Search Results

What does the research say? by John Hackston We live in a VUCA world; for many people, the work environment is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. While those of us with type preferences for Intuition may enjoy a certain amount of ambiguity, too much (and too much volatility, uncertainty, and complexity) will have a negative impact on anyone’s level of well-being. This is clearly an issue for individuals, but it is a problem for organizations too; employees with higher levels of well-being are more productive, more creative, and much more likely to recommend their organization as a place to work. So increasing well-being seems to be to everyone’s advantage, and it is not surprising that there is a great deal of advice available on how to do this. Not all of it, however, is based on firm evidence and much of it ignores individual differences between people. For practitioners seeking to use their knowledge of psychological type to help those struggling with their well-being, these are unfortunate omissions. So in several of our recent research projects at The Myers-Briggs Company, we’ve been trying to fill this gap. Three of our studies are particularly relevant: Well-being at work. Over 10,000 people completed the PREMAN questionnaire, giving their results on six elements of well-being (Positive Emotions, Relationships, Engagement, Accomplishment and Negative Emotions). We identified gaps in well-being (overall, Positive Emotions had the lowest rating), differences by gender, age, nationality and occupation and investigated what methods are most often used to improve well-being, and which work. We also looked at how well-being related to type; on average, those with a preference for Extraversion had higher levels of well-being than people with a preference for Introversion (I’ll leave it to you to guess the whole types with the highest and lowest levels on average). We were also able to say which strategies work best for each type, allowing us to develop personalised advice. For example, for people with my type preferences (INTP), exercise was particularly useful for improving general well-being and undertaking work where I learn something new came top for improving well-being at work (I did go to the gym this morning, so I can allow myself a small self-congratulatory glow). Thriving in the gig economy. The gig economy is growing; by 2030, there may be more freelancers than traditional employees. Based on a survey of 1,300 people, we investigated why people become gig workers, the best and worst things about gig work, and how these perceptions differ by type. Gig work can be stressful, but the information we collected allowed us to develop type-based guidelines for gig working. For example, for my type preferences, likely strengths as a freelancer or gig worker include: Less concerned with the formal trappings of status Flexible, adaptable, open to new ideas and experiences Generally happy to work alone and in a transactional way And possible tips for development were: Don’t neglect planning and admin – they do matter If you take too long to act on your decisions, you may miss out Avoid roles that are repetitive or routine if you can We will be making the guidelines available online in the near future. Working in an always-on culture. With smartphones always within reach, we can find it difficult to switch off from work, especially in a VUCA environment where we may feel that staying connected is one way to keep some control over our working lives. However, this ‘always-on’ behaviour has been linked to increased stress and work-home conflict. Based on a survey of 1,116 people, we found that the always-on culture is something of a double-edged sword. Those able to access work emails or phone calls outside of work were more distracted, more stressed and had higher levels of work-home conflict but were also more engaged in their work and had greater job satisfaction. There were relationships with personality, and we were able to outline strategies that workers with different type preferences can use to improve their well-being. For example those who, like me, have preferences for both Thinking and for Perceiving often value the freedom and flexibility that the always-on culture brings and enjoy being able to work from home or when the inspiration takes us without feeling ‘always-on’, but we can forget that others may not feel the same and ignore the boundaries that they are trying to maintain between ‘work’ and ‘not work’. Remembering not to send emails outside business hours, unless urgent (even if this means writing the email and delaying sending it) may work wonders. Taken together, these three studies shed light on well-being in general, on well-being amongst gig workers and freelancers, and on how the always-on culture affects well-being. For type practitioners, the knowledge of what approaches work best for each type may be especially useful. We’ll be