1) The study examined the personality types of 372 Chinese dental postgraduate students using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
2) The three most common personality types among dental students were ISTJ (15.3%), ESTJ (13.7%), and ISFP (11.8%).
3) Compared to other postgraduate students, dental students preferred Introversion over Extroversion and Thinking over Feeling.
The PersonaliTy TyPes of Chinese DenTal PosTgraDuaTe sTuDenT.docx
1. The PersonaliTy TyPes of Chinese DenTal
PosTgraDuaTe sTuDenTs
Shengjun Wu, Danmin miao, Xia Zhu, jie Liang, Xufeng Liu,
ZhengXue Luo anD Wei Wang
Fourth Military Medical University, People’s Republic of China
The objective of this study was to find the personality types of
Chinese dental postgraduate
students using the Chinese version of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI-Form G;
Myers, 1987). The subjects were 372 dental postgraduate
students and 336 postgraduates
from other professions as a control group. The dental students
were at Fourth Military
Medical University and Xi’an Medical University. The control
group attended Xi’an Jiaotong
University. The three dominant personality types among the
dental postgraduates were
ISTJ (15.3%), ESTJ (13.7%) and ISFP (11.8%). The distribution
of Extroversion (E) over
Introversion (I) and Thinking (T) over Feeling (F) was different
from other professions. Male
and female dental postgraduates had similar types of mental
attitude (E-I; judging-perceiving
J-P) and mental function (sensing-intuition, S-N; T-F).
Statistically significant differences
were found between males and females in the distribution of J-P
types. It was found that
Chinese dental postgraduates have personality types that differ
3. China. Email: [email protected]
PERSONALITY OF CHINESE DENTAL
POSTGRADUATES1078
& Bennett, 2005; Saline, 1991; Smithers, Catano, &
Cunningham, 2004;
Westerman, Grandy, & Erskine, 1991). Minimal research on the
personality
types of Chinese dental postgraduates has been done. Previous
studies in Western
nations have revealed that dental students exhibited different
characteristics from
the students in other fields, such as business, engineering and
social workers
(Silberman, Cain, & Mahan, 1982). Education ability combined
with a period
of training might produce good dentists, but perhaps such
factors as personality
have more influence on future success. For example, students’
academic scores
are little correlated with their ultimate success in the dental
undergraduate course
(Carrotte, 1993; Glyn-Jones, 1979). The interest in dental
careers has increased
dramatically in China in recent years. As the main source of
dentists, dental
postgraduates should get more proper education. Some results
demonstrated
the importance of faculty understanding and acknowledging
different student
personality types and related learning preferences as ways to
initiate improvement
of dental education, promote student motivation and allow for
4. an expression of
learning-style preference (Jessee, O’Neill, & Dosch, 2006). The
objective of the
present study was to explore the personality types of Chinese
dental postgraduate
students using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to
investigate trends that
can be utilized by researches and educators.
The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a forced choice,
self-disclosure
instrument which was developed by Myers and McCaulley
(1985). The MBTI
provides four dimensions of an individual’s preferences which
combine to form
an individual’s personality type along the line of Extroversion-
Introversion (E-I),
where an individual gets energy and focuses attention either on
the inner world
or outer world; Sensing-Intuition (S-N), the way one gets
information; Thinking-
Feeling (T-F), the way one makes decisions; and Judging-
Perception (J-P), how
an individual deals with the outside world and their lifestyle.
The MBTI was
constructed for classification of subjects into types based on the
personality
theories of Jung. In his theory, individuals have four basic
mental attitudes and
four basic mental functions. Mental attitudes include
extroversion (to the outside
world) and introversion (to the inside world); judging
(organized, decision-
maker) and perceiving (flexible, adaptive). Mental functions
include sensing
(realistic, cautious) and intuition (imaginative, creative);
5. thinking (logical,
analytic) and feeling (sympathetic) (see Table 1 and Table 2).
MeThoD
The PersonaliTy QuesTionnaire
The Chinese version of MBTI (Form G) was used. The MBTI
had many
versions; the MBTI (Form G) was revised in 1987 and has 126
items (Myers,
1987). After the MBTI (Form G) was introduced into China, a
Chinese version
PERSONALITY OF CHINESE DENTAL POSTGRADUATES
1079
was developed and systematic studies have been conducted on it
(Luo, Miao,
Huangfu, & Chen, 2001; Miao, Huangfu, Chia, & Ren, 2000).
The Chinese
version of MBTI (Form G) has 94 items (21 EI, 26 SN, 23 TF,
and 24 JP).
Results confirmed that it had good reliability and validity,
which were similar to
the English version (Jackson, Parker, & Dipboye, 1996; Sipps &
DiCaudo, 1988;
Thompson & Borrello, 1986). In the mainland of China the
Chinese version of
MBTI (Form G) has been used in many fields (Dong, Miao, &
Huangfu, 1997;
Luo et al., 2003; Wu, Miao, Liu, Zhu, & Xiao, 2006). The cross-
cultural validity
of the Chinese version MBTI (Form G) has also been studied
6. (Osterlind, Miao,
Sheng, & Chia, 2004).
subjecTs
Three hundred and ninety-three dental postgraduate students
from the Fourth
Military Medical University (216) and Department of Dentistry
at Xi’an Medical
University (163) were invited to participate in this study and
372 completed
the Chinese version of MBTI (Form G). The response rate was
94.7%. Of the
subjects, 173 were females and 199 were males, and the age
range was 18-23
years. As the control group, 375 postgraduates of other
professions in the Xi’an
Jiaotong University participated in the study and 336 completed
the questionnaire
(152 females and 184 males, age range was 17-25 years,
response rate, 94.1%).
In the control group, specialties such as business, social work,
psychology and
some other fields were included. The ratio of female/male was
approximately
equal in the two groups. The questionnaires were in paper and
pencil format and
were brought directly from the distributors. All participants
were assured that the
completed questionnaires would remain anonymous and would
have no influence
on their selection and all subjects participated in the study
voluntarily.
resulTs
7. Differences of MenTal aTTiTuDes anD MenTal funcTion
beTween
DenTal PosTgraDuaTes anD The conTrol grouP
In the mental attitude pair of characteristics, Introversion (I)
was favored by
dental postgraduates students over Extroversion (E). But in the
control group
this was reversed and statically significant differences were
found within the
two groups (p < 0.01). Both dental postgraduates and the
control group preferred
Judging (J) to Perceiving (P). In the mental function pair of
characteristics, both
groups preferred Sensing (S) to Intuition (N). However,
thinking (T) was favored
by dental postgraduates but there was a higher percentage of
Feeling (F) in the
control group, and the difference reached a significant level (p
< 0.01) (Table
1).
PERSONALITY OF CHINESE DENTAL
POSTGRADUATES1080
Table 1
DisTribuTion of Preferences/TyPe in DenTal PosTgraDuaTes
anD PosTgraDuaTes of
oTher Professions
Preference/Types Dental Postgraduates
postgraduates of other professions χ2 test
n % n %
9. Notes: (E/I=Extrovert/Introvert, S/N=Sensing/Intuition,
T/F=Thinking/Feeling, J/P=Judging/
Perceiving).
%: percent of total dental and other postgraduates who fall into
this type/preference.
a Significant at p < 0.05.
Differences of PersonaliTy TyPes beTween DenTal
PosTgraDuaTes anD
The conTrol grouP
The most dominant personality types of dental postgraduates
were ISTJ, ESTJ
and ISFP which accounted for 40.9%. In the control group, they
were ESFJ, ISFJ
PERSONALITY OF CHINESE DENTAL POSTGRADUATES
1081
and ENFJ, and the three types accounted for 39.9%. The derived
values showed
statistically significant differences in the distribution of all
personality types
between the two groups except the group of
ISTP/ISFP/INTP/INFP (p = 0.26)
(see Table 1).
