Hiring People Based on MBTI

Asa

Asa

Resident palindrome
Staff member
Administrator
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
I've read a few posts about work-related drama, so I wanted to make a thread about strengths and weaknesses of MBTI in the workplace.
This could be a workplace, team, or partnership of any kind - traditional, or not. It could also help the many INXXs that dominate this board recognize our blind spots, so we learn what jobs to avoid, and who to hire to compensate for our weak points.

I'm not sure all MBTI recognize their weaknesses, or strengths, so it will help us all if we hear outsider points of view.
 
MBTI has somewhat fallen out of favor for the workplace. It is viewed as a tool for personal use and not useful in the working environment due to the possibility of bias in the hiring process that it could create. It's all about DISC, Big Five and also Caliper. I think they are all pretty useful and they all sort of share/borrow elements from Jungian theory. The more you can understand an applicant the better.

It's a very heated debate right now because intelligence is pretty much the best overall predictor of job performance. People don't really like that answer because it's a hard pill to swallow. It also doesn't seem entirely intuitively correct because there are so many variables at play and you don't always see highly intelligent people succeeding over people of lesser intellect so there must be some other elements.

One camp that has been gaining some momentum is claiming that conscientiousness is a significant predictor. This seems more intuitively accurate to me. Somebody with high intellect and high conscientiousness is probably kicking a lot of ass in the world as long as they have a third (debatable) important element... motivation!

So when you start to look at the specifics, you can see how personality plays a factor and how that might very quickly create bias. Extroverts might have an easier time expressing that they indeed have these traits, while introverts may have an even larger pool of them but are not as equipped to show them off. They are also difficult elements to accurately assess.

But this all leads me to your original questioning. Do certain types naturally possess more motivation? More conscientiousness? More intellect? They seem pretty spread out. It's best to have diverse working groups for all kinds of reasons. I'm a really big fan of a working environment that pairs people up in synergistic(blahhh I threw up a little using that word) ways.
 
Wyote said:
One camp that has been gaining some momentum is claiming that conscientiousness is a significant predictor. This seems more intuitively accurate to me. Somebody with high intellect and high conscientiousness is probably kicking a lot of ass in the world as long as they have a third (debatable) important element... motivation!
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff!

I think that sounds right to me, too. Conscientiousness is measured by the Big Five, and I would guess that at a certain point, given the intelligence levels of people selected for the job will be similar enough, this variable will play a role.
I think the combination that is most suited to corporate life is decent but not over the top assertiveness, high conscientiousness, and good enough intellect relative to what is being asked. At a certain point, since the job is usually not "invent the next greatest operating system" and is instead focused on achievable goals that will definitively make the company money, diligence, attention to detail, and so on can be more important than having a bright mind that is flailing around looking for stimulation
 
I don't work in the corporate world. I sometimes have corporate freelance clients.

I'm interested in the process of matching types with the jobs that play to their strengths, but also accepting that sometimes a type is wrong for a specific task. I'm not interested specifically in whether MBTI is used in the interviewing process for big businesses. We all have shortcomings that make it less likely that we'll stick with a job, or excel at a job. I've read interviews that suggest "knowing oneself" is the best way to succeed. (For example, are you really good at team work? Are you naturally detail-oriented?) We can all learn to adjust, but then our tertiary or inferior functions are dominating.

From listening to family and friends, MBTI is still being used to help workers reach their full potential and make the workplace more efficient.

(((giggles))) An INTJ friend told me about the MBTI expert explaining that, 'This INTJ is such an extreme introvert that group activities are the worst thing possible to boost his morale'. during group morale exercises. :D

My brother also talked with great enthusiasm (which is rare) about "introvert seminars" held at his job that help introverts shine with their natural abilities. (He works in corporate finance.) A CEO is a champion of introverts in a field dominated by extroverts. "Quiet" is the handbook.

When I worked for companies, I was often hired to work with people with the promise that my responsibilities would shift with time. Every time the shift failed to arrive, I would leave the job after two years. I was really hard on myself for this pattern until I read a MBTI book that explained that social introverts, such an INFJs, can appear to be extroverts, but will burn out at an extroverted job after two years.
I will also leave any job that makes me feel like my existence is pointless, or my job is meaningless. I will work incredibly hard and be incredibly loyal to a company if I believe in what I'm doing. I'm the type that will show up on Monday and say, "Look what I did for us over the weekend!"

