How Good Is The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator For Predicting Leadership-Related Behaviors?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a widely used personality assessment tool that categorizes individuals into 16 personality types based on four dichotomies: Extraversion–Introversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceiving.

In leadership contexts, MBTI is often used to understand how personality traits might influence leadership behaviors.

For example, extraverted leaders may be more likely to engage in inspiring and motivating others, while intuitive types might excel in strategic thinking and vision-setting.

However, the relationship between MBTI and leadership effectiveness remains a subject of ongoing research and debate.

Zárate-Torres, R., & Correa, J. C. (2023). How good is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for predicting leadership-related behaviors?. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 940961. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.940961

Key Points

• The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a popular tool used in organizational contexts, but there is limited empirical evidence on its role as a predictor of managers’ leadership-related behaviors.
• This study examined the relationship between personality (as measured by MBTI) and leadership practices (as measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory) among 529 Colombian university students.
• Results showed weak correlations between MBTI personality types and leadership practices, with an effect size of only 1% explained variance.
• Extraverted types were more likely to inspire a shared vision and encourage others compared to introverted types.
• Intuitive types were more likely to challenge processes and inspire a shared vision compared to sensing types.
• Perceiving types were more likely to challenge processes, inspire a shared vision, and encourage others compared to judging types.
• The study provides insights into the relationship between personality and leadership in a Latin American context, addressing a gap in the literature.
• Limitations include the cross-sectional design and sample consisting of university students rather than experienced managers.
• This research has implications for leadership development programs and understanding how personality may influence leadership behaviors.

Rationale

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is widely used in organizational settings for various purposes, including leadership development (Gardner & Martinko, 1996).

However, there is limited empirical evidence on its effectiveness in predicting leadership behaviors, particularly in non-Western contexts.

This study aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between MBTI personality types and leadership practices among Colombian university students.

The rationale for this research is based on several factors:

1. The popularity of MBTI in organizational contexts and its potential influence on leadership development programs (Costello, 1993; Penzias, 2020).
2. The need for empirical evidence on the relationship between MBTI and leadership behaviors, as most previous research has focused on literature reviews or theoretical discussions (Gardner & Martinko, 1996; Brown & Reilly, 2009).
3. The lack of studies on this topic in Latin American countries, particularly Colombia (Arévalo-Avecillas et al., 2019; Zárate-Torres et al., 2022).
4. The importance of understanding how personality traits may influence leadership behaviors in different cultural contexts (Bono & Judge, 2004; D’Alessio, 2008).

By investigating the relationship between MBTI personality types and leadership practices in a Colombian sample, this study contributes to the growing body of research on personality and leadership while addressing the need for more diverse perspectives in the field.

Method

The study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional design using self-report questionnaires to measure personality types and leadership practices.

Procedure

Participants completed two questionnaires during class hours: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI).

The principal investigator was present during data collection to answer questions and ensure consistency in administration.

Sample

The sample consisted of 529 participants who were graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in business administration programs from Colombian universities. After data cleaning, 464 valid observations were retained.

The sample demographics were:

• Gender: 50.64% male, 48.06% female
• Education level: 7.11% undergraduate students in their last semester, 91.6% graduate students
• Age: 15.94% between 15-21 years, 47.41% between 26-35 years, 24.56% between 36-45 years, 10.77% over 46 years

Measures

1. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): A 93-item questionnaire measuring four personality dichotomies: Extraversion-Introversion, Intuition-Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, and Judgment-Perceiving.
2. Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI): A 30-item questionnaire measuring five leadership practices: Challenging the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Enabling Others to Act, Modeling the Way, and Encouraging the Heart.

Statistical measures

The study used several statistical techniques:

1. Spearman Correlation Matrix to examine bivariate relationships between MBTI dichotomies and LPI dimensions.
2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate the measurement models for both MBTI and LPI.
3. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to assess the overall relationship between personality and leadership practices.
4. Two estimation methods were used for CFA and SEM: Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) and Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS).

Results

Below are the main findings from the study:

1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed satisfactory fit for both the MBTI and LPI measurement models.
2. Correlations between MBTI dichotomies were low (−0.2 ≥ ρ ≤ 0.18, p < 0.01), while correlations among LPI dimensions were moderate to high (0.50 ≥ ρ ≤ 0.73, p < 0.01).
3. The overall relationship between personality (MBTI) and leadership practices (LPI) was weak, with an effect size of only 1% explained variance (R2 = 0.01).
4. Specific relationships between MBTI dichotomies and LPI dimensions:
   • Extraversion was positively associated with Inspiring a Shared Vision and Encouraging the Heart.
   • Intuition was positively associated with Challenging the Process and Inspiring a Shared Vision.
   • Perceiving was positively associated with Challenging the Process, Inspiring a Shared Vision, and Encouraging the Heart.
5. The Thinking-Feeling dichotomy showed no significant relationships with any leadership practices.

Insight

This study provides valuable insights into the relationship between personality and leadership practices in a Colombian context.

The weak overall relationship between MBTI and LPI suggests that personality, as measured by MBTI, may not be a strong predictor of leadership behaviors.

However, specific associations between certain personality dichotomies and leadership practices offer a nuanced understanding of how personality might influence leadership tendencies.

