Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control: Where Do They Intersect?
Discuss the different preference pairs of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, focusing on the preference pair Thinking and Feeling. Include APA style references.
11 Pages6028 Words81 Views
Added on 2022-12-30
About This Document
This paper explores the relationships among Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control. It discusses how understanding these variables can help organizations predict employee behavior and design work environments that maximize productivity and satisfaction.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control: Where Do They Intersect?
Discuss the different preference pairs of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, focusing on the preference pair Thinking and Feeling. Include APA style references.
Added on 2022-12-30
ShareRelated Documents
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control:
Where Do They Intersect?
Cherie E. Fretwell
Troy University
Carmen C. Lewis
Troy University
Maureen Hannay
Troy University
Organizational researchers continually strive to establish models and patterns to predict the behavior of
employees within the organizational context. However, much of this research relating to personality types
has been conducted in silos. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to explore the relationships among
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control. Data were collected via
survey from 276 business students.
INTRODUCTION
Organizational researchers continually strive to establish models and patterns to predict the behavior
of employees within the organizational context. Human behavior is inherently unpredictable; but by
understanding the interactions among tasks, organization structure, the external environment, and
individual personality traits, we may, to some extent, be able to calculate the actions of individuals. As a
result, there has been an increased interest among researchers in understanding the role of personality
types in different work situations, particularly as it relates to predicting the type of personality that will be
most effective in different organizational environments (Spector & O'Connell, 1994; Tan & Tiong, 1999).
There are many different aspects of personality that can be evaluated and many different assessments
tools that can be used to classify different aspects of individuals’ personalities. In this research we
examine three different measures of personality traits including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the
Type A behavior pattern, and an individual’s locus of control, in an effort to determine where these three
indicators intersect. By establishing relationships among these variables, organizations may be better
prepared to understand and predict employee behavior and thus design work environments, jobs and
rewards that will maximize employee productivity, efficiency and satisfaction.
The rest of the paper is presented as follows: First, the theoretical framework that guides our study is
described. A review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control
follows, and then a set of hypotheses is developed predicting the relationships between the constructs. AAmerican Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013 57
Where Do They Intersect?
Cherie E. Fretwell
Troy University
Carmen C. Lewis
Troy University
Maureen Hannay
Troy University
Organizational researchers continually strive to establish models and patterns to predict the behavior of
employees within the organizational context. However, much of this research relating to personality types
has been conducted in silos. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to explore the relationships among
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control. Data were collected via
survey from 276 business students.
INTRODUCTION
Organizational researchers continually strive to establish models and patterns to predict the behavior
of employees within the organizational context. Human behavior is inherently unpredictable; but by
understanding the interactions among tasks, organization structure, the external environment, and
individual personality traits, we may, to some extent, be able to calculate the actions of individuals. As a
result, there has been an increased interest among researchers in understanding the role of personality
types in different work situations, particularly as it relates to predicting the type of personality that will be
most effective in different organizational environments (Spector & O'Connell, 1994; Tan & Tiong, 1999).
There are many different aspects of personality that can be evaluated and many different assessments
tools that can be used to classify different aspects of individuals’ personalities. In this research we
examine three different measures of personality traits including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the
Type A behavior pattern, and an individual’s locus of control, in an effort to determine where these three
indicators intersect. By establishing relationships among these variables, organizations may be better
prepared to understand and predict employee behavior and thus design work environments, jobs and
rewards that will maximize employee productivity, efficiency and satisfaction.
The rest of the paper is presented as follows: First, the theoretical framework that guides our study is
described. A review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, A/B Personality Types, and Locus of Control
follows, and then a set of hypotheses is developed predicting the relationships between the constructs. AAmerican Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013 57
research methodology and construct measures to test the hypotheses are presented, followed by the results
from our analyses. The paper concludes with limitations and opportunities for future research.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
In this section, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Type A behavior pattern, and locus of control
literatures are reviewed and explored for potential relationships among the three constructs. In addition,
our research hypotheses are presented.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most widely used and recognized personality
preference instruments (Filbeck, Hatfield, & Horvath, 2005). The MBTI is essentially a personality
typology using four pairs of contrasting traits to create 16 personality patterns (Abrams, 2011). It was
developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katharine Cooks Briggs, who integrated their own
concepts and research with the theory of personality developed by psychiatrist Carl Jung (Abrams, 2011).