publishing detailed results, and practical implications, on the Myers-Briggs Company website (www.themyersbriggs.com) later in the year, and I’ll also be presenting these at the BAPT conference in April: https://www.bapt.org.uk/events/2019-conference. About the Author John Hackston is a Chartered Psychologist and Head of Thought Leadership at The Myers-Briggs Company. He has over thirty years of experience in helping clients to use psychometric tests and questionnaires. John carries out research to bring personality assessments, in particular the MBTI, to life, helping practitioners and end users apply the insights they gain both inside and outside work. jhackston@themyersbriggs.com; www.themyersbriggs.com [Photo by Victor Freitas from Pexels]

by Bill Davies What can an understanding of our personality and our emotional intelligence contribute to understanding stress reactions and how to better manage our selves and become more resilient, even happier!? This paper will refer to Jungian personality type and to JCA Global’s emotional intelligence model as illustrations. Our core personality is ‘who we are’ and is relatively stable but we (potentially) develop in a systematic way over time according to Jung, and at the same time we can adaptively utilise different parts of ourselves depending on context. Emotional intelligence is how we learn to manage our personality through awareness and choices we make and how we develop skills, habit and attitudes around this; becoming more personally and interpersonally effective. I aim to look at these two concepts as complementary and linked aspects that can give enhanced awareness and enable improved choices to support our resilience and to enable our effectiveness. Mental wellness An important note to start with is that mental well-being is a continuum which we all move up and down on continually. This paper will not refer to mental illness as this is complex and requires specialist input when relating to personality type and any links to emotional intelligence. However, to re-state, it is normal for many of us to experience times of mental illness. Anxiety and stress are elements that accompany the journey to that part of the continuum. Although the Jungian model itself does not include the dimension of Anxiety present in the Big 5 model and is mainly focused on our gifts and what describes us at our best there have been great writers on Type who have suggested that there are common stressors, patterns and responses depending on our personally type; authors such as Naomi Quenck and Eve Delunas have brought fascinating insights into this world of the type ‘dark side’. Psychological Type, pressure and stress In my reading and practice I notice three broad levels relating to stress. At the first level we feel OK and not threatened. At this level we flexibly use all 8 of the type preferences as required and can adapt to the level of which we have developed capability in each of these. We will likely use our normal preferences the most but are not rigid in this if we have developed awareness. At the second level we are under pressure and experiencing a short period of stress. In these circumstances we are likely to ‘revert to Type’ and can actually be highly effective. However, the more this persists it can lead to rigidity and under-using the non-preferred and useful personality modes. An ESTJ for example can become very outwardly demanding, specific, tough minded etc. At the third level we ‘flip’ and our ‘shadow’ personality emerges (Quenck terms this ‘in the grip’). This is where we might exhibit incompetent use of the opposite of our preference, in extremes the opposite of our dominant. If we take the ESTJ again we might see the emotional, sensitive, subjective side come out but not competently (the Fi opposed to their dominant Te). Delunas would add the temperament aspect and for ESTJ this would be the SJ reaction of  exaggerated sickness/symptoms; excessive worrying; playing the victim; being a ‘doormat’; nagging; depressive thinking. Personality versus emotional intelligence So, what about the link to emotional intelligence (EI)? EI is not our personality but is how we manage it. From a pressure and stress point of view EI recognises that we shift between two main modes, between OK and not OK at a limbic level depending on the nature and level of perceived threat. EI also recognises that emotional awareness is key – do I tune into my feelings and use them to inform how I might react, and similarly how well I tune into the feelings of others (empathy)? At level one above we are more in a position to do this tuning in as we are in the ‘OK’ state. However, EI is a practice and a developable capability so managing challenges (real or perceived) to maintain an OK state is important. By doing this we therefore we can access all 8 elements of our Type to achieve our goals. So, developing our EI we are in a position to capitalise on our gifts. It also can