Peter Geyer
Type Coaching and Training

The MBTI is usually presented in group settings, as either an introductory session or part of a general course on leadership, counselling, teamwork, etc. The focus is enabling participants to gain sufficient knowledge about the MBTI to validate their results, or otherwise establish their type preferences.

You can do that as a stand–alone presentation or as part of a general course. Either way, there is little, if any, difference in content and ethical requirements.

Length of presentation

3 to 4 hours is considered to be the minimum time for an MBTI presentation – essentially, half a day.

Shorter presentations are not only unethical from the practitioner's standpoint, but also a waste of time and money for those requesting the session. As the basic ideas around type can't be learned and understood in that timeframe, the purpose for which they have requested the session can't be realised.

It's legitimate to ask people who ask you for a short presentation what they expect to gain in that time. Completing the MBTI is out of the question, but if they insist, there's the option of talking about one or two of the sets of preferences, with exercises.

Longer presentations allow you to do more in–depth work, but it must be relevant to the audience: e.g. something about communication, leadership, etc, that is the theme for the day. Most of the requests I receive are for one-day sessions.

Preliminary information

To do an effective presentation, you need to know:

Purpose of the presentation. This gives you your theme. You can do research around that, and about the organisation as well.

Number of participants. This gives you a key element of the structure for the day:

• Small groups (under 10 people) enable more individual contact and discussion, and in my view are more effective.

• Large groups mean learning is going to be more through activities (although that depends on modal type).

For very large groups (20 or more), you'll need to decide whether you have the skills to manage the process to ensure that people receive as much information as possible about their preferences. This is a knowledge question, as well as a training skills question.

You also need to be able to decide:

• which MBTI form to use

• which handouts to provide

Selecting the MBTI form

A number of MBTI forms are available in Australia to accredited users and psychologists:

• Form F (template–scored)

• Form G (template–scored, computer-scored, and two version of self-scored)

• Form M (template– computer– and self–scored)

• Form K (EIR – computer–scored)

(Form Q, the revised version of Form K, seems to be unavailable here at present.)

Use the form you're familiar with in terms of scoring and interpretation – but only after taking account of what you really need, what the form does, and what information (both type and non–type) it provides.

At an introductory level, when you need only to get to the four–letter code. You can't go past Form M, the current standard form. It's easy to score, and its report forms are more user–friendly, focused on clarity of preference rather than scores. Reliabilities are the same or better than for Form G.

Form G is the form under which most Australians have been accredited. It's natural to use it if you were accredited with it, or if you're working in or for an organisation that uses it. But it's more difficult to score. The only advantage of Form G is if you've been trained by Otto Kroeger to interpret the Level 2 questions, in which case there's extra data you can tap into. I use Form G regularly on that basis.

(The Level 2 questions, in all forms up to Form G, relate to what Myers and Briggs called 'impediments to type development', or what might stop you from being as healthy psychologically as you could be.)

Form F is simply not relevant for use at the moment, although I understand that it will be relaunched in the future because of its Level 2 component.

Form K (or Form Q, when it becomes available) is not recommended for an introductory process. It's specifically warned against in the latest publications. A session using the Form K Expanded Interpretative Report should be more than a full day, with a group already aware of their types and with a working knowledge of type dynamics. They are then ready to understand the extra detail in the EIR about how type is expressed.

In any case, don't use Form K unless you've been trained by a recognised expert who conducts courses for that purpose. Essentially these are the accreditation course providers, although there are differences in approach, so you need to check the content. The developers of the EIR are quite specific on what's required for adequate training.

Self-score? Templates? Computer?

Your choice of scoring method is a key component of the structure of the session. Three are available:

Self–scoring MBTI forms seem to be most favoured by Australians, more for ease of use than anything else. But that ease can be deceptive. There are a number of difficulties with the self-scoring process:

• The time taken to get people to complete and then score their results, particularly if there is a recheck of calculations.

• A 10%–15% error rate in calculation (research from both the US and the Psychological Type Research Unit at Deakin University).

• The reordering of the questions (for ease of scoring) in such a way that patterns of types of questions can be more readily seen.

• Unwarranted attention can be placed on scores rather than on preferences. The numbers are irrelevant; preferences are what we're after.

• Difficulties in planning the session, as no one's preferences are known in advance. It's important to know the type distribution. A group that's mostly introverted, for example, may lose interest in the exercises if there are too many - something they decide, not the presenter.

