The broad idea of personality types dates back at least to Hippocrates, some 2500 years ago. More recently, in the earlier 20th Century, C.G. Jung identified many such approaches to personality when he introduced and later elaborated on his own theory of psychological types. Jung's contemporaries Kretschmer, Spranger and Sheldon were also major proponents of typologies in the 1920s and 1930s.

In the world of applied psychology, these ideas lost out to behaviourism and measurable traits, particularly with regard to psychological instruments. Only a trait interpretation of Jung's introversion and extraversion was considered measurable until Isabel Myers produced the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^®s. David Keirsey's Temperament theory, a social typology, has amalgamated all these views in recent times. Instrumentally, his view depends on the MBTI^®, notwithstanding that Keirsey himself questions the validity of all personality instruments

A brief clarification: Psychological instruments and personality theories are usefully divided into type and trait approaches. Type theories presume that people are born with an innate predisposition to prefer one approach to life over others. It's a inner drive which people can direct, especially once made more conscious and it's dynamic in terms of how it operates throughout life. We can choose whether to act according to our preferences, but our psychological health depends on being able to live in a way that supports and develops our core being.

A trait approach to personality implies that there are observable personal activities and attributes that can be measured in terms of amounts - how much of a particular attribute we have - as well as a trait norm against which we can be compared. Taxonomies of traits, rather than typologies, are provided by these methods. According to this view, the amount of a trait I have causes my behaviour, there's no personal choice in it. Trait theories don't presume a core personality, nor a developmental framework across the lifespan. Most management/leadership approaches follow this framework.

Should we be typing things? Current research into how human beings perceive things shows that we categorise naturally, in order to make sense of our world: e.g. left/right; up/down; masculine/feminine; Christian/Buddhist; suit/casual etc. But it also depends on how viable and meaningful the classification is. Empirical evidence is growing across many fields of enquiry, for the broad validity of Jung's typology. Its general utility is not seriously under question. Research into early childhood and the operations of the brain also gives broad support to Jung's ideas, albeit unwillingly or inadvertently in many cases.

When people talk about personality typing, in particular in organisations, it's invariably Isabel Myers' development of Jung's work or an adaptation. In instrument terms, it's either the MBTI^® or Keirsey's unvalidated Temperament Sorter, and latterly Saunders & Johnson's controversial Personality Profile. If I complete a type instrument, is the result really me? That has something to do with the instrument's reliability and validity. Excepting the Temperament Sorter, type instruments as defined here have high levels of reliability and validity, unless you don't like type theories.

Knowing who you are is another factor. The purpose of the MBTI^®, for example, is to sort you into a category (type) to which you, in theory, already belong. You are largely the judge of that, so type validation is related to your own self awareness. If you complete such an instrument according to how you are at work, or under stress, rather than from your normal approach to life, then you may not get a result that reflects your type preferences. Type theory says that there are also no pure or perfect types, as well as much variety within each type. This is because oft he uniqueness of individuals per se as well as environmental and cultural experience. Types are caused and developed by the use of preferences (a nature and nurture perspective), so they are contingent on our experience, our gender, our culture and social background. This means that type preferences will look different while the underlying process is the same.

Type is also not skill, even though there is a presumption that you've been able to develop some skills around your preferences. However, since there are thousands of possible skills, because of your environment you may not have skills in particular areas that others of your type share.

What difference will all this stuff about difference really make? Well, it's unlikely to work in a workplace where uniformity is required, or where levels of mutual trust are low. Understanding and appreciating difference is probably essential for a well-functioning democracy. Most workplaces, quite clearly, aren't like that; even in so-called flatter structures, there is an hierarchy of power, visible or invisible. In addition the completion of personality instruments is, initially at least, the organisation's choice, not the individual's.

Even in such circumstances, knowing about people's preferences and understanding them better can assist developing a healthy and co-operative organisation, minimising conflict, stress and illness by understanding the best in people. Certainly strategic planning and developing the skills and knowledge of staff are greatly assisted by awareness of typologically-based difference. Will using type make an organisation more effective and efficient? That depends on a number of things. Using type theories, like other ideas in organisations, requires more than the 45 minutes of self-awareness often provided at the beginning of a course on management and leadership. The organisation has to decide to use the method knowledgeably, intensively and comprehensively over a long period of time. This means leaving the world of instrumentation and using the theory and its applications more. Be aware though, that "efficient" and "effective" are loaded as terms, dating back to F.W. Taylor's "One Best Way" so, in a sense, they are inimical to any theory of difference.

Type approaches can also be used as a diagnostic framework for understanding organisations, in terms of corporate culture, including the various approaches of regions and departments within an organisation. In doing this, you need to be aware that the history of an organisation, rather than its current incarnation, may more truly reflect the culture (type or otherwise) than anything else. An easy and interesting test is to ask whether the advertising of your bank reflects the type of service you get. While using personality type in and about organisations is initially simple and clear, it is deceptively so. You need to know more than the basics to get the benefit. But the knowledge is out there, even though you might have to look around for it. And the search will be worth ilk

SOME REFERENCES:

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.