I want to post about my experiences hiring different types, but I'd rather leave the floor open for people to discuss their assets and shortcomings.

Sorry, I'm really distracted right now because I need to go do something else soon, but i wanted to touch on why I started this thread. :)
 
The more I age and grow, the more I see myself as a leader, and those qualities in me come out in scenarios at my current job that have me in awe at my own behavior, honestly. I'm persuasive and outspoken with no equal sometimes. I'm becoming the quintessential "great boss", if you will.

I'm inclined to include my MBTI in future interviews with an explanation of past behavior. I'll provide mock scenarios and explain how I would handle them.
 
Wyote said:
MBTI has somewhat fallen out of favor for the workplace. It is viewed as a tool for personal use and not useful in the working environment due to the possibility of bias in the hiring process that it could create. It's all about DISC, Big Five and also Caliper. I think they are all pretty useful and they all sort of share/borrow elements from Jungian theory. The more you can understand an applicant the better.

It's a very heated debate right now because intelligence is pretty much the best overall predictor of job performance. People don't really like that answer because it's a hard pill to swallow. It also doesn't seem entirely intuitively correct because there are so many variables at play and you don't always see highly intelligent people succeeding over people of lesser intellect so there must be some other elements.

One camp that has been gaining some momentum is claiming that conscientiousness is a significant predictor. This seems more intuitively accurate to me. Somebody with high intellect and high conscientiousness is probably kicking a lot of ass in the world as long as they have a third (debatable) important element... motivation!

So when you start to look at the specifics, you can see how personality plays a factor and how that might very quickly create bias. Extroverts might have an easier time expressing that they indeed have these traits, while introverts may have an even larger pool of them but are not as equipped to show them off. They are also difficult elements to accurately assess.

But this all leads me to your original questioning. Do certain types naturally possess more motivation? More conscientiousness? More intellect? They seem pretty spread out. It's best to have diverse working groups for all kinds of reasons. I'm a really big fan of a working environment that pairs people up in synergistic(blahhh I threw up a little using that word) ways.
Click to expand...

You're making a fairly big assumption there. Do you have any studies that backup intelligence as the primary indicator of job performance?
 
Wyote said:
It's not an assumption. Look it up mate.
http://www.apa.org/research/action/who.aspx
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. Though it does refer to more complex jobs when determining how useful intelligence is though. And I still don't entirely agree with that. I work in IT where there's a lot of highly complex tasks involved. And I've worked with intelligent people who completed degrees in computer science, but who had little common sense. So they weren't great in troubleshooting, one of the most important aspects of the job.

Of course that's just my own experience. I don't have access to the cited research, so unfortunately I can't pick holes in it and do my duty as an INTJ explaining exactly why you're wrong.
 
Getting everyone on board with mbti seems like a daunting task. I'm not sure mbti is the tool to use to keep a workplace "drama free". In fact why should it be drama free?
 
Jacobi said:
Ok, fair enough. Though it does refer to more complex jobs when determining how useful intelligence is though. And I still don't entirely agree with that. I work in IT where there's a lot of highly complex tasks involved. And I've worked with intelligent people who completed degrees in computer science, but who had little common sense. So they weren't great in troubleshooting, one of the most important aspects of the job.

Of course that's just my own experience. I don't have access to the cited research, so unfortunately I can't pick holes in it and do my duty as an INTJ explaining exactly why you're wrong.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice if you read my original post. But you're too busy being offended by information. Intelligence is merely the best predictor of job performance at the moment. Is that more better worded for you? Maybe I worded it oddly, my bad. I'm not wrong, the data and testing are wrong(maybe). I fully agree with your sentiment as I previously stated.
 
Wyote said:
It'd be nice if you read my original post. But you're too busy being offended by information. Intelligence is merely the best predictor of job performance at the moment. Is that more better worded for you? Maybe I worded it oddly, my bad. I'm not wrong, the data and testing are wrong(maybe). I fully agree with your sentiment as I previously stated.
Click to expand...

I wasn't offended by what you said. Perhaps I was a bit terse because I was writing it in a hurry. But you are right I didn't read it in it's entirety, and I made a false assumption. That was my bad.
 
I would use MBTI to help select employees. I would also use IQ tests. Why not?

I don't think there are any downsides to knowing more about your employees/having more information during the selection process. I'm sure some people would talk about prejudice and all that, but that's probably because they scored like an eighty on their IQ test.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top