Differences of MenTal aTTiTuDe anD MenTal funcTion
beTween feMale
anD Male DenTal PosTgraDuaTes
In mental attitude, both females and males preferred
Introversion (I) to
Extroversion (E) and Judging (J) to Perceiving (P). However,
10. the percentage of
Judging (J) of males (68.3%) was far more than that of females
(51.4%) and a
significant difference was found (p < 0.01). In mental function,
both females and
males preferred Sensing (S) to Intuition (N) and Thinking (T) to
Feeling (F) (see
Table 2).
Differences of PersonaliTy TyPes beTween feMale anD Male
DenTal
PosTgraDuaTes
ISFP (16.8%) and ESTJ (13.9%) were chosen by the majority of
females, and
the majority personality types were ISTJ (18.6%) and ESTJ
(13.6%) in males. No
significant differences of distribution were found in the four
groups (Table 2).
Table 2
DisTribuTion of Preferences/TyPe in feMale anD Male DenTal
PosTgraDuaTes
Preference/Types Female Male χ2 test
n % n %
Mental attitude
E 80 46.2 85 42.7
I 93 53.8 114 57.3 χ2 = 0.47, df = 1, p = .49
J 89 51.4 136 68.3
P 84 48.6 63 31.7 χ2 =11.06, df = 1, p = .00a
Mental function
S 111 64.2 141 70.9
N 62 35.8 58 29.1 χ2 = 1.90, df = 1, p = .17
12. T/F=Thinking/Feeling, J/P=Judging/
Perceiving).
%: percent of total female and male dental postgraduates who
fall into this type/preference.
a Significant at p < 0.05.
DisCussion
MenTal aTTiTuDe anD MenTal funcTion
Dental postgraduates preferred Introversion (I) to Extroversion
(E) while the
tendency was opposite for postgraduate students of other fields.
Previous research
on dentists demonstrated a similar tendency (Westerman et al.,
1991). Some
research suggests female medical students show a preference for
Introversion (I)
while males favored Extroversion (E) (Stilwell, Wallick, Thal,
& Burleson, 2000).
Extroversion (E) and Introversion (I) belong to the energy
preference. Extroverts
(E) get their energy from outside and are more active in the
interaction. They
may be more competitive, expressive and open-minded.
Introverts (I) get their
energy by concentrating on their own thinking and feeling and
they are quiet
and contemplate more. The current results suggested that both
Chinese female
and male dental postgraduates showed the quiet and
contemplative traits. Such
results are instructive for the future education of dental
postgraduates. Chinese
educators should show more patience in educational procedure
and design of
13. postgraduate courses, and they should give more encouragement
but not less
criticism in dealing with dental students.
Sensing (S) and Intuition (N) indicated the style of information
collection.
Sensing (S) types tend to focus on the facts and details, to
emphasize reason-
result and to be content with routine jobs. Intuition (N), on the
contrary, relies
on a process that reports meanings and possibilities which have
been reached
beyond the confines of the conscious mind. Both dental
postgraduates and the
PERSONALITY OF CHINESE DENTAL POSTGRADUATES
1083
control group preferred S to N, and other studies of
undergraduates have shown
a similar distribution (Jessee et al., 2006). The preference of
Sensing (S) to
Intuition (N) was the same with female and male dental
postgraduates. Intuitive
(N) types generally tend not to focus on facts and are usually
not content with
routine jobs. Such results suggested that as dental students, both
Chinese and
those from countries of the Western world showed a greater
ability to concentrate
on facts compared with others.
Thinking (T) types tend to be objective, just and calm in
decision-making, but
14. Feeling (F) types tend to be more subjective and tactful in
dealing with people.
Thinking (T) was favored by both female and male dental
postgraduates but an
opposite distribution was found in the control group. The results
indicated dental
postgraduates seemed more legalistic, impersonal, analytic and
justice-oriented
which was essential for the dental profession.
Judging (J) types generally focus on the object, they have a
preference for
order, planning and construction. Perceiving (P) types tend to
change and
don’t like to be limited, they are more curious and flexible. In
the current
study, dental postgraduates preferred Judging (J) to Perceiving
(P). Other
studies have also found that the number of Judging (J) types
were significantly
higher among dental professionals than in the general
population (Jessee et al.,
2006; Silberman, Freeman, & Lester, 1992). An interesting
finding was that,
although female and male postgraduates preferred Judging (J),
the percentage
of Perceiving (P) among females was far greater than among
males. The gender
difference might reflect the impact of the Confucian culture on
the Chinese. The
Confucian philosophy tends to be middle-of-the-road in dealing
with people or
things, so it emphasizes the change according to different
situations. But because
Chinese males are probably less influenced by such theory than
are females,
15. there are fewer tendencies for Perceiving (P) among them.
PersonaliTy TyPes
The dominant personality types of dental postgraduates were
ISTJ, ESTJ
and ISFP. The two dominant personality types were ISFP and
ESTJ in female
dental postgraduates, and ISTJ and ESTJ in males. ISTJs fulfill
their goals by
contemplation and logistic plan. ESTJs have mechanical minds
and are not
interested in anything they think useless for themselves. Note
that ISTJ and ESTJ,
the two of three most dominant personality types among dental
postgraduates,
have always been found to be the more dominant personality
types in dental
students or dentists compared with other professions in studies
carried out in
western countries (Jessee et al., 2006; Silberman et al., 1982;
Westerman et al.,
1991). Such interesting cross-cultural consistency might reflect
the particularity
of the dental profession, and provide a reason for further
investigation. ISFP
was the other dominant type in Chinese dental postgraduates
compared with
PERSONALITY OF CHINESE DENTAL
POSTGRADUATES1084
other professions. ISFPs restrain their emotions and are
responsible for their
16. work and beliefs. The reason for such special types might be the
culture or
professional differences. The dental profession requires more
responsibility
because dentists have to interact with all kinds of patients in
their daily work.
So dental postgraduates might have already prepared for a
career with such high
risk and workload. So there were more ISFP types compared
with students from
other professions.
ConClusion
In our study, Chinese dental postgraduates still displayed their
special char-
acteristics although some cross-cultural similarities of
personality types were
confirmed. Thus, the study of personality types demonstrated
great value in
understanding Chinese dental postgraduates. The results may
provide useful
guidance for Chinese dental postgraduate educators and for
those interested in
cross-cultural research on dental education.
referenCes
Carrotte, P. V. (1993). The assessment of dental students-a
university education? British Dental
Journal, 175, 220-223.
Chamberlain, T. C., Catano, V. M., & Cunningham, D. P.
(2005). Personality as a predictor of
professional behavior in dental school: Comparisons with dental
17. practitioners. Journal of Dental
Education, 69, 1222-1237.
Dong, Y., Miao, D. M., & Huangfu, E. (1997). The relationship
of personality and PM leadership
behavior in military officials. Chinese Journal of Applied
Psychology, 3, 29-33.
Glyn-Jones, J. C. (1979). Dental student selection – the
prediction of success. Journal of Dentistry,
7, 329-338.
Jackson, S. L., Parker, C. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1996). A
comparison of competing models underlying
response to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Career
Assessment, 4, 99-115.
Jessee, S. A., O’Neill, P. N., & Dosch, R. O. (2006). Matching
student personality types and learning
preferences to teaching methodologies. Journal of Dental
Education, 70, 644-651.
Luo, Z. X., Miao, D. M., Huangfu, E., & Chen, Z. H. (2001).
The modification of the Chinese version
MBTI. Psychological Science, 24, 361-362.