Its popularity persists because it focuses on normal as opposed to pathological behavior and its logic and
descriptions are straightforward and nonthreatening (Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995; Zemke, 1992). The
MBTI provides a framework for examining similarities and differences in personality traits by assessing
an individual’s preferences regarding perceptions and judgments (Opt & Loffredo, 2003; Tan & Tiong,
1999). The MBTI utilizes self-reporting to determine an individual’s dominant preferences on four
opposing dimensions: extroversion-introversion (E-I), sensation-intuition (S-N), thinking-feeling (T-F),
and judgment-perception (J-P). As a result of the interactions among these preferences, 16 distinctive
personality types are identified by the instrument. The MBTI score also indicates the strength of the
preference for each dimension. Stronger scores indicate a greater likelihood that the individual has
developed the attributes associated with those preferences (Tan & Tiong, 1999; Varvel, Adams, Pridie, &
Ruiz Ulloa, 2004).
Extraversion-Introversion
The E-I index reflects where individuals prefer to focus their attention. Extraverts are oriented
primarily to the outer world of experience including people and things, while introverts are oriented more
towards the inner world of experience including concepts and ideas. Extroverts get their energy from the
outside world of people while for introverts energy comes from the inside world of thoughts and ideas.
Extroverts are people and action-oriented, like variety and action, and they can act quickly (sometimes
without thinking). They prefer oral communication and can communicate freely with others. They work
quickly and dislike complicated procedures, but they can be impatient at long slow jobs. Introverts are
more contemplative, like quiet concentration, are careful with details and enjoy working on one project
for a long time. They are content to work alone and prefer to utilize written communication (Filbeck et
al., 2005; Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995; McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Opt & Loffredo,
2003; Tan & Tiong, 1999; Varvel et al., 2004).
Sensing-Intuition
The S-N Index reflects how individuals acquire information about their surroundings and how they
choose to perceive the world. Those with a sensing preference prefer concrete details of a situation and
rely on the five senses to observe facts or happenings. An intuitive prefers to look at the overall picture of
an experience, relying on a sixth sense or personal hunches or insight rather than on the five senses. They
enjoy novelty, change and the unusual. Sensing types tend to be more realistic and practical while
intuitive types focus on the future and the possibilities that it holds (Filbeck et al., 2005; Fox-Hines &
Bowersock, 1995; McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Opt & Loffredo, 2003; Tan & Tiong,
1999; Varvel et al., 2004).58 American Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013
from our analyses. The paper concludes with limitations and opportunities for future research.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
In this section, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Type A behavior pattern, and locus of control
literatures are reviewed and explored for potential relationships among the three constructs. In addition,
our research hypotheses are presented.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most widely used and recognized personality
preference instruments (Filbeck, Hatfield, & Horvath, 2005). The MBTI is essentially a personality
typology using four pairs of contrasting traits to create 16 personality patterns (Abrams, 2011). It was
developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katharine Cooks Briggs, who integrated their own
concepts and research with the theory of personality developed by psychiatrist Carl Jung (Abrams, 2011).
Its popularity persists because it focuses on normal as opposed to pathological behavior and its logic and
descriptions are straightforward and nonthreatening (Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995; Zemke, 1992). The
MBTI provides a framework for examining similarities and differences in personality traits by assessing
an individual’s preferences regarding perceptions and judgments (Opt & Loffredo, 2003; Tan & Tiong,
1999). The MBTI utilizes self-reporting to determine an individual’s dominant preferences on four
opposing dimensions: extroversion-introversion (E-I), sensation-intuition (S-N), thinking-feeling (T-F),
and judgment-perception (J-P). As a result of the interactions among these preferences, 16 distinctive
personality types are identified by the instrument. The MBTI score also indicates the strength of the
preference for each dimension. Stronger scores indicate a greater likelihood that the individual has
developed the attributes associated with those preferences (Tan & Tiong, 1999; Varvel, Adams, Pridie, &
Ruiz Ulloa, 2004).
Extraversion-Introversion
The E-I index reflects where individuals prefer to focus their attention. Extraverts are oriented
primarily to the outer world of experience including people and things, while introverts are oriented more
towards the inner world of experience including concepts and ideas. Extroverts get their energy from the
outside world of people while for introverts energy comes from the inside world of thoughts and ideas.
Extroverts are people and action-oriented, like variety and action, and they can act quickly (sometimes
without thinking). They prefer oral communication and can communicate freely with others. They work
quickly and dislike complicated procedures, but they can be impatient at long slow jobs. Introverts are
more contemplative, like quiet concentration, are careful with details and enjoy working on one project
for a long time. They are content to work alone and prefer to utilize written communication (Filbeck et
al., 2005; Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995; McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Opt & Loffredo,
2003; Tan & Tiong, 1999; Varvel et al., 2004).
