The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most well-known personality tests in the world. Despite its widespread popularity, the MBTI has faced substantial criticism from the scientific community. In this episode, we’ll delve into the reasons why it may not be as reliable or meaningful as many believe, drawing on insights from critical analyses.
The MBTI categorises people into 16 distinct personality types based on preferences in four areas: Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I), Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N), Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F), and Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P). One of the primary criticisms of MBTI is that it lacks empirical support. The test was developed by Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers, and neither had any formal training in psychology. They based their work on Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types, which itself has been criticised for its lack of empirical evidence. There are numerous studies that have found that the MBTI is not a reliable or valid measure of personality. We’ve put a few of these in the resources below if you’re interested in digging into more detail. The bottom line is that the test’s binary choices don’t capture the complexity and nuance of human personality. Our personality is more like a spectrum rather than distinct categories.
Another criticism is that the test results are inconsistent. Research shows that a substantial number of people receive different results when they retake the test after a short period. This means that the MBTI is probably not measuring stable personality traits. A reliable psychological test should yield consistent results over time, so the variability in MBTI results undermines its credibility and usefulness.
A third criticism is that MBTI does not predict job performance. One of the reasons MBTI remains popular is its use in workplaces for team-building and career development. However, there is little evidence to support the idea that MBTI can predict job performance or suitability. We want to acknowledge that Briggs and Myers never intended it to be used for employment decisions. Despite this, many organisations continue to rely on it for hiring and team-building purposes.
The next criticisms are that MBTI categories are overly simplistic and that the test is driven by commercial interests. The MBTI’s binary choices do not account for the nuances and variations in personality. We’ll add more to this in a bit but we need to think of traits as spectrums rather than being black and white. In addition, the MBTI is a lucrative business. The test and its associated materials are sold to individuals and organisations, and that means there’s a lot of profit to be made in promoting it. There’s nothing wrong with a good business model, but we do think that some of the critics are right to highlight that this commercial drive can mean questions about reliability and validity are ignored.
So, while the MBTI is popular and widely used, particularly in organisational settings, the body of research supporting its use is limited and often contested. However, there’s a lot of us who have taken an MBTI test and have found some value in it because it helps us understand ourselves and others better. When used in settings for team-building and personal development, there can be some benefits because it gives us a framework to communicate and understand team dynamics. There are some studies that suggest that it can be useful for improving communication and understanding within teams. But we note that these studies are often funded or conducted by organisations that promote MBTI.
So what do we do, or what can we use, if MBTI isn’t backed by research? Well, modern personality psychology favours the five-factor model of personality, which has extensive empirical support. This is known as the OCEAN model and the acronym stands for five unique characteristics used to study personality. These five factors are Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. What we want to highlight is that each of these is a spectrum, not black and white, in contrast to MBTI which forces people to choose between two opposing traits. We do want to add that the five-factor model isn’t perfect either! There’s significant criticism that it doesn’t really explain all of human personality which is true. But we think it’s a better place to start.
In summary, while we want to acknowledge the usefulness of having a framework to talk about the way we perceive and behave, the limitations and criticisms of MBTI mean that we’re cautious about its usefulness for enablers of change. We suggest that the five-factor model is a more scientifically validated approach to understanding personality.
Well, you’ve heard our thoughts, now we’d like to hear yours! Add a comment below the blog post and tell us about your experiences with MBTI, including any tips and further ideas about it. We don’t want this to be just a one-way conversation—join in by sharing your thoughts and ideas with us!
Thanks for joining us on this Enablers of change episode. Remember to subscribe to our newsletter if you’d like to know when new episodes are available. And if you liked what you heard, please tell your friends so they too can join the conversation!
Resources
Ackerman, C. E. (2017). Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained. Positive Personality website
Boyle, G. J. (1995). Myers‐Briggs type indicator (MBTI): some psychometric limitations. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 71-74. Available online
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre. Available online [see Section 5, from p. 47 for a review of MBTI]
Emre, Merve. (2019). What’s Your Type? The Story of the Myers-Briggs, and How Personality Testing Took Over the World. William Collins, UK.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological bulletin, 135(2), 322. Available online
Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(2), e12434. Available online
Yay! Some push-back to the MBTI. It’s amazing how far the framework/tool has gone without much evidence.
Let’s not forget the copycats it has spawned, like the DISC profile (Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness). Same issues, different packaging.
My main beef is that they aren’t helpful. Like you’ve said, they don’t predict job performance. They also end up privileging extroversion and action, when maybe waiting and thinking are better approaches.
If you really want to know me, Mercury is rising in my sun sign…. 😉
Good to hear you appreciated it Bill! You’re right about the other copycat ones out there too, and as you say, they’re not helpful.
I agree! I often see people putting their MBTI Type on their LinkedIn bio, which is great if they feel it resonates with their self-perception! But to me it really boxes yourself into a personality. For people who live by it – What if you awake in a bad mood but remember you’re ENFP? Do you have to force yourself to be extroverted and feeling? Likely not…
It restricts your ability to be open minded.
Thanks for letting us know you agree Henry! I think it’s a shame to feel boxed in, or to put other people in boxes…
As usual, well done Denise & John. A load of old bollocks, but will keep going like the Rogers Diffusion model. Reminded me of a quote from Upton Sinclair that I have adapted for this: It is difficult to get a person to change their mind about something when their salary derives from not changing their mind.
Thanks Roy… I hadn’t heard that quote before, but it makes sense!