enable us to build our capacity and be more resilient in the first place. At level 2 we are pressured and possibly experiencing some stress. We are likely to have unmet emotional needs, expectations and/or values compromised. Developing our EI gives us the understanding and vocabulary around this to mitigate the excesses of ‘reverting to Type’ and to be aware that I need to pause and manage the emotions. EI related neuroscience research shows that naming feelings, how we frame them and what we do with them can all enable the successful management of our reactions and enable effective decisions and behaviours. And because we are human, we will have episodes of ‘flip’ (level 3) and EI here is linked to self-compassion and the ability to do repair work with relationships if they have been compromised in the process.  Also, EI is about reflective learning and in that process avoiding a repeat of the negative episodes. So, in conclusion Type and EI are valuable frames when considered together. Arguably developing our EI can enable and support the integrative process which Jung referred to as Individuation, working towards wholeness and self-actualisation. And we can draw upon our ‘gifts’ of Type to enable our EI development too. About Bill Davies Bill has over 30 years’ experience in counselling and coaching with particular expertise in career transition coaching and in mental wellbeing. He has many years of coaching and training leaders and managers in emotional intelligence, incorporating Personality Type. He has led the development of his company’s (JCA) diagnostic and development programme in Building Resilience. [Photo by Rodrigo of Pexels]

by Ray Moody, Mark Majors, and Mina Barimany  (Read the second article and the third article in this series) (Watch the YouTube video of the conference session) For decades we have been limited to identifying and describing the behaviors that result from four different functions or mental processes; the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and the inferior. With MajorsPTI we can now measure the accessibility or usage of all eight processes. We get to add four more to our usual list. We call these additional processes complements, same functions, opposite attitude. Figure 1 presents for ENFJs with the new information we have. Our total sample size was 9,972. Our ENFJ group numbered 345. Ordered from most used, left, to least used, right, here is what the average looks like. Figure 1: ENFJ usage of the 8 functions We converted the raw scores to T Scores so we can compare types. The mean is 50; the Standard Deviation is 10. Majors PTI scores for each process appears above the bars. Just as Jung said the Primary or Dominant gets the most action, the Auxiliary is second, and the Inferior gets the least. Isabel Myers added a third, the Tertiary. It’s between the Auxiliary and the Inferior. The empirical evidence shows Jung and Myers got the order and the comparative usage exactly right. Figure 1 also includes the four Complement processes distributed among the four Dynamic processes. We had no guess about how much the Complements are used and no guess about the order in which they would be distributed. This is new information. (Alert! Not all types distribute their processes, high to low, in this order. Types are different. We already knew that, didn’t we?) Jung described the Complements as unconscious, fused, infantile, primitive, repressed, undifferentiated, undeveloped, compensatory, and “endowed with magical powers”. So, the Complement processes are fully functioning, just as the four Dynamic processes are fully functioning. We have four points to make. First, Figure 1 shows that some adjacent processes are nearly equal in usage. They differ by less than two or one tenth of one point. With good reason Jung described the “Inferior” processes (plural) as fused, undifferentiated, and undeveloped. If we try to differentiate the processes according to differences in usage, there isn’t any difference we can observe. They look identical in usage. Jung pointed this out: “…there is a constant influx of unconscious contents into the conscious psychological process, to such a degree that at times it is hard for the observer to decide which character traits belong to the conscious and which to the unconscious personality. ” (576) (Psychological Types, par 576) Second, we don’t consider the Complements as “undeveloped.” A difference in usage, or no difference, does not mean “undeveloped.” It means a difference in usage. In the conference, we will provide a live demonstration. Third, with your trusty smart phone calculator, add up the scores for the four Dynamic processes (Figure 1) and write down this sum. Then add up the scores for the four Complements and write down that sum. What’s the difference? We use our Complements just as much as we use our Dynamics. “From the activity of the unconscious there now emerges a new content, constellated by thesis and