Sensing-Intuition
The S-N Index reflects how individuals acquire information about their surroundings and how they
choose to perceive the world. Those with a sensing preference prefer concrete details of a situation and
rely on the five senses to observe facts or happenings. An intuitive prefers to look at the overall picture of
an experience, relying on a sixth sense or personal hunches or insight rather than on the five senses. They
enjoy novelty, change and the unusual. Sensing types tend to be more realistic and practical while
intuitive types focus on the future and the possibilities that it holds (Filbeck et al., 2005; Fox-Hines &
Bowersock, 1995; McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Opt & Loffredo, 2003; Tan & Tiong,
1999; Varvel et al., 2004).58 American Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013
Thinking-Feeling
The T-F index reflects the preferences of individuals for making decisions, processing data, and
evaluating their perceptions. Those with a thinking preference use logic, facts, and fairness. They strive
for objectivity and the application of principles to a decision. They are often uncomfortable dealing with
the feelings of others. Those with a feeling preference use personal or social values when making
decisions. Their decisions are more subjective in nature, and they consider the impact that their decisions
will have on others. They enjoy pleasing others and are more likely to offer appreciation and sympathy
(Filbeck et al., 2005; Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995; McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Opt
& Loffredo, 2003; Tan & Tiong, 1999; Varvel et al., 2004).
Judging-Perceiving
The J-P index addresses how people prefer to organize and orient themselves to the outer world.
Individuals who utilize a judging preference (either thinking or feeling) focus on leading an organized and
orderly life. They are punctual, orderly, seek closure, and prefer control over their lives through detailed
planning. They are action-oriented, decisive, and may see things as black and white, which can manifest
itself as a closed-minded attitude. Those with a perceiving preference (either sensing or intuition) are
more spontaneous and open to new ideas. They are more flexible and relaxed; they go with the flow, and
resent time constraints. They see more grays and tend to be more open-minded. These individuals prefer
to adapt to situations rather than control them (Filbeck et al., 2005; Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995;
McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Varvel et al., 2004).
Using data provided by Filbeck et al. (2005) and Fox-Hines and Bowersock (1995), Table 1 provides
an approximate distribution of each dimension in the general U.S. population. The Myers & Briggs
Foundation at http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-
my-type.asp indicates the distribution in the U.S. population to be 49.3% for Extroverts and 50.7% for
Introverts.
TABLE 1
BREAKDOWN OF EACH DIMENSION IN THE U.S. POPULATION
Preference for Being in the World
Extroverted (E) 70-75%
Introverted (I) 25-30%
Preference for Gathering Data
Sensing (S) 70-75%
Intuitive (N) 35-30%
Preference for Making Decisions
Thinking (T) 60% males, 40% females
Feeling (F) 60% females, 40% males
Preference for Either Making Decisions or Gathering Data
Judging (J) 55%
Perceiving (P) 45%
According to Fox-Hines and Bowersock (1995), there are more Extroverted, Sensing, Judging types
in the U.S. than those who are classified as Introverted, Intuiting or Perceiving. The Thinking-Feeling
index is the only dimension that persistently demonstrates differences along gender lines with more males
being classified as Thinking and more females as Feeling. Furthermore, a majority of business leaders and
managers have Sensing-Judging as part of their personality type.American Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013 59
The T-F index reflects the preferences of individuals for making decisions, processing data, and
evaluating their perceptions. Those with a thinking preference use logic, facts, and fairness. They strive
for objectivity and the application of principles to a decision. They are often uncomfortable dealing with
the feelings of others. Those with a feeling preference use personal or social values when making
decisions. Their decisions are more subjective in nature, and they consider the impact that their decisions
will have on others. They enjoy pleasing others and are more likely to offer appreciation and sympathy
(Filbeck et al., 2005; Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995; McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Opt
& Loffredo, 2003; Tan & Tiong, 1999; Varvel et al., 2004).
Judging-Perceiving
The J-P index addresses how people prefer to organize and orient themselves to the outer world.
Individuals who utilize a judging preference (either thinking or feeling) focus on leading an organized and
orderly life. They are punctual, orderly, seek closure, and prefer control over their lives through detailed
planning. They are action-oriented, decisive, and may see things as black and white, which can manifest
itself as a closed-minded attitude. Those with a perceiving preference (either sensing or intuition) are
more spontaneous and open to new ideas. They are more flexible and relaxed; they go with the flow, and
resent time constraints. They see more grays and tend to be more open-minded. These individuals prefer
to adapt to situations rather than control them (Filbeck et al., 2005; Fox-Hines & Bowersock, 1995;
McPherson, 1999; Myers & McCaulley, 1989; Varvel et al., 2004).
