I Am an ENTJ, But Don't Hire Me Based on That! Why Using the MBTI for Employee Selection is Just
Photo credit: Danielle Sanchez
About a year ago, I was a chosen applicant for a consulting firm in the northwest U.S. to advance to the next phase of the recruitment process, which included being administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). According to the correspondence I received, the results from the MBTI would be shared with the firm and myself, and would be the basis for deciding to move forward to the next phase, a virtual interview.
Results indicated I was deemed an ENTJ, and I was never called for an interview. This puzzled me, and made me wonder: What four letter combinations were the decision makers at this firm actually looking for?
This was my first exposure to a proprietary self-assessment, and as a doctoral student, I was naturally curious as to the validity and reliability of its measures.
First, we must understand what the MBTI purports to measure (genetic personality type), and the theoretical framework used to get there (Carl Jung’s personality type theory) to understand the assumptions that (1) we all excel at four out of eight functions, and (2) spend the rest of our lives becoming more comfortable with the four functions we don’t excel at, known as shadow functions (Coe, 1992).
This leads us to the MBTI’s limitations: (1) individual motivation and values aren’t taken into consideration, (2) pathology is ignored, (3) it doesn’t measure performance ability, and (4) it doesn’t measure how well we live with those shadow functions.
With this in mind, it has been stated that implementation of the MBTI as part of an employee selection process is a misuse of the scale; instead, it should be used for identification of leadership style, resolving conflicts, and forming work teams (Bacon & Voss, 2012), and never to “…exclude from consideration employees with the ‘wrong’ type for particular jobs” (Coe, 1992, p. 512).
In short, implementing an employee selection assessment strategy that goes against scientific rigor and consensus may open the organization up to greater scrutiny involving hiring practices, and lower the firm's ability to legally defend against claims of unfair selection decisions.
Results from a meta-analytic reliability generalization (RG) analysis (Capraro & Capraro, 2002) yielded Chronbach’s alphas ranging from .74 to .84 for over 32,000 participants, and temporal stability (test-retest reliability) estimates ranging from .48 to .93 with intervals anywhere from 1 week to 2.5 years.
Changes usually showed up in only one type over time, and the lowest reliabilities were found with the thinking/feeling scales. Interestingly, the lowest reliability coefficients were found with participants under the age of 20 (Capraro & Capraro, 2002), coinciding with personality type theory’s understanding that “people really begin to work at becoming more comfortable with their shadow functions after the age of 20” (Coe, 1992, p. 512).
Validity of the MBTI has been shown abundantly in the research with strong correlations, providing evidence that it does measure what it intends to.
Still, the MBTI is taken an estimated 1.5 to 2 million times per year, and how valuable that information is for a firm can greatly depend on how it is being used, and who exactly is buying into its results (Zemke, 1992).
Perhaps this was a blessing in disguise for me not to make the next round of recruitment, as I now have my doubts about working for a consulting firm that uses the MBTI as a recruitment/selection device.
Based on this experience, I would assume that there are firms, even in our business, who value the biggest fad over the appropriate measurement used for the appropriate time, place, and purpose.
A best practice to take away form this experience, for me, would be to ensure the establishment of an assessment protocol that meets the needs of the required competencies of both the job and the worker, which stems from a proper identification process fostered through job modeling (Prien, Schippmann, & Prien, 2003).
I wonder, though, how does a firm (especially a consulting firm) end up initiating a selection process not supported by research, and is this a systemic problem in other industry sectors?
If so, there can be many great opportunities for us as consultants to assist with creating better selection and development procedures.
So what's an ENTJ anyway?
Here are some snippets of my results as an ENTJ (taken directly from my MBTI report):
"ENTJs are usually ready to assume leadership of whatever project interests them. They develop and implement comprehensive systems to solve problems. They enjoy long-term planning and then organizing to achieve results and can be forceful in presenting their ideas. They value home, family, health, financial security, achievement, and learning."
"ENTJs represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population."
Characteristics of ENTJs:
• ENTJs set goals and then try to organize everything and everyone to meet those goals.
• They are logical and analytical decision makers.
• ENTJs are usually well informed and well read, and they enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it on to others.
• They are strategic visionaries who enjoy planning for the future.
• They can make tough decisions when necessary.
Potential blind spots for ENTJs:
• If ENTJs have not developed their Thinking preference, they may not have a reliable way to evaluate their insights and make plans. Then their decisions will tend to be inconsistent or always changing.
• They also may make decisions too quickly, without considering alternatives or exploring possibilities.
• If their Intuition is not developed, they may not stop and listen to others;
their decisiveness then may become dictatorial.
• ENTJs may not take others’ values into account, relying too much on their
own logical approach.
• ENTJs may not be good at expressing appreciation to others.
• Focusing so much on the big picture may lead them to overlook important details needed to accomplish their goals.
References
Bacon, T. R. & Voss, L. (2012). Adaptive coaching: The art and practice of a client-centered approach to performance improvement, 2nd Edition. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey International.
Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator score reliability across studies: A meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 590-602.
Coe, C. K. (1992). The MBTI: Potential uses and misuses in personnel administration. Public Personnel Management, 21(4), 511-522.
Prien, E. P., Schippmann, J. S. & Prien, K. O. (2003). Individual assessment as practiced in industry and consulting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Zemke, R. (1992). Second thoughts about the MBTI. Training, 29(4), 43-47.