antithesis in equal measure and standing in a compensatory (q.v.) relation to both.” (Ibid, 825) Fourth, for decades, in our type presentations, we have neglected half of the type system. Figure 2 shows what we have been presenting. Figure 1: ENFJ as normally represented Figure 2 – ENFJ as normally represented The holes are obvious. For the average ENFJ, Ne, the Auxiliary Complement, gets more action than six other processes. Not important? Not worth mentioning? The Dominant Complement and the Inferior Complement are in the middle of the pack. Not worth mentioning? Am I just half a person? Are you just half a person? Is each of your clients only half? Suppose you are feeling bad. You decide to go to a medical doctor to get checked out. The doc points out that they only deal with the right side of the body. The left half doesn’t matter. Just ignore it. The blood work, with a list of measurements, comes back and the doc, with scissors, cuts off the bottom half and drops it in the waste basket. Doesn’t matter, Not important. Just ignore it. How do you know if you don’t look at all the information? Are you going to go back to this doctor? Your choice. When you are playing cards, Bridge or Poker, do you use only half a deck? Jung pointed out, repeatedly, that we use all eight processes and characterized them in various ways. Some were archaic, infantile, fused, primitive, repressed, unconscious, undeveloped, undifferentiated. Now we can measure them, all eight. If we can measure them, none is undifferentiated. Our empirical evidence and practical experience shows that none is undeveloped. The only word from the list above we find applicable is “unconscious.” Unconscious does not mean not functioning. It means out attention. As Jung pointed out, the system runs on “automatic” (612, 687, 688, 765, 784, 807, 898, 902). In our view, all eight processes are fully engaged at all times, running on automatic. With these new measurements we can now show our clients how the complete, eight process, psychological type system works. (Read the second article and the third article in this series) About the authors Ray Moody (INTJ) works with Mark Majors and collaborates with a variety of colleagues including Mina Barimany in organizing type and culture research. This ongoing research on the measurement of Jung’s eight mental processes has been presented at various APTi conferences. Lifetime Achievement Award from APTi, 2017. Mark Majors (ENFP) Dr Mark S. Majors is a counselling psychologist with extensive psychometric credentials. He is the author and developer of the MajorsPTI and Majors PT-Elements. He has developed and presents leadership training seminars that train leaders to serve others by using personality and individual differences to facilitate optimum performance. Mina Barimany (INTJ) is a psychotherapist, counselor educator, and researcher from Washington, DC. Originally trained as a family therapist, she completed a doctorate in counselor education from George Washington University, where she is the Assistant Training Director of the counseling center and researches the development and application of Psychological Type theory. References Jung described the Complements as unconscious (Psychological Types, pars. 558, 560, 562, 566, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572-577, 588-591, 593, 599-603, 605, 608-611, 615-616, 623-627, 629-631, 634, 636-639, 640-643, 647-648, 651-660, 663-664, 667-671 683-684, 687, 689, 694-695, 700-702, 704-706, 709, 711-715, 717, 719, 724, 738-739, 741-743, 745-746, 751, 764-765, 767, 770-771, 773, 788-790, 795, 797, 799, 801-813, 819-821, 824-825, 837-844, 851, 853, 872, 899, 902-907, 909-910, 923, 930, 939-940, 951, 954-955, 793, 981, 985), archaic (571, 591, 605, 627, 629, 643, 652-654, 663, 671, 684, 764, 600, 605, 705, 764, 806, 824, 906, 907), fused (684, 705, 751, 773, 796, 907), infantile (571-573, 576, 600, 602, 605, 615, 627, 772, 955), primitive (576, 602-603, 615, 627, 630, 637, 639, 663, 697, 772, 794, 953, 955), repressed (570, 587, 588, 590, 591, 593, 600, 602-605, 608, 611, 615, 639, 654, 662-663, 670, 694, 764, 726, 764, 796, 905, 907), undifferentiated (602, 705, 763, 796), undeveloped (588, 667, 796, 907-908, 955), compensatory (565-566, 568-569, 572, 574-575, 583, 599-600, 608, 613, 626, 630, 634, 643, 654, 663, 688-689, 693-695, 702, 714-715, 772, 795, 825, 843, 902, 904, 910, 940); and also “endowed with magical powers” (627, 630, 639, 869). #majorsPTI #typetheory