Luo, Z. X., Miao, D. M., Huangfu, E., Su, J. K., Ni, X. Y., &
Yang, T. F. (2003). Correlation between
personality and the competency of cadets in military academy.
Journal of Fourth Military
Medical University, 24, 757-759.
Miao, D. M., Huangfu, E., Chia, R. C., & Ren, J. J. (2000). The
validity analysis of the Chinese
version MBTI. Acta Psychological Sinica, 32, 324-331.
18. Morris, D. O. (2000). Personality types of dental school
applicants. European Journal of Dental
Education, 4, 100-107.
Murphy, R. J., Gray, S. A., Straja, S. R., & Bogert, M. C.
(2004). Student learning preferences and
teaching implications. Journal of Dental Education, 68, 859-
866.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to
the development and use of the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
PERSONALITY OF CHINESE DENTAL POSTGRADUATES
1085
Myers, I. B. (1987). Introduction to type (4th ed.). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Osterlind, S. J., Miao, D., Sheng, Y., & Chia, R. C. (2004).
Adapting item format for cultural effects
in translated tests: Cultural effects on construct validity of the
Chinese version of the MBTI.
International Journal of Testing, 4, 61-73.
Ranney, R. R., Wilson, M. B., & Bennett, R. B. (2005).
Evaluation of applicants to predoctoral dental
education programs: Review of the literature. Journal of Dental
Education, 69, 1095-1106.
Saline, L. M. (1991). Personality characteristics and career
choice among dental hygiene students
enrolled in non-baccalaureate programs. Journal of Dental
19. Hygiene, 65, 130-137.
Silberman, S. L., Cain, M. J., & Mahan, J. M. (1982). Dental
students’ personality: A Jungian
perspective. Journal of Dental Education, 46, 646-651.
Silberman, S. L., Freeman, I., & Lester, G. R. (1992). A
longitudinal study of dental students’
personality type preferences. Journal of Dental Education, 56,
384-388.
Sipps, G. J., & DiCaudo, J. (1988). Convergent and
discriminant validity of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator as a measure of sociability and impulsivity.
Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 48, 445-451.
Smithers, S., Catano, V. M., & Cunningham, D. P. (2004). What
predicts performance in Canadian
dental schools? Journal of Dental Education, 68, 598-613.
Stilwell, N. A., Wallick, M. M., Thal, S. E., & Burleson, J. A.
(2000). Myers-Briggs type and medical
specialty choice: A new look at an old question. Teaching and
Learning in Medicine, 12, 14-20.
Thompson, B., & Borrello, G. M. (1986). Construct validity of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 745-752.
Westerman, G. H., Grandy, T. G., & Erskine, C. G. (1991).
Personality types of dentists. American
Journal of Dentistry, 4, 298-302.
Wu, S. J., Miao, D. M., Liu, X. F., Zhu, X., & Xiao, W. (2006).
MBTI personality types of male
20. and female applicants for military colleges. Chinese Journal of
Behavioral Medicine Science,
15, 394-395.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication
at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981
MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their
Success: A Field Survey
Article in Project Management Journal · June 2013
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21338
CITATIONS
23
READS
10,100
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on
these related projects:
Personal Rapid Transit - PRT View project
Re-layout of an assembly area: A case study at Bosch Rexroth
Oil Control View project
21. Yuval Cohen
Afeka Tel-Aviv Academic College of Engineering
99 PUBLICATIONS 493 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Hana Ornoy
The Open University of Israel
5 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Baruch Keren
Shamoon College of Engineering
65 PUBLICATIONS 368 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Baruch Keren
on 10 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981_MBTI_Per
sonality_Types_of_Project_Managers_and_Their_Success_A_Fi
eld_Survey?enrichId=rgreq-
ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo
1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%
25. ominating a project manager with a personality profile that
matches
the project he or she will be heading is one of the most
influential
decisions for the success of a project (Turner & Müller, 2006).
For
any project that requires substantial management effort, the
com-
petency of its project manager is an essential ingredient for its
success
(Müller & Turner, 2010). Bredillet (2008) also identifies the
project manager
as affecting project success while presenting the success as one
of the nine
major research perspectives on project management. Turner,
Huemann,
Anbari, and Bredillet (2010) develop and discuss these “nine
schools of proj-
ect management” and dedicate a chapter to the subject under
consideration
titled “Choosing appropriate project managers: Matching their
leadership
style to the type of project.” In this chapter, they identify the
project manager
as a major factor related to project success and discuss the
relationship
between his or her leadership style and the success or failure of
projects.
Project success factors are parts of a broad field of research and
there are
many other such factors in addition to the project manager’s
personality
(Cooke-Davies, 2002; Fortune & White, 2006; Westerveld,
2003).
26. This paper describes a survey of 280 project managers, which
reveals both
their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality traits
(Hammer &
Barger, 1996) and their success. The paper uses the survey to
study the rela-
tionship between the MBTI personality type classification of
project man-
agers and the success of their projects. In general, personality
may be regard-
ed as a complex system of traits (Mischel & Shoda, 1995); the
MBTI focuses
on a relevant part of that system and describes it using major
four dichoto-
mous traits. The combinations of these traits and their
implications are well
documented in MBTI literature (e.g., Hirsh & Kummerow,
2007; Michael,
2003).
Compared with other managers, project managers must be more
suited
to tackling non-routine activities and uncertain environments
(Leybourne &
Sadler-Smith, 2006); this requires both creative thinking and
quantitative
analysis (Tullett, 1996). The survey clearly shows that, in
comparison with
the rest of the population, project managers have personality
types charac-
terized not only by a willingness to risk making decisions with
partial data,
but also less readiness to give up thorough analysis of the scant
data they
have. These personality types characterize managers who can
27. logically spec-
ulate about the future and would feel more comfortable doing so
than the
rest of the population.
MBTI Personality Types of Project
Managers and Their Success:
A Field Survey
Yuval Cohen, The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Hana Ornoy, The Lander Academic College, Jerusalem, Israel;
The Open University of Israel,
Raanana, Israel
Baruch Keren, SCE—Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-
Sheva, Israel
ABSTRACT ■
This paper describes a survey of 280 project
managers that reveals both their personality
types (via Myers-Briggs personality inventory)
and their success in project management. The
results show that a project manager’s personali-
ty is better suited for functioning with partial
data and under ambiguity than the rest of the
population. These traits were found for both
women and men. The conclusion is that project
managers (females and males) have a unique
personality-type distribution that distinguishes
them from the general population. The findings
can contribute to better understanding the traits
that characterize the project management popu-
lation, and their relationship to project success.
KEYWORDS: project management; person-
ality; key success factors; personality types;
Myers-Briggs; MBTI
29. was studied by Crawford et al. (2004),
and the implication of this relationship
on project success was studied by
Turner and Müller (2006), using MBTI.
Only a few previous studies have
addressed the personalities of project
managers and their influence on proj-
ect performance and success: Dolfi and
Andrews (2007) studied the effect of
optimism on a project manager’s ability
to overcome obstacles. A study based
on person–organization (P–O) theory
and Holland’s (1997) classification of
vocational personalities was presented
by Dvir, Sadeh, and Malach-Pines
(2006) and Sadeh, Dvir, and Malach-
Pines (2007). The P–O theory is based
on the fit between the individual’s
needs, desires, and preferences and the
position offered within the proposing
organization. In this study, the focus is
on whether the personality of the indi-
vidual project manager fits the job.