• Difficulties in illustrating all the preferences. If no–one in the group is F, say, how will you demonstrate that preference? It's better to be prepared with the best data you can get, rather than being on the run.

My view is that it's more professional to have people complete the MBTI beforehand, and return it for scoring. This sets up a confidentiality not available with the self–score, particularly as that method is generally used in the training session itself.

Template scoring also enables you to reflect on people's results as you're scoring, and may stimulate some ideas about the group as a whole so you have a reasonably clear context for the day. The MBTI is roughly 75% accurate, so you'll get pretty good data to start with.

I also score the word pairs separately, following the recommendation in the second edition of the MBTI Manual. Isabel Myers liked that approach, but it's discouraged in the current edition. I find the extra information helpful. It's not always relevant, of course, but it can help with the nuances of type.

Computer scoring can be used for Forms G and M. Work and team profiles are available, amongst other things. I've never used them, but I have no problem with them, other than foregoing the extra knowledge gained by scoring the forms yourself.

Omissions

The MBTI is the only instrument I know of that encourages omissions. Isabel Myers quite astutely reckoned that if you answer something you don't want to answer, then you're giving incorrect data.

The MBTI is a sort, anyway, which facilitates that point of view. I actively encourage people to leave out questions they don't want to answer, or where they want to answer both choices. The statistical reliability of the result may be lower, but the actual reliability is higher, as you have an idea as to the things the person is unsure of, or finds irrelevant, so you have more data to help them arrive at their preferences.

Other Information. Participants are, of course, the key to the exercise. You need as much information as possible to understand your group. The Form M that I use for accreditation courses (one of the two versions available here) asks questions about age, gender, qualifications, ethnicity, hours of work, whether they like their work, and so on. This non–type information is extremely valuable in giving a picture of the person.

Now, part of the reason that information is sought is that Isabel Myers didn't like empty space, and asked a few questions on her forms because she was inquisitive. The information is valuable from a research perspective; and very useful when you are setting up a course: age for developmental reasons; gender for approach and interaction in the group; and qualifications for what language to pitch at the group. This information is also relevant for validating type.

Never ask people to fill in data they've left out, as such omissions can give you extra information. If someone omits their age, for instance, it's almost 100% certain, in my experience, that they will be a woman. The reasons they give are usually 'I forgot' or 'It's none of your business.'

Because of type dynamics and development, age is also relevant for validating the MBTI results, I find that many professionals in their early 30s are only then in the process of making a distinction between themselves and their occupation. Once again, these are mostly female – but my accreditation courses attract women on a 2:1 basis, anyway.

People also tend to skip the ethnicity question on Form M, which I believe is neither here nor there. The information number on that form isn't relevant for presentations, either.

In general, just leave people to provide what they will.

Type tables, modal type, group type

Once you've scored the MBTIs, you can construct a group type table, and start thinking of comparison tables to help them see themselves as a group. The MBTI Atlas of Type Tables gives a range of these. You can also contact the Psychological Type Research Unit to see what they have.

You'll also be able to establish modal type (the most–represented type) and group type (combining the most popular preferences in the group). These will give you clues as to the group's learning and operational style.

For confidentiality reasons, the type table must not give names, only numbers of each type. If you're doing something on teamwork, then many of the issues that might arise will be there on that piece of paper, so it's essential and valuable.

The participants like it too. You can feed that data back to them during the course, and it's invariably data they value and need.

Never face a group without a type table.

Handouts

Handouts can vary. I always give out:

• the report form

• a group type table

• a relevant MBTI booklet

For me, the booklet is usually Introduction to Type in Organizations, because I like the process in it, and if the theme is communication, teamwork, etc, there are things in it that can help. There are many other excellent booklets: I use Introduction to Type for general, rather than organisational, groups. There are also booklets on careers, workplaces, learning, spiritual development, etc.

I never give answer sheets back; I don't think they are relevant to understanding type. They bring up distracting issues around scores, amounts–'I'm borderline on...'; 'I don't score anything for ...'–that are both a distraction and irrelevant to the proper validating and understanding of type.

While participants are entitled to the answer sheet because they filled it out, it is not helpful. It's better that it goes to the Type Research Unit. If you do that, you need to mention it in some way. Saying you're helping to find out the distribution of types in Australia is useful. I've never had any problems. (There's a bonus here, too: because the organisation doesn't have access to the sheets, they have to deal with the individuals themselves.)