The findings extend previous research by:

1. Providing empirical evidence on the MBTI-leadership relationship in a Latin American sample.
2. Highlighting the importance of considering specific personality traits rather than overall personality types when examining leadership behaviors.
3. Demonstrating that the relationship between personality and leadership may be more complex and context-dependent than previously assumed.

Future research could:

1. Investigate the mediating or moderating factors that may influence the personality-leadership relationship.
2. Explore how cultural factors might affect the expression of personality traits in leadership contexts.
3. Examine the longitudinal development of leadership practices in relation to personality traits.
4. Use alternative measures of personality (e.g., Big Five) to compare with MBTI results.

Strengths

The study had several methodological strengths:

1. Large sample size (N = 464) providing adequate statistical power.
2. Use of established and validated measures (MBTI and LPI).
3. Application of robust statistical techniques, including CFA and SEM.
4. Comparison of different estimation methods (FIML and DWLS) to ensure reliability of results.
5. Focus on an understudied population (Colombian university students) in leadership research.
6. Adherence to principles of open science and reproducible research.

Limitations

This study had several methodological limitations, including:

1. Cross-sectional design limits causal inferences about the personality-leadership relationship.
2. Sample consisted of university students rather than experienced managers or leaders, potentially limiting generalizability.
3. Reliance on self-report measures may introduce common method bias.
4. Focus on MBTI as the sole measure of personality, despite criticisms of its dichotomous nature.
5. Lack of consideration for potential moderating variables (e.g., work experience, cultural factors).
6. Limited exploration of the reasons behind the weak overall relationship between MBTI and LPI.

These limitations suggest that the results should be interpreted cautiously and may not be fully representative of the personality-leadership relationship in all contexts or populations.

Implications

The study’s findings have several implications for leadership theory and practice:

1. Leadership development programs should not rely solely on MBTI or similar personality assessments to predict or develop leadership potential.
2. Organizations may benefit from focusing on specific personality traits (e.g., extraversion, intuition) that show stronger associations with desired leadership practices.
3. The weak overall relationship between personality and leadership suggests that other factors (e.g., situational variables, skills, experience) may be more important in determining leadership effectiveness.
4. Cultural context may play a role in how personality traits manifest in leadership behaviors, highlighting the need for culturally sensitive approaches to leadership development.
5. The study underscores the importance of empirical validation of widely used tools like MBTI in organizational settings.
6. Researchers and practitioners should consider using multiple measures of personality and leadership to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their relationship.
7. The findings challenge the assumption that certain personality types are inherently better suited for leadership roles, suggesting a more nuanced approach is needed.

References

Primary reference

Zárate-Torres, R., & Correa, J. C. (2023). How good is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for predicting leadership-related behaviors?. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 940961. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.940961

Other references

Arévalo-Avecillas, D., Padilla-Lozano, C., Pino, R., & Cevallos, H. (2019). Los dominios de la personalidad y su relación con el estilo de liderazgo transformacional. CIT Información Tecnológica, 30, 237-248.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 89(5), 901.

Brown, F. W., & Reilly, M. D. (2009). The Myers‐Briggs type indicator and transformational leadership. Journal of Management Development, 28(10), 916-932.

Costello, K. (1993). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator– a management tool. Nursing Management, 24, 46-51.

D’Alessio, F. (2008). The influence of personality domains and working experience in Peruvian managers’ leadership styles: An initial study. Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra, 1, 13+.

Gardner, W., & Martinko, M. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22, 45-83.

Penzias, A. (2020). Team learning and development using the Myers-Briggs type indicator® and the clifton strengthsfinder®. Journal of Radiology Nursing, 39(2), 80-81.

Zárate-Torres, R., Rey-Sarmiento, F., Prada, R., & Acosta-Prado, J. (2022). Leadership style according to gender: Differences based on the personality of men and women. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 27, 167-185.

Keep Learning

Socratic questions for a college class discussion:

1. How might cultural differences influence the relationship between personality traits and leadership practices? How could we design a study to explore this?
2. What are the potential drawbacks of using a dichotomous personality measure like MBTI in leadership research? How might continuous measures provide different insights?
3. Why do you think the Thinking-Feeling dichotomy showed no significant relationships with leadership practices? What implications might this have for our understanding of emotional intelligence in leadership?
4. How might the relationship between personality and leadership practices change over time as individuals gain more experience in leadership roles?
5. What other factors, beyond personality, might be important in predicting leadership behaviors and effectiveness? How could these be incorporated into future research?
6. How might the findings of this study impact the way organizations approach leadership development and selection? Should personality assessments play a role in these processes?
7. Given the weak overall relationship between MBTI and leadership practices, what alternative approaches could researchers take to better understand the individual differences that contribute to effective leadership?
8. How might the use of self-report measures in this study have influenced the results? What alternative methods could be used to assess personality and leadership behaviors more objectively?
9. How do the findings of this study challenge or support common assumptions about the “ideal” personality type for leaders? What are the implications for diversity in leadership?
10. How might the relationship between personality and leadership practices differ in various organizational contexts (e.g., startups vs. established corporations, public vs. private sector)? How could we design studies to explore these differences?