A more recent paper (Thal & Bedingfield,
2010) used the five-factor model (FFM)
for a similar purpose. Although FFM is a
descriptive model, Myers-Briggs was ini-
tially developed as a job matching and
assignment tool during World War II;
since then, this tool has improved and is
used by many job specialists and
human resource corporations (Myers-
Briggs & Myers, 1980; Rushton, Morgana, &
Richard, 2007). It is estimated that mil-
lions of people are assigned jobs annual-
30. ly around the world and many of them
are diagnosed by derivatives of the
Myers-Briggs questionnaire (Hammer &
Barger, 1996). Thus, the appointment of
a project manager, as well as other job
assignments, is more closely associated
with the Myers-Briggs personality ques-
tionnaire (e.g., Wideman, 2002) than
the FFM; therefore, this paper uses the
Myers-Briggs personality question-
naire, which is widely used by job
assignment specialists.
The remainder of the paper is struc-
tured as follows: the next section describes
the main themes in the Myers-Briggs
personality analysis method (typically
used in job fitting); then, a section is ded-
icated to the description of the survey
details and its administration; an addi-
tional section describes the results and
discusses their implications; and the
last section concludes the paper.
Myers-Briggs Personality Type
Classification
Although there is no real consensus yet
in psychology on what exactly consti-
tutes personality, intelligence, or lead-
ership, the wide use of scaling methods
is prevalent in describing them (e.g.,
MMPI, IQ, and CLI, respectively) and
other abstract psychological terms.
Trait theory in psychology is a trend to
emphasize the importance and central-
ity of stability parameters in human
31. personality. Carl Jung is considered to
be one of the first to emphasize this
approach ( Jung, 1990; Quenk, 2009;
Rushton et al., 2007); hence, different
models have been developed around
Jung’s theory. One of the better known
theories is the “Big Five Personality
Traits” that characterize humans by
placement in one or more of the follow-
ing five traits: Openness, Conscientiou-
sness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Neuroticism. Another model is the
Enneagram, a method that describes
nine personality types. According to
this theory, these nine types are subdi-
vided into three separate groups: the
triad of “feelings,” characterizing per-
sons with possible “feelings” problems;
the triad of “doing,” characterizing
problems related to performance; and
the triad of “power,” characterizing
problems related to control by power.
The Keirsey and Bates (1984) model
of personalities is also based on Jung’s
theories but gives them new and differ-
ent meanings. According to Keirsey’s
Temperament Theory, people can be
classified into four categories of Temper-
aments (Artisans, Guardians, Rationals,
and Idealists). Each of Keirsey’s four
scales detects a respondent’s preference
for Expressive versus Attentive, Obser-
vant versus Introspective, Tough-Minded
versus Friendly, and Scheduled versus
32. Probing.
One of the oldest and most popular
methods for classifying personality
traits as part of job fitting is the Myers-
Briggs personality type indicator
(Furnham, 1996; Hammer & Barger
1996). The Myers-Briggs type indicator
(MBTI) technique is a method based on
the personality theory of Jung (1990).
The technique was developed by
Katharine C. Briggs and her daughter
Isabel Briggs-Myers during World War II
to assist in fitting a person to a job and
vice versa (Quenk, 2009). The technique
involves answering a short questionnaire,
which enables classification of a person’s
traits according to four dichotomous
types: (1) Extrovert (E) versus Introvert (I);
(2) Sensing (S) versus Intuitive (N);
(3) Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F); and
(4) Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). The
letters in parenthesis above are used
to symbolize each of the traits used to
describe personality, as shown in Table 1.
Thus, any person can be classified into
one of the 16 personality categories
shown in Figure 1.
The personality categories are use-
ful for matching a person to a job or a
task. The MBTI technique proved to be
useful during World War II and has been
popular ever since; for example, it was
reported that over two million MBTI
33. 80 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI:
10.1002/pmj
MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their
Success: A Field Survey
P
A
P
E
R
S
questionnaires were administered dur-
ing 2006 (Rushton et al., 2007).
Keirsey and Bates (1984) adopted
the MBTI typology and used it to exam-
ine Jungian psychological preferences
known as temperament types. While
the MBTI uses 16 psychological types,
Keirsey and Bates categorized observed
behavior into four broad temperament
groups, which were suggested by prior
research: (1) sensing and judging (SJ),
(2) sensing and perceptive (SP),
(3) intuitive and thinking (NT), and
(4) intuitive and feeling (NF). Each of
the 16 psychological preferences could
be categorized into one of the four tem-
perament types. The research of Keirsey
34. and Bates has shown that SP and SJ
temperaments each represent approxi-
mately 38% of the general population,
whereas NT and NF temperament
types, each represents roughly 12% of
the general population.
Wideman (2002) compared the
characteristics of successful project
managers with the distribution of
MBTI types across the population, as
identified by Keirsey and Bates (1984).
Wideman categorizes the MBTI types
into groups that can be summarized as
follows:
1. Project leaders: INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ,
ESTJ (—, —, T, J)
2. Project leaders and followers: INTP,
ENTP, ENFJ, ESFJ (—, N, T, P; E, —, F, J)
3. Project followers: INFJ, ISFJ (I, —, F, J)
4. Unsuited/Questionable: INFP, ISFP,
ESFP, ENFP, ISTP, ESTP (—, —, F, P; —,
S, T, P)
The results of our study (see Table 5)
show that the reported project success
rates of these groups did not reveal sig-
nificant differences.
Survey Details and Its
Administration
The survey was conducted using four
different questionnaires, each completed
35. by all participants, as follows:
(1) Self-developed questionnaire (based
on Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz,
2001), which examines how project
managers judge their project success
and performance in four dimen-
sions:
1. Project manager satisfaction with
following the planned framework
(e.g., spending within budget,
completion time within schedule,
performance meets specs).
2. Customer satisfaction with the
project (e.g., satisfaction based on
performance and deliverables).
3. Managerial satisfaction with the
project’s contribution to the orga-
nization’s overall success.
4. Overall satisfaction with the pro-
ject’s contribution to the future of
the organization (e.g., new research
and development capabilities).
The answers to the questions were
given on a Likert-type scale (1 to 5), with
1 being the lowest level of satisfaction
and 5 the highest (a non-applicable
option was marked by filling “99”). Prior
to the study, a test case of 10 project man-
ager participants was chosen to answer
the questionnaire; their answers revealed
36. that two questions were misunderstood,
so they were subsequently corrected.
Some minor changes in wording were
also made; however, most of the ques-
tionnaire remained unchanged.
All the participants’ answers were
converted to standard grades on a scale
of 0 to 100, and the mean grade for each
question was computed. Cronbach’s a
(alpha) of our questionnaire was 0.73,
validating its internal consistency.
(2) The Three Personality Factors ques-
tionnaire proposed by Jung (1921).
This questionnaire includes 33
questions, which are categorized
into three major personality charac-
teristics: (I) stability, (II) organiza-
tion, and (III) extroversion. The
grades are normalized to a scale of
0% to 100%, where 0% reflects the
Extroversion Introversion
Personality focused on the outside world, Personality focused
on the inner world,
gets its motivation from interaction with gets its motivation
from thought,
other people and by doing things. information, ideas, and
concepts.
Thinking Feeling
Person decides by logic and unbiased Person decides with
emphasis on the
analysis of cause and effect. Decisions try expected effect upon
feelings of others
37. to be objective without involving feelings, and the self. The
decision may be based
as much as possible. on gut feeling, tries to harmonize and
satisfy others.
Sensing Intuition
Person decides based on facts and trusts Person decides based
on intuition, rela-
palpable current facts, figures, and details. tionships, and
speculations.
Judging Perceiving
Person judges quickly and takes sides or Person tries to be a
spectator and leave
decides, wants to be part of the game—not themselves all the
options open as long
a spectator. More organized than as possible. Very slow to
judge.
spontaneous.
Table 1: The four dichotomies of the Myers-Briggs technique.