Using data provided by Filbeck et al. (2005) and Fox-Hines and Bowersock (1995), Table 1 provides
an approximate distribution of each dimension in the general U.S. population. The Myers & Briggs
Foundation at http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-
my-type.asp indicates the distribution in the U.S. population to be 49.3% for Extroverts and 50.7% for
Introverts.
TABLE 1
BREAKDOWN OF EACH DIMENSION IN THE U.S. POPULATION
Preference for Being in the World
Extroverted (E) 70-75%
Introverted (I) 25-30%
Preference for Gathering Data
Sensing (S) 70-75%
Intuitive (N) 35-30%
Preference for Making Decisions
Thinking (T) 60% males, 40% females
Feeling (F) 60% females, 40% males
Preference for Either Making Decisions or Gathering Data
Judging (J) 55%
Perceiving (P) 45%
According to Fox-Hines and Bowersock (1995), there are more Extroverted, Sensing, Judging types
in the U.S. than those who are classified as Introverted, Intuiting or Perceiving. The Thinking-Feeling
index is the only dimension that persistently demonstrates differences along gender lines with more males
being classified as Thinking and more females as Feeling. Furthermore, a majority of business leaders and
managers have Sensing-Judging as part of their personality type.American Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013 59
Type A Personality Characteristic
The Type A behavior pattern originally described by Friedman and Rosenman (1974) has received
considerable attention in the literature. While the definition of the construct has evolved over the years
(Watson, Minzenmayer, & Bowler, 2006), it continues to be associated with three particular personality
characteristics: highly competitive attitudes toward achievement, a strong sense of time urgency, and the
use of aggression and hostility to cope with a frustrating situation (Lobel, 1988; Watson et al., 2006).
Glass (1977) further hypothesized that these three components are all indicative of the Type A
individual’s strong desire to exert control over the environment. Type A individuals generally
demonstrate a more ambitious orientation to life (Watson et al., 2006). They are characterized as
aggressive, competitive, always in a hurry, impatient, ambitious, forceful, work-oriented, preoccupied
with deadlines, hard-working, and highly involved with their jobs (Mahajan & Rastogi, 2011; Rastogi &
Dave, 2004; Watson et al., 2006). Type A individuals are action-oriented, constantly struggle for the
highest amount of achievement in the least amount of time, and set higher performance standards for
themselves (Nahavandi, Mizzi, & Malekzadeh, 1992) . They set high career goals for themselves and put
in longer hours to achieve them (Watson et al., 2006).
However, Type A individuals do not always outperform Type B individuals. They are not as effective
on complex tasks that require slow and careful responses, their focus on time urgency may result in a rush
to judgment that does not adequately consider alternative approaches, and they are poor delegators and
often report being overworked. Their strong need to attain control and maintain it can make them
competitive and even hostile, while driving their decision making and their behavior even in social
situations where they will promote their own self-interest (Nahavandi et al., 1992; Watson et al., 2006).
Friedman and Rosenman (1974) reported that this behavior led to what they termed ‘joyless striving’ such
that even their accomplishments brought them limited happiness.
On the other hand, Type B individuals are more relaxed and easygoing. They do not suffer from a
sense of time urgency, and in contrast to Type A individuals, those with Type B characteristics have the
ability to enjoy leisure time and can relax without guilt (Mahajan & Rastogi, 2011; Rastogi & Dave,
2004). Type B individuals generally do not feel pressing conflict with either time or people. They may
have a considerable drive to work hard and accomplish goals, but the Type B has a confident style that
allows him or her to work at a steady pace rather than racing against the clock. The Type B individuals
can be “highly productive workers who meet schedule expectations; they simply obtain results in a
different manner” (Mahajan & Rastogi, 2011, p. 59). Watson et al. (2006) indicate that while Type A
individuals fill the majority of management-level positions and have the driven type of personality that
often succeeds in mid-management, they do not have the more conceptual, relationship style preferred by
upper management. Type B individuals are better able to see things from a global perspective, encourage
teamwork, and exercise patience in decision making while inspiring employees to work as a team to
achieve goals, which are characteristics necessary for success at the executive level.
Spector and O'Connell (1994) speculate that the Type A construct may be better defined as
multidimensional rather than unidimensional. In their review of the literature they conclude that there are
two major dimensions comprising the Type A construct that appear to be unrelated. The first is the
impatience-irritability dimension which is defined as the tendency to become angry and frustrated, while
the second is the achievement striving dimension which is the tendency to work hard to achieve goals.
Spector and O'Connell (1994) speculate that the first dimension would likely generate more affective
outcomes including frustration, interpersonal conflicts, and perceptions of organizational constraints,
along with the physical symptoms associated with the Type A behavior pattern. The second dimension
would likely be related to work motivation and effort which may result in those employees perceiving that
they have higher workloads, but may not be associated with somatic symptoms.