Question booklets should also be returned. Not only are they copyright, but they are not legally available to unauthorised persons, i.e. those who haven't been accredited, qualified, or completed other relevant studies.

If participants ask you about scores, the answers are quite simple:

• the MBTI is a sort, so amounts aren't important

• there's one point for each answer (on Form M; 0, 1, or 2 points on Form G), and it's like a vote to find out which category you're in

• if you answer all the relevant questions for one category, then you're clear in your mind that that is the category for you

• less–clear scores simply mean that the questions haven't been able to clarify the category for you as much as for others.

A standard 3 - 4 hour presentation

The organisation or group provides the theme for the day. If you know what they do, and use that theme in your presentation, then you will have more relevance and make more sense. Your type examples can be based around what they do, and the presentation will be a lot easier because they start giving you examples as well.

Here's a list of what has to be said and done.

Beforehand:

• MBTI forms completed and scored

• Type table of the group prepared

Introduction:

• Context for the day/session

Background:

• The sort of personality theory type and MBTI is

• Origins of type and the MBTI: Jung, Isabel Myers

• Demonstration of 'preference' (e.g. handwriting example), and linking with type

Explaining type preferences:

• Presentations on E–I, S–N, T–F and J–P

• articipants rate themselves on the preferences

• Distribute report forms to participants, with type booklet and type table

Break

Explain results:

• What the results mean / don't mean: preference clarity category, validity, reliability, etc

• Explanation of the type table; presentation of other relevant type tables

• Exercises on the preferences: E–I, S–N, T–F, J–P

• Process and explain in the context of the group's purpose

Conclusion:

• What's been presented; bringing the session together

• Where to go from here, etc?

If you're conducting a 6–hour or one–day workshop, there are extra exercises required relating to type and the purpose of the presentation. These can be found in a number of manuals and texts.

The process above is fairly similar to my earlier recommendations for giving individual feedback (Geyer 2002). That's appropriate, because you're really after the same outcome. The only differences are that participants in a group get to talk amongst themselves, and there are exercises to demonstrate the preferences.

You'll note that this framework gets the participants to rate themselves on the preferences before you hand out their results. This gets them thinking in terms of the constructs you're talking about.

It also helps with group interaction. When you've finished that part of the presentation, you distribute the results and booklets (every person must get one) and call a break. This leaves it to the group to start sharing their results in their own way, and without coercion.

The talking amongst the group after you give out the results, and during the following break, is a crucial part of the presentation. Participants get to manage their own confidentiality, and discuss what the results mean.

There are people who will want questions answered privately. They will do this at breaks or at the end of the course, so you need to be flexible with your time. Nearly all of them will be introverts – more specifically, ISTJ or ISFJ, in my experience. These people are also more likely to break their silence near the end of a one–day course – usually around 4.00 pm – with a question or comment.

Presentation in general

Always present as yourself. Don't try to be an ISTJ with ISTJs or an ENFP with ENFPs if those are not your preferences; people can spot a fraud. They will listen if they think you have something to say to them. You're telling people it's good to be them, so communicate with them from your perspective, using some of their language, and say something about yours.

Manage and protect yourself as well. Never put times on your agenda, particularly morning and afternoon tea: schedule them with the venue if you have to, but manage the break times yourself. 'Morning' and 'Afternoon' are the only things you need to list. SJs in particular take times literally. My aim is to finish on time, and I do that, meeting all deadlines in the process.

Be organised in your way. That's being professional. I do everything in order, but you can see I'm not a J because my materials tend to scatter after a while.

I use electrostatic plastic sheeting or Post–It flip charts, rather than butcher's paper. This means I have quality control over that sort of thing. I also look up–to–date. It's more expensive, but easier: your goal is to teach, not to worry whether the Blu–Tac will work, or whether the venue bans things stuck to walls.

There are a few sets of materials around that help with the presentation of type preferences. I use overheads called Looking At Type, together with some I've made up for various purposes. I also have photos of Jung and Isabel Myers. The references below list some of the materials available. Make sure the information in the materials is correct and that you like what they say.

Things you have to say

Ethically, it's mandatory to say something about the origins of the MBTI, and about type dynamics and development

Origins of the MBTI:

I use the pictures of Jung and Isabel Myers to say something about them, make them human. There's lots of data in the public domain, including my own research (on my website – see References, below). But never say that the MBTI was developed by two housewives. While that's part of the identification of Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, it's hardly adequate, given their educational and writing accomplishments, as well as their social milieu.