INTJINFJISFJ
ISFP
ESFP
ESFJESTJ
ESTP
ISTP
ISTJ
38. INFP
ENFP
ENFJ
INTP
ENTP
ENTJ
Figure 1: The 16 possible personality types of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
81
lowest level of the feature and 100%
is the highest level of the feature.
(3) The Myers-Briggs questionnaire
(Myers-Briggs & Myers, 1980), which
reveals personality orientation along
four dichotomous scales: (I) Internal
versus external attention focus:
Introversion versus Extroversion;
(II) Style of receiving outside infor-
mation: Sensing versus Intuition;
(III) Decision-making style: Feeling
versus Thinking; and (IV ) Style of
involvement in the world arena:
Judgmental versus Perceiving.
39. (4) A self-developed socio-demographic
questionnaire, which examines the
gender, age, education level, marital
status, number of children, years of
work experience, years of experi-
ence as a project manager, industry
type, and organization’s name.
Sample Population
The participants were 280 managers
with experience in project manage-
ment, working in a variety of business
areas: software, construction, banking,
communications, food, engineering,
security, transportation, and education.
The participants’ average age was 38.7
years. In terms of gender: 72% were males
and 28% were females. Other studies and
Project Management Institute (PMI) data
suggest a male female distribution in
project management of approximately
66% male and 34% female (Cartwright &
Gale, 1995; Gale & Cartwright, 1995;
Stackman & Henderson, 2010; Tullett,
1996). So, the percentage of men versus
women in the survey is biased toward
men (but is still less than two standard
deviations from the population per-
centage). The average education level of
men in the study was 15 years and for
women 14.8 years (practically identi-
cal); however, their experience as a proj-
ect manager is very different (8.1 years
for men and 2.8 years for women).
40. Research Procedure
The participants were selected by a
group of MBA students who conducted
the field research as part of their studies.
The students came from various com-
panies in a variety of businesses and
typically picked participants from their
home organization; therefore, the 280
participants who volunteered to answer
the questionnaires can be considered a
representative sample. The question-
naires were given to the participants
between January and February of 2010.
The participants were given an explana-
tion of the research objective and
detailed guidance about how to fully
and accurately fill out the question-
naires. Filling out the questionnaire typ-
ically took 20 to 30 minutes and was
conducted under the supervision and
with the assistance of the MBA students,
who had been specially trained by the
researchers. The participating project
managers were assured that their priva-
cy would be protected (i.e., the results
would not be linked back to participants
and be used only for research purposes).
Data Analysis Method
The data were entered onto an Excel
spreadsheet, and averages and stan-
dard deviations as well as distributions
and statistical tests were computed on
copies of this spreadsheet.
41. The Survey Results
Empirical Type Distribution Among
Project Managers
Several studies discuss the general
personality-type distribution in the
population (e.g., Ball, 2001; Wideman,
2002) and others explore the personali-
ty-type distribution of special popula-
tions (e.g., Allison & Hobbs, 2010, for
natural resource managers.)
In Table 2, we compare the personality-
type distribution in the survey with the
same distribution estimated by the Myers-
Briggs Institute. The estimated frequency
of the total population is taken from the
Myers & Briggs Foundation and was
Survey Population vs. Total Population
Description Breakdown by Type Total
IJ INTJ INTJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ
Survey Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.3% 1.2% 7.3% 20%
Population % 2.1% 1.5% 13.8% 11.6% 29%
Difference �7.1% �0.8% 12.6% 4.3% 9%
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP
Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.7% 2.3% 8.8% 23%
Population % 3.3% 4.4% 8.8% 5.4% 22%
Difference �5.9% 1.7% 6.5% �3.4% �1%
EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP
Empirical PM % 11.9% 4.2% 0.8% 4.6% 22%
Population % 3.2% 8.1% 8.5% 4.3% 24%
Difference �8.7% 3.9% 7.7% �0.3% 3%
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ
Empirical PM % 12.7% 3.5% 2.7% 16.9% 36%
42. Population % 1.8% 2.4% 12.3% 8.7% 25%
Difference �10.9% �1.1% 9.6% �8.2% �11%
Total NT NF SF ST Total
Empirical PM % 43.1% 12.7% 6.9% 37.7% 100%
Population % 10.4% 16.4% 43.4% 30.0% 100%
Difference 32.7% �3.7% �36.5% 7.7% 0%
Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The
Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI
results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the
Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP,
Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-
type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp
Table 2: Total population personality type comparison: The
project manager survey versus the
general population.
82 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI:
10.1002/pmj
MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their
Success: A Field Survey
P
A
P
E
R
S
43. compiled from a variety of MBTI results
between 1972 and 2002, including data
banks at the Center for Applications of
Psychological Type; CPP, Inc.; and
Stanford Research Institute (SRI).
Table 2 shows major gaps in the SF
(Sensing, Feeling) and NT (Intuitive,
Thinking) columns. Overall, the survey
population has 36.5% fewer SF people
than the total population and 32.7%
more NT people than the total popula-
tion. These results are in line with studies
that relate project management to intu-
ition and thinking (e.g., Leybourne &
Sadler-Smith, 2006; Tullett, 1996). Berens
(2006) called the NT personality type
“Theorist,” whereas the SF type was
either “Stabilizer” or “Improviser.” Also,
of the judgmental (J) types in the first
and fourth rows, the survey has 10%
more extroverts (EJ) and 9% fewer
introverts (IJ) than the general popula-
tion. The slant toward extroverted
judgmental-type project managers may
be associated with communication
skills required for project leadership.
The goodness of fit test was used in
order to test the hypothesis (H0) that our
280 project managers (observed data)
have the same MBTI distribution as in
the general population (expected data).
The statistic is p with
44. 9 degrees of freedom and it shows that
H0 must be rejected for any a � 0.01. The
conclusion is that project managers
form a special population.
Although these differences were
found for both males and females, they
were much more significant in females.
While 23.6% fewer SF types were found
among the males of our project man-
agers’ sample (compared with the total
male population), 48.4% fewer SF types
were found in the sample females
(compared with the total female popu-
lation). Furthermore, 25.0% more NT
types were found in males (compared
with the total male population), and
44.1% more NT types were found in
females (compared with the total female
population). Since approximately 56%
x2 � a
k
i � 1
(Oi � ei )
2
ei
of the females are the SF type, this phe-
nomenon excludes close to 50% of
women from taking part in the project
management profession.
45. The conclusion is that project man-
agers (females and males) have a
unique personality type, in terms of
MBTI distribution, which distinguishes
them from the general population. The
population of project managers has
many fewer SF types than the general
population and many more NT types.
In general, people in the NT category
focus on analyzing possibilities in an
ambiguous environment, whereas peo-
ple in the SF category base their focus
on gathering facts and human relations.
Because many projects are carried out in
an uncertain environment, project man-
agers have to manage their projects
based not only on facts but also by con-
sidering many possibilities. Myers-Briggs
(1962) claimed that the possibilities that
the NT people choose are often theoret-
ical or technical, whereas the human
elements are more or less ignored. It
seems that these NT characteristics are
the prevalent characteristics of project
managers. Tables 3 and 4 depict the
male and female distribution of project
managers compared with the general
public distribution.
