
Choosing appropriate project man-
agers: Matching their leadership style to
the type of project. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
Turner, R. J., Huemann, M., Anbari,
F. T., & Bredillet, C. N. (2010). Perspectives
on projects. New York, NY: Routledge.
Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project
Excellence Model: Linking success cri-
teria and critical success factors.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21(6), 411–418.
Wideman, R.M. (2002). Dominant per-
sonality traits suited to running projects
successfully (and what type are you?).
Paper presented at the 29th Annual
Project Management Institute,
Seminar/Symposium: Tides of Change.
Long Beach, CA, October 1998.
Retrieved from http://www.maxwide
man.com/papers/personality
/personality.pdf
Zaleznik, A. (1966). The managerial
mystique: Restoring leadership in busi-
ness. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Yuval Cohen is the head of the industrial engineer-
ing program at the Open University of Israel. His
areas of specialty include project management,
operations planning, and design and management
of production and logistic systems, and he has
June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
published many papers in these areas. He served
for several years as a senior operations planner at
FedEx Ground (USA) and received several awards
for his contributions to the hub and terminal net-
work planning. He received his PhD from the
University of Pittsburgh (USA), his MSc from the
Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, and his
BSc from Ben-Gurion University. He is a Fellow of
the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE) and a full
member of the Institute for Operations Research
and Management Sciences (INFORMS).
Hana Ornoy is the head of the Management
Section at the School of Business Administration
of The Lander Academic Institute and a faculty
teaching member in the Department of
Economics and Management at The Open
University and Department of Psychology at
Bar-Ilan University. She holds a PhD in organiza-
tional behavior from the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Israel. She is a senior organizational
consultant and is the author of The Relocation
Trip (2009) and The Israeli Manager in the Time
of Globalization (2011), both published in
Hebrew by Rimonim Publishing House, Israel.
Baruch Keren is a senior lecturer in the
Industrial Engineering and Management
Department at the SCE–Shamoon College of
Engineering and a lecturer at the Open
University of Israel. He received his BSc, MSc,
and PhD (summa cum laude) degrees in indus-
trial engineering from Ben-Gurion University of
the Negev. His professional experience includes
13 years with Israel Chemicals Ltd. and its sub-
sidiaries in the areas of industrial engineering,
economics, and auditing. His current research
interests include decision making under uncer-
tainty, production planning, project manage-
ment, and operations research.
87
Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.