In the same way, Jung can be described as a man who built his own house, a traveller, at home with country life and people – as well as a professional psychologist and psychiatrist. In a presentation to council maintenance supervisors in a country town a couple of years ago, I used the points that Jung built his house and was a country boy too, and they were clearly impressed. That set the scene for a good day. So this stuff isn't just for glossing over; it may be a way of gaining interest or curiosity.

You don't necessarily need to know much in depth about Jung and Myers, but it helps to have some stories at hand. Biographies are available, as well as videos of both. You can simply say that the MBTI was developed by two American women who studied the theory of psychological types of C G Jung, who was one of the pioneers of psychology, and his views are still popular in many fields. That sentence covers the field fairly succinctly.

Type dynamics and development

This has been a mandatory part of presentations for some five years now. However, it wasn't part of my initial training, and some may be unaware that the ethical requirements have changed.

Explaining this doesn't require jargon. In my introduction I say that type is a nature–nurture theory. That leads on to explaining people's type results, after they've taken the break on receiving their report form and booklet.

At this time I explain the results and what they mean: sorting; type, not skill; etc. I then direct the group to the pages of the booklet that their results are on, and explain dynamics from there. I say something like, 'If this is you, then you prefer ... most, and it's backed up by ... and you prefer ...'

When I talk about the inferior function, I refer to stressful times, and ask them to reflect on their own experiences.

With the development issue, I relate that to their age and experience, emphasising that ages aren't to be taken literally, e.g. 'If you're 35, then this will happen to you.' That's misleading, and simply not true anyway.

I find some discussion comes from this. I also look to explain some of what it means during exercises if an appropriate time comes up.

Preference exercises

Exercises are where the preferences can be visually and personally experienced.

Contrary to what many people think, many adults don't learn that way, or have low tolerance for it: Is and ITs generally, but I also recently encountered an ENTJ woman who was not thrilled by exercises. For that reason, I always put a lot of energy into observing what's going on in the group. Of course, I'll have preliminary data from the scoring and the type table to help.

These exercises are not role plays. It's important that participants act as themselves, not as a preference. It's also important to give them choice as to which group they're in, so an introduction like 'All those who prefer E or want to test it out, go over there' is preferable.

If you tell people that they're something, then most will try to be that. That teaches them nothing, and there is likely to be no personal insight. If people are themselves, then your interpretation of the exercises is more relevant. They know they're not in role, and so if you interpret an exercise well, then they'll listen more.

For a shy INTP like me, this is also a way of getting to know people better. I like to be friendly and casual: I think that helps with the subject matter.

There are no perfect exercises. With the scenario above, in particular, it's likely that the exercises won't work in a pure sense, no matter what type they are. But you're at least in touch with some reality, and the prospect that participants might want to use the knowledge outside the training room is enhanced.

Because there are no perfect exercises, I use basic exercises. Interpretation is what it's about, anyway. I tend to wander around and listen to what people say and do, and have a quiet chat here and there. That gives me some insight into what's going on.

I can then ask participants why they said or did something as part of the processing. In that way, I help them to get some idea as to what the preference means to them. Participants then get the idea that extraversion, for instance, isn't the same for everyone.

It's also more casual and relaxing that way. There's a bit of healthy laughter with a bit of nodding and extra questions. Personality is fun, actually, and often that's what you're there for: to provide fun, whatever that means. It may not be in the brief for the course, but it's implicit.

For those reasons, I find that I'm spending more and more time on the basic exercises, because there are some interesting things happening for the group, as well as technically in terms of learning something. Again, however, you have to watch that people haven't drifted off because they think you're in love with the sound of your own voice, or because they've got the point.

The four preferences can be seen to operate around these basic definitions:

E–I: Personal Energy

S–N: Describe

T–F: Define

J–P: Lifestyle

A simple exercise sticks to that, e.g.

E–I: Describe your ideal weekend / dinner party, etc

S–N: Describe an object: apple, coin, room, etc.

T–F: Define something: conflict, trust, friendship, etc.

J–P: What to do with goals / money / holiday, etc

The preferences overlap, so there's going to be variety in responses. You need to make it clear that you're not expecting a 'right' answer.