Risk Preferences Among Project
Managers
While the MBTI personality type index
is not directly related to risk prefer-
ences, some researchers reported that
such a relationship exists. For example,
46. Henderson and Nutt (1980) found in
their study that SF managers are likely
to be risk takers, whereas the NT
MALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population
Description Breakdown by Type Total
IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ
Empirical Male % 7.0% 2.2% 1.1% 6.5% 17%
Male pop. % 3.3% 1.3% 8.1% 16.4% 29%
Difference 3.7% 0.9% �7.0% �9.9% �12%
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP
Empirical Male % 8.1% 2.2% 1.6% 10.8% 23%
Male pop. % 4.8% 4.1% 7.6% 8.5% 25%
Difference 3.3% �1.9% �6.0% 2.3% �2%
EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP
Empirical Male % 12.4% 4.3% 0.0% 5.4% 22%
Male pop. % 4.0% 6.4% 6.9% 5.6% 23%
Difference 8.4% �2.1% �6.9% �0.2% �1%
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ
Empirical Male % 12.4% 2.7% 3.8% 19.4% 38%
Male pop. % 2.7% 1.6% 7.5% 11.2% 23%
Difference 9.7% 1.1% �3.7% 8.2% 15%
Total NT NF SF ST Total
Empirical Male % 39.8% 11.3% 6.5% 41.9% 99%
Male pop. % 14.8% 13.4% 30.1% 41.7% 100%
Difference 25.0% �2.1% �23.6% 0.2% �1%
Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The
Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI
results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the
Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP,
47. Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-
type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp
Table 3: A comparison of the male project manager personality
type distribution with the overall
male population distribution.
June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
83
and the NF groups take moderate risks, and
ST managers are the risk-averse group.
Filbeck, Hatfield, and Horvath (2005)
explored the relationship between the
personality type (MBTI) and risk toler-
ance of investors in the expected utility
theory framework. Their results conflict
with those of Henderson and Nutt and,
in fact, arrive at the opposite conclu-
sions. Filbeck et al. concluded that indi-
viduals with a preference for thinking
(T) tend to be more risk tolerant than
those with a preference for feeling (F).
Moreover, they concluded that individ-
uals with a preference for sensing (S)
are willing to tolerate more upside or
downside potential than those with a
preference for intuition (N), but the
sensing-intuition dimension did not
indicate any differences in risk toler-
ance as measured by variance. Note
that the results of our study are closer
to the results of Henderson and Nutt.
48. The opposite findings of Henderson and
Nutt compared to those of Filbeck et al.
may be attributed to the difference in
framework presented to the subjects by
the different questionnaires. For exam-
ple, the gap could be better explained if
Filbeck et al. present stock purchasing
in a way that F and N subjects perceive
as a risky gamble, whereas T and S sub-
jects perceive stock purchasing as a
statistical problem. An additional expla-
nation may be the different types of
subjects (managers and workers versus
students) and a different distribution of
characteristic combinations.
One of the main findings in this
paper is that project managers are much
more NT than the population and much
less SF (Table 2). The question is how this
fact might be related to the risk preference
of project managers. The MBTI classifica-
tion implies that the risk in a project man-
agement environment can be categorized
into two major dimensions: input risk
preference and output risk preference.
On the input side the sensing (S) project
manager is risk averse (decides by facts,
see Table 1), and the intuitive (N) project
manager is a risk taker (decides by intu-
ition and speculation). However, on the
output side, the thinking (T) project
manager is risk averse (decides by logic
and unbiased analysis), and the feeling
49. (F) project manager is more of a risk
taker (may decide by gut feeling). Since
project managers from the NT type
are more prevalent, they tend to manage
projects with less data and rely more on
their intuition. On the other hand, they
tend to be cautious and analyze whatever
data they have in order to make a good
decision. Our insight is that intuitive (N)
project managers can live with ambigui-
ty and less data better than others; there-
fore, they can take more risks on the
input side, meaning that collecting data
and facts is not as critical for them as for
the sensing (S) project managers.
However, project managers will then
perform a full analysis of whatever limit-
ed data they do have. These traits and
capabilities are very important for a per-
son who manages projects.
Types and Project Success
Project success was estimated using
many questions regarding compliance
with time, budget, and specifications,
as well as stakeholder satisfaction and
project effectiveness, and its contribu-
tion to the organization and its strategy.
The answers were normalized to a scale
of 0 to 100, and the average grade for
each personality type was computed.
Table 5 depicts the success estimation
as a function of personality type.
The results in Table 5 show that,
although NT is the most prevalent type,
50. the NT project managers have the low-
est reported success rates. At the other
end, while the fewest project managers
are SF types, these project managers
report the highest success rates. The
average grade of success in the survey is
74 (on a scale of 0 to 100). Although the
SF combination is rare (7% of project
FEMALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population
Description Breakdown by Type Total
IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ
Empirical F. PM % 14.5% 2.6% 1.3% 9.2% 28%
Female pop. % 0.8% 1.6% 19.4% 6.9% 29%
Difference 13.7% 1.0% �18.1 2.3% �1%
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP
Empirical F. PM % 11.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 24%
Female pop. % 1.8% 4.6% 9.9% 2.4% 19%
Difference 10.0% �0.7% �6.0% 1.5% 5%
EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP
Empirical F. PM % 10.5% 3.9% 2.6% 2.6% 20%
Female pop. % 2.4% 9.7% 10.1% 3.0% 25%
Difference 8.1% �5.8% �7.5% �4.0% �5%
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ
Empirical F. PM % 13.2% 5.3% 0.0% 10.5% 29%
Female pop. % 0.9% 3.3% 16.9% 6.3% 27%
Difference 12.3% 2.0% �16.9% 4.2% 2%
Total NT NF SF ST Total
Empirical F. PM % 50% 16% 8% 26% 100%
Female pop. % 5.90% 19.20% 56.30% 18.60% 100%
Difference 44.1% �3.4% �48.4% 7.7% 0%
Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The
51. Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI
results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the
Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP,
Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from
http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-
type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp
Table 4: A comparison of the female project manager
personality type distribution with the overall
female population distribution.
84 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI:
10.1002/pmj
MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their
Success: A Field Survey
P
A
P
E
R
S
manager survey population) compared
with the NT combination (43% of the
survey population), the SF success
grades are significantly higher than
those of the NT project managers. This
is tested and shown at the bottom of
Table 5. The ISF combination is only 3%
of the total project management popu-
52. lation, but 22% of the general popula-
tion. Moreover, the ISF project managers
are shown to be extremely successful
(82.5) in comparison with the average
grade (74). The FP project managers
(12% of the survey population) also
have a higher than average grade (78).
This is important, because FP types rep-
resent approximately 30% of the general
population.
The following reasons may explain
the success reported by the SF project
managers (and other rare types) in our
study:
1. The few SF people who become proj-
ect managers have special talents
and the qualifications needed to be
project managers.
2. They manage unique projects, in
which the SF type is an advantage.
3. The success perception of these SF
respondents is inflated compared to
other groups.
4. There were only 19 project managers
in the SF group, which might not be a
large enough group to establish the
phenomenon.
Gender Effects
53. All the above findings are consistent for
both genders, with very slight differences.
The gender differences in our study, as
they emerge from the socio-demographic
survey are depicted in Table 6.
Note that the male and female expe-
rience in the workplace is 9.9 and 8.9
years, respectively (only one year differ-
ence); however, their experiences as
project managers are very different: 8.1
years for males and 2.8 years for
females. Also, the males are on the aver-
age 4 years older than the females; thus,
we must conclude that the female proj-
ect managers had begun working in
project management positions only
in the last decade or two, whereas the
male project manager had been holding
project management positions for quite
some time. This also explains the large
percentage of male project managers
and their higher number of children.
Also, on the average, male project man-
agers are heading higher budget projects
(average of US$80.7 million budgets for
men and US$36.8 million by women).
Finally, the distribution of sectors
between male and female project man-
agers in the survey was significantly
different. Figures 2 and 3 depict these
distributions. For example, it is evident
that there are more female project
managers in education and finance and
fewer in the construction and software
54. industries than there are men.