…Can type take the strain? by Catherine Stothart To close the influence gap we need at least three things: Self-awareness to realise how our behaviour might be experienced by others Ability to recognise and manage the emotions driving our behaviour Ability to pick up accurate cues from others about their thoughts and feelings There is recent research evidence that all three of these are difficult to achieve. Self-awareness Sun and Vazire of the University of California recently researched self-knowledge. They used the Five Factor Model of personality (OCEAN) to explore the question “Do people know what they are like in the moment?” They compared ratings of behaviour given by the subjects with ratings given by observers. They found the highest levels of self-knowledge and subject-observer agreement on Extraversion, followed by Conscientiousness. Neuroticism, not surprisingly, was not visible to observers. The findings on Agreeableness were interesting – subjects had less self-insight in this area and the researchers suggested that “this apparent self-ignorance may be partly responsible for interpersonal problems and for blind spots in trait self-knowledge”. They concluded that: “we can probably trust what people say about their momentary levels of Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism”, but “our findings call into question people’s awareness of when they are being considerate vs rude”. Recognising and managing our emotions Lisa Feldman-Barrett (professor of psychology at North-eastern university in the USA) is the author of How Emotions are Made – the Secret Life of the Brain, and she has a great TED Talk about her theory of constructed emotion. She believes that “emotions are your brain’s best guesses for what your body’s sensations mean, based on your situation”. For example, if your face goes red, your brain races to work out the likely cause, based partly on the situation – am I angry, excited, embarrassed, hot? “Your brain makes meaning from the identical sensation in different ways, depending on the context”. There is not always a direct semantic link from the body to the emotion: we smile when we are happy, but we also smile when we are sad; we cry when we are sad, but we also cry when we are happy. Recognising our emotions involves guess work. Sometimes we aren’t even aware of the emotions or don’t know what they are and can’t name them.  Neuroscientists such as David Eagleman believe that “a lot goes on under the hood”, outside our conscious awareness. And if you have ever seen the moon-walking bear, you will know that sometimes our brains don’t notice what is there! We also know that our emotional, flight or fight response to a situation, can kick in via the more primitive part of the brain, the amygdala, before the more rational part has had time to work out a more reasoned response. Our inner chimp hijacks us and it can be difficult to manage our emotions. Picking up accurate cues from others Picking up accurate cues from other people’s behaviour is also difficult. We automatically infer mental states from face, voice tone, body language – much of this is unconscious and our assumptions may be wrong. Neville Chamberlain’s words about Hitler in a letter to his sister in 1938 are a good example: “I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word”. We can be influenced by superficial appearance or what is going on in our own minds. Problems between people often occur because we attribute thoughts or feelings to them which are not accurate, and this affects how we behave towards them. According to Mlodinow, in Subliminal: the new unconscious and what it teaches us, our brains are not recording experiences, they are creating them. Can we overcome these challenges? Can Type knowledge help, and if so, how? Join me at the BAPT Conference where we will explore these issues and share some practical steps to manage our minds and close the influence gap. Together we will distil the pearls of wisdom that type knowledge can bring to the everyday challenge of getting on with other people. About Catherine Stothart Email: catherine@essenwood.co.uk.

Hodgson, D. (2013) Personality in the Classroom Hodgson, D. (2006) The Buzz: A practical confidence builder for teenagers Bayne, R. (2004) Psychological Types at Work. An MBTI perspective Keirsey, D. (1998) Please Understand Me II Tieger, P. D. Barron, B. & Tieger, K. (2014) Do What You Are – discover the perfect career for you through the secrets of personality type Nash, S. & Bolin C. (2003) Teamwork from the Inside Out Fieldbook Berens L. (2006) Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the 4 Temperaments Pearman, R. & Albritton S. (2020) I’m Not Crazy, I’m Just Not You Payne D. & Van Sant S. (2009) Great Minds Don’t Think Alike Murphy, E. (1992) The Developing Child: using Jungian type to understand children Baron, Renee (2011) Opposites Attract: how to use the secrets of personality type to create a love that lasts Tieger, P.D. & Barron-Tieger, B. (1999) The Art of Speed Reading People Lawrence, G. (2009) People Types and Tiger Stripes Nash, S. (2011) Contextual Coaching Berens, L. (2011) Interaction Essentials: 3 keys to effective relationships in the workplace and beyond Nash, S. (2019) Flawless Facilitation Stothart, C. (2018) How to Get On with Anyone based on Interaction Styles Stothart, C. (2023) Motivation: The Ultimate Guide to Leading Your Team based on Temperament.