If the exercises don't work all that well – if, for example, your E group says that on their ideal weekend, they want to hide – just ask them why. They may be burnt out or overstretched for time; the answers will give you an insight to that.

Sometimes that scenario is more helpful than one where the answers are all down pat. If you use the MBTI enough, you'll find that your expertise in identifying differences and telling stories around them develops over time.

(If not, there's typewatching to keep your hand in, although that's another story.)

The four preference exercises will take you out for the half–day session.

Function and temperament exercises

Longer sessions call for illustrating different groups of preferences. The functional pairs ST, SF, NF and NT are good. IS, IN, ES and EN are the standard for exercises about change. The temperaments can be excellent at times, because it's a social typology and so you can see it in behaviour more.

Any general questions such as preferred leadership style (self and other), role in teams, etc, can be used with good results.

Some caveats:

• NTs are least likely to act as a group as defined. If they're bored or can't see the point they may refuse the task, or complete it cynically. It's useful to look for this, and make such a group aware that you know what's going on. You can explain this as normal behaviour.
  
  The fact that a group doesn't always act like a group will also be news, and valuable learning to the participants as a whole. As an NT myself, I usually I emphasise this; it's easier to do that, of course, if you have some empathy with what's going on.

• If you have many introverts in the group, or if you sense some restlessness about the exercises, then it's acceptable to do an exercise that gets them to work by themselves and write things down. This is called practising introversion.
  
  You don't have to process the results of the exercise, other than give some examples of answers to the questions from elsewhere.

• NFs are the group most likely to like exercises, (although some INFs would rather go without). They are more likely to act as a group, and to produce either lots or nothing, depending on their level of agreement.

• Sensing people as a whole may see exercises as outside their area of creativity, and may get restless or complain if things go on too long.

Interestingly, I find some relief expressed if there aren't too many exercises. This is not necessarily laziness or defiance – you can pick that up easily. Often, its simply that's not how some prefer to learn. Some types and some people prefer lecture or discussion as a component of their learning.

To manage that, you simply need to be open to the group, and aware of what might be going on. I find that people in some groups will ask for an activity, while others will ask that one not occur.

Completing the session

How you close your presentation depends on the brief you've been given, particularly if there are extra bits like teams, leading, etc, to deal with.

I finish with a video on validating type, which then enables me to say something in conclusion. But you can just simply draw things together. If you have the products of the day on the walls, you can refer to them. It's useful to repeat statements you will have made earlier about it being 'good to be you', etc, leading on to some general comments on the day, and thanking people for being there.

As I said earlier, after I finish, people will come up with queries and comments, compliments even. If you're like me, you'll gradually get your materials together, put them in the car, and drive off into the sunset with lots of thoughts about what's gone on in the day. ?

References

Barger, Nancy, and Linda Kirby, Type and change, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Fields, Margaret, and Jane Reid, Shape up your program, Center for the Applications of Psychological Type.
Geyer, Peter, 'An MBTI history'
Geyer, Peter, 'Quantifying Jung: The origin and development of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator' (MSc thesis)
Geyer, Peter, 'Getting to know you: Giving feedback on MBTI results', Australian Psychological Type Review 4:1&2, July 2002, 6-8.
Hartzler, Margaret, Making type work for you, Type Resources.
Hirsh, Sandra, and Jane Kise, Using the MBTI tool in organizations, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hirsh, Sandra, and Jean Kummerow, Introduction to type in organizations, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kroeger, Otto, and Associates, The basic three (video).
Lawrence, Gordon, and Charles Martin, Building people, building programs, Center for the Applications of Psychological Type.
Macdaid, Gerald P, Mary H McCaulley and Richard I Kainz, Myers–Briggs type indicator atlas of type tables, Center for the Applications of Psychological Type.
Myers, Isabel Briggs, Introduction to type, Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers, Isabel Briggs and Mary H McCaulley, Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (2nd edn), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Page, Earle, Looking at type (overhead transparencies), Center for the Applications of Psychological Type.
Suggestions for exercises in this article have been taken from Otto Kroeger Associates' Qualifying Workshop Manual.

Photograph courtesy of Jamie Johnston, CAPT Library. PETER GEYER (INTP) is a consultant, researcher and writer in the field of C G Jung's theory of psychological types. He conducts MBTI Accreditation programs and presents internationally on a regular basis. Peter is a life member of AusAPT and a professional affiliate of the Australian Psychological Society.