Locus of Control
Individuals differ in the degree to which they perceive that events in the environment are subject to
their personal control. Rotter (1966) identified locus of control as a personality variable that measures
people’s general expectancies about whether they can or cannot control events affecting them, and their60 American Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013
The Type A behavior pattern originally described by Friedman and Rosenman (1974) has received
considerable attention in the literature. While the definition of the construct has evolved over the years
(Watson, Minzenmayer, & Bowler, 2006), it continues to be associated with three particular personality
characteristics: highly competitive attitudes toward achievement, a strong sense of time urgency, and the
use of aggression and hostility to cope with a frustrating situation (Lobel, 1988; Watson et al., 2006).
Glass (1977) further hypothesized that these three components are all indicative of the Type A
individual’s strong desire to exert control over the environment. Type A individuals generally
demonstrate a more ambitious orientation to life (Watson et al., 2006). They are characterized as
aggressive, competitive, always in a hurry, impatient, ambitious, forceful, work-oriented, preoccupied
with deadlines, hard-working, and highly involved with their jobs (Mahajan & Rastogi, 2011; Rastogi &
Dave, 2004; Watson et al., 2006). Type A individuals are action-oriented, constantly struggle for the
highest amount of achievement in the least amount of time, and set higher performance standards for
themselves (Nahavandi, Mizzi, & Malekzadeh, 1992) . They set high career goals for themselves and put
in longer hours to achieve them (Watson et al., 2006).
However, Type A individuals do not always outperform Type B individuals. They are not as effective
on complex tasks that require slow and careful responses, their focus on time urgency may result in a rush
to judgment that does not adequately consider alternative approaches, and they are poor delegators and
often report being overworked. Their strong need to attain control and maintain it can make them
competitive and even hostile, while driving their decision making and their behavior even in social
situations where they will promote their own self-interest (Nahavandi et al., 1992; Watson et al., 2006).
Friedman and Rosenman (1974) reported that this behavior led to what they termed ‘joyless striving’ such
that even their accomplishments brought them limited happiness.
On the other hand, Type B individuals are more relaxed and easygoing. They do not suffer from a
sense of time urgency, and in contrast to Type A individuals, those with Type B characteristics have the
ability to enjoy leisure time and can relax without guilt (Mahajan & Rastogi, 2011; Rastogi & Dave,
2004). Type B individuals generally do not feel pressing conflict with either time or people. They may
have a considerable drive to work hard and accomplish goals, but the Type B has a confident style that
allows him or her to work at a steady pace rather than racing against the clock. The Type B individuals
can be “highly productive workers who meet schedule expectations; they simply obtain results in a
different manner” (Mahajan & Rastogi, 2011, p. 59). Watson et al. (2006) indicate that while Type A
individuals fill the majority of management-level positions and have the driven type of personality that
often succeeds in mid-management, they do not have the more conceptual, relationship style preferred by
upper management. Type B individuals are better able to see things from a global perspective, encourage
teamwork, and exercise patience in decision making while inspiring employees to work as a team to
achieve goals, which are characteristics necessary for success at the executive level.
Spector and O'Connell (1994) speculate that the Type A construct may be better defined as
multidimensional rather than unidimensional. In their review of the literature they conclude that there are
two major dimensions comprising the Type A construct that appear to be unrelated. The first is the
impatience-irritability dimension which is defined as the tendency to become angry and frustrated, while
the second is the achievement striving dimension which is the tendency to work hard to achieve goals.
Spector and O'Connell (1994) speculate that the first dimension would likely generate more affective
outcomes including frustration, interpersonal conflicts, and perceptions of organizational constraints,
along with the physical symptoms associated with the Type A behavior pattern. The second dimension
would likely be related to work motivation and effort which may result in those employees perceiving that
they have higher workloads, but may not be associated with somatic symptoms.
Locus of Control
Individuals differ in the degree to which they perceive that events in the environment are subject to
their personal control. Rotter (1966) identified locus of control as a personality variable that measures
people’s general expectancies about whether they can or cannot control events affecting them, and their60 American Journal of Management vol. 13(3) 2013
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Revisiting Understanding Entrepreneurs Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicatorlg...
|7
|3253
|1
The Myers-Briggs type indicator and transformational leadershiplg...
|18
|9474
|54
Validity and Reliability of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysislg...
|28
|12353
|44
Understanding Personal Traits for Effective Healthcare Leadershiplg...
|18
|5396
|321
Report on Management and Organizational Behaviorlg...
|10
|2200
|73