Conclusions
This paper presents an empirical,
exploratory study based on a survey of
280 project managers. The main survey
findings show that:
Overall Project Success Estimates by Personality Types
IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ
Scores 71 71 82 73 74
IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP
Scores 71 75 83 70 75
EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP
Scores 73 78 78 76 76
EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ
Scores 71 75 73 75 74
Total NT NF SF ST Total
71 71 82 73 74
NT vs. SF test
Avg. St. Dev.
NT score 71 1.00
SF score 82 4.55
Pooled St. Dev for Avgs 1.2
Z-value 6.22
Alpha � 0.0001
55. Table 5: The average reported success scores of various
personality types and a comparison of NT
with SF scores.
Male Female Difference
Percentage in the survey 72% 28% 44%
Average age 38.7 34.9 3.8
Average number of children 2.4 1.7 0.7
Average education level 15 14.8 0.2
Average years in the workplace 9.9 8.9 1
Average years as a project manager 8.1 2.8 5.3
Average number of subordinates 15.8 7.8 7.9
Average project budget (US$ millions) 80.7 36.8 43.9
Table 6: Differences between male and female characteristics in
the project manager survey.
June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
85
1. Project managers have a unique dis-
tribution of personality type (MBTI),
which separates them from the gen-
eral population.
2. There are significantly more NT
56. (Intuitive, Thinking) type project man-
agers than their percentage in the
general population. The NT project
managers base their decisions on intu-
ition and analysis. This is expected,
because project managers must make
decisions in the face of ambiguity and
uncertainty and have to rely on intu-
ition while lacking some of the facts.
3. There are significantly fewer project
managers of the SF (Sensing, Feeling)
type than those found in the general
population. These SF project man-
agers base their decisions on full
sensory data while cognizant of com-
passion and the other human feel-
ings of their peers and subordinates.
4. The special group of ISF, represent-
ing 23% of the general population
formed only 3% of the project man-
ager survey population. This is a
strong sign for their inadequate pro-
file; however, the 3% ISF reached the
highest project success scores. This
finding points at their being placed
in special projects.
5. The results were found for both
women and men. In terms of gender,
females are about 28% of the project
manager survey population. They
were as successful as males, but sig-
nificantly younger than the male
project managers in the survey which
57. reflects their absence from project
management in previous decades.
A word of caution is in place: As stated
in the code of ethics of the Center for
Applications of Psychological Type–CAPT
(2010, Interpreting MBTI® Results, para. 3):
“One should not state or imply that type
explains everything. Type does not reflect
an individual’s ability, intelligence, likeli-
hood of success, emotions, or normalcy.
Type is one important component of the
complex human personality.” Also, this
study did not control the project type;
Security
1%
Construction
10%
Education
14%
Finance
7%
Government
5%Retail
13%
Medical
7%Marketing
7%
60. 86 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI:
10.1002/pmj
MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their
Success: A Field Survey
P
A
P
E
R
S
however, the subject of matching project
manager personality to a project type is
important and is left for future research.
Moreover, the issue of finding relation-
ships between certain success metrics to
personality traits also requires more data
collection and further research.
Despite the limitations of the study
as an exploratory study, its findings
have important theoretical and practi-
cal implications. The findings con-
tribute to better characterization of the
project management population and
the relationship between certain com-
mon project manager characteristics
and project success. ■
References
61. Allison, H., & Hobbs, R. (2010). Natural
resource management at four social
scales: Psychological type matters.
Environmental Management, 45(3),
590–602.
Ball, I. (2001). Gender differences in
the distribution of types in Australia.
Australian Psychological Type Review,
3(1), 15–16.
Berens, L. V. (2006). Understanding
yourself and others: An introduction to
the 4 temperaments. West Hollywood,
CA: Telos Publications.
Bredillet, C. N. (2008). Exploring
research in project management: Nine
schools of project management
research (Part 6). Project Management
Journal, 39(3), 2–6.
Cartwright, S., & Gale, A. (1995).
Project management: Different gender,
different culture? A discussion on gen-
der and organizational culture–Part 2.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 16(4), 12–16.
Center for Applications of
Psychological Type–CAPT. (2010).
MBTI code of ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment
/ethical-use.htm
Colinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1996). Men
62. as managers, managers as men: Critical
perspectives on men, masculinity and
management. London, England: Sage.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The ‘‘real’’
success factors on projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 20, 185–190.
Crawford, L., Hobbs, J. B., & Turner, J. R.
(2004). Project categorization systems
and their use in organizations: An
empirical study. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Cromie, S., Callaghan, I., & Jensen, M.
(1992). Entrepreneurial tendencies of
managers: A research note. British
Journal of Management, 3(1), 1–5.
Dolfi, J., & Andrews, E. J. (2007). The sub-
liminal characteristics of project man-
agers: An exploratory study of optimism
overcoming challenges in the project
environment, International Journal of
Project Management, 25(7), 674–682.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A.
(2006). Projects and project managers:
The relationship between project man-
agers’ personality, project types and
projects success. Project Management
Journal, 37(5), 36–48.
Filbeck, G., Hatfield, P., & Horvath, P.
(2005). Risk aversion and personality
63. type. Journal of Behavioral Finance,
6(4), 170–180.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing
of project critical success factors by a
systems model. International Journal
of Project Management, 24(1), 53–65.
Furnham, A. (1996). The big five ver-
sus the big four: The relationship
between the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor
model of personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307.
Gale, A., & Cartwright, S. (1995).
Women in project management: Entry
into a male domain? A discussion on
gender and organizational culture, part
1. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 16(2), 3–8.
Hammer, A. L., & Barger, N. J. (1996).
MBTI applications: A decade of research
on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Henderson, J. C., & Nutt, P. C. (1980).
The influence of decision style on deci-
sion making behavior. Management
Science, 26(4), 371–386.
Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (2007).
Introduction to Type® in organizations
(3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cpp Inc.
64. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocation-
al choices: A theory of vocational per-
sonalities and work environments (3rd
ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types,
collected works (Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1990). Psychological types.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please
understand me: Character and tempera-
ment types. Del Mar, CA: Gnosology
Books/Prometheus Nemesis.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1991). On
becoming a CEO. In M. F. R. Kets de
Vries and associates (Eds.),
Organizations of the couch: Clinical
perspective on organizational behavior
and change (pp. 120–139). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leybourne, S., & Sadler-Smith, E.
(2006). The role of intuition and
improvisation in project management.
International Journal of Project
Management, 24(6), 483–492.
Michael, J. (2003). Using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool
for leadership development? Apply
65. with caution. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 10(1), 45–54.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A
cognitive-affective theory of personali-
ty: Reconceptualizing situations, dis-
proportions, dynamics, and invariance
in personality structure. Psycholgical
Review, 102(2), 246–268.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2010).
Leadership competency profiles of
successful project managers.
International Journal of Project
Management, 28(5), 437–448.
June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
87
Myers-Briggs, I. (1962). Introduction to
type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Myers-Briggs, I., & Myers, P. B. (1980).
Gifts differing: Understanding person-
ality type. Mountain View, CA: Davies-
Black Publishing.
Quenk, N. (2009). Essentials of Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator Assessment (2nd
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Rushton, S., Morgana, J., & Richard, M.
(2007). Teacher’s Myers-Briggs person-
66. ality profiles: Identifying effective
teacher personality traits. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 23(4), 432–441.
Sadeh, A., Dvir, D., & Malach-Pines, A.
(2007). The implications of P–O fit the-
ory to project management. The
International Journal of Technology,
Knowledge and Society, 3(4), 125–136.
Shenhar, A. J. (1998). From theory to
practice: Toward a typology of project
management styles. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 41(1), 33–48.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2004). How
projects differ and what to do about it. In
J. Pinto & P. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of
managing projects. New York, NY: Wiley.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., &
Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A
multidimensional strategic concept.
Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725.
Stackman, L. S., & Henderson, R.
(2010). An exploratory study of gender in
project management: Interrelationships
with role, location, technology, and
project cost. Project Management
Journal, 41(5), 37–55.
Thal, A., & Bedingfield, J. (2010).
Successful project managers: An
exploratory study into the impact of
67. personality. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 22(2),
243–259.
Tullett, A. D. (1996). The thinking style
of the managers of multiple projects:
Implications for problem solving when
managing change. International
Journal of Project Management, 14(5),
281–287.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2006).
Choosing appropriate project man-
agers: Matching their leadership style to
the type of project. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.
Turner, R. J., Huemann, M., Anbari,
F. T., & Bredillet, C. N. (2010). Perspectives
on projects. New York, NY: Routledge.
Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project
Excellence Model: Linking success cri-
teria and critical success factors.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21(6), 411–418.
Wideman, R.M. (2002). Dominant per-
sonality traits suited to running projects
successfully (and what type are you?).
Paper presented at the 29th Annual
Project Management Institute,
Seminar/Symposium: Tides of Change.
Long Beach, CA, October 1998.
Retrieved from http://www.maxwide
man.com/papers/personality
68. /personality.pdf
Zaleznik, A. (1966). The managerial
mystique: Restoring leadership in busi-
ness. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Yuval Cohen is the head of the industrial engineer-
ing program at the Open University of Israel. His
areas of specialty include project management,
operations planning, and design and management
of production and logistic systems, and he has
published many papers in these areas. He served
for several years as a senior operations planner at
FedEx Ground (USA) and received several awards
for his contributions to the hub and terminal net-
work planning. He received his PhD from the
University of Pittsburgh (USA), his MSc from the
Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, and his
BSc from Ben-Gurion University. He is a Fellow of
the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE) and a full
member of the Institute for Operations Research
and Management Sciences (INFORMS).
Hana Ornoy is the head of the Management
Section at the School of Business Administration
of The Lander Academic Institute and a faculty
teaching member in the Department of
Economics and Management at The Open
University and Department of Psychology at
Bar-Ilan University. She holds a PhD in organiza-
tional behavior from the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Israel. She is a senior organizational
consultant and is the author of The Relocation
Trip (2009) and The Israeli Manager in the Time
of Globalization (2011), both published in
69. Hebrew by Rimonim Publishing House, Israel.
Baruch Keren is a senior lecturer in the
Industrial Engineering and Management
Department at the SCE–Shamoon College of
Engineering and a lecturer at the Open
University of Israel. He received his BSc, MSc,
and PhD (summa cum laude) degrees in indus-
trial engineering from Ben-Gurion University of
the Negev. His professional experience includes
13 years with Israel Chemicals Ltd. and its sub-
sidiaries in the areas of industrial engineering,
economics, and auditing. His current research
interests include decision making under uncer-
tainty, production planning, project manage-
ment, and operations research.
View publication statsView publication stats
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981
This is an example only assignment. PLEASE DO NOT
COPY!!!!
For this discussion question, I have been asked to take on the
role of a counselor of a mental health facility, and asses and
evaluate the case study of June Smith. Before we move forward
in this assigned topic. I would first like to explain and define
what the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-2) is. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-
2 is a test that is given to people who are believed to have some
kind of mental illness. In an article called Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 profiles of Patients with
Gender Identity Disorder Requesting Sex Reassignment surgery,
the article states, “(MMPI-2) have been used in many studies to
understand psychopathology in patients with GID … (MMPI-2)
70. demonstrates depression and varied psychopathology while
some studies fail to demonstrate any psychopathology and may
point out toward GID being a disorder” (Kari, S. 2016. Pg.
444).
As a counselor the first thing that I would like to give jane
would be the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), by
giving Jane this test, it will help me better understand Janes and
what is exactly her needs, to better help her during this difficult
time in her life. From the test results, we first noticed that Janes
score on depression came out to (T=94) which may indicate that
Jane may be feeling lack of hope or dissatisfaction with her life.
“depression symptoms take many forms and no two people
experiences are alike … they may be feeling completely
unmotivated to do just about anything” (Gruholn M.J. 2016).
Secondly, we have also noticed that Janes assessment result also
indicated that she scored a (T=92) on the Psychedelia which
indicates that Jane may be having a phase of obsessive-
compulsive disorder (OCD). Jane could be doing a number of
things to satisfy her obsession, for example, Jane could be a
perfectionist when things are out of place, many times people
with OCD. Also, according to Janes test results, she also suffers
from high levels of depression (D1=101, D2= T=89..) However,
what really captures my attention on Jane’s Social Introversion
scale is that she scored a (T=79) which indicates a chance of
suicidal. With this being said as the counselor I am not allowed
to let the patient just leave or walk out. In this situation what I
must do then is to have another staff step in to have that extra
support, then it would be best for Jane if I have her transported
to a facility where they will be able to do a full assessment and
to see what would be the best treatment for her. According to
the article called, Managing Suicide attempts: Guidelines of
Primary Care Physician it states, “The Patient should not be
allowed to leave the office until the physician can thoroughly
asses his or her condition” (Carrigan, G. et al. Pg. 2). In janes
reaction to stress, it has been documented that she is
overwhelmed and many of time she tends to withdraw from the
71. group by isolating herself. In this case what I would
recommend it to start reintroducing jane into a social setting.
But before we move forward I must first mentally prepare Jane,
for what she will be experiencing. Through meditation, Jane
must be able to calm herself, once this is established the next
step would be to attend a social gathering small crowd and a
location that she would feel most comfortable in. I would also
recommend that jane bring a close friend or relative for support.
According to an article called Isolation help it states, “Spend
less time on social media, and instead invite social media
friends to in-person outings, if you feel isolated with kids at
home, ask a friend or family member for help with childcare.
Even an hour of "adult time" each week can help ward off
loneliness” (Good Therapy, 2016). With further analysis of
janes test, it has indicated that jane, “social judgment appeared
good, as evidenced by appropriate interaction with staff and
other patients in the center and by cooperative efforts to achieve
treatment goals required for discharge” (Case study). What I
would also recommend is that jane continue to see a therapist,
in order to prevent any depression occurring in the future, this
time Jane was not affected as bad with depression however if
this happens again and Jane does not continue to seek help her
depression may become worse. I would recommend a treatment
jane to participate in art treatment, according to the article, Art
therapy as an adjuvant treatment for depression in elderly
women: a randomized controlled trial the article states, “ Art
therapy can help establish communication between patient and
therapist and may aid in the emergence of personality aspects or
facts of life to be dealt with in the therapeutic process…An art
therapy session is often preceded by activities that promote
relaxation and introspection, such as mental imagery. It can be
used to link sensory perception and emotions, and thus relieve
the discomfort associated with mood disorders (Eliana C.
Ciasca, 2018. Pg. 257).
References
Carrigan CG1, Lynch DJ, (2003). Managing Suicide Attempts:
72. Guidelines for the Primary Care Physician. Department of
Family Medicine, The Medical College of Ohio, Toledo.
5(4):169-174. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419387
Ciasca, Eliana C.; Ferreira, Rita C.; Santana, Carmen L. A.;
Forlenza, Orestes V.; dos Santos, Glenda D.; Brum, Paula S.;
Nunes, Paula V. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. Jul-Sep2018,
Vol. 40 Issue 3, p256-263. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=c424
20d4-1791-4196-93eb-f1f52211e471%40sessionmgr4010
Karia, Sagar; Jamsandekar, Sanhita; Alure, Alpa; De Sousa,
Avinash; Shah, Nilesh. Indian Journal of Psychological
Medicine. Sep/Oct2016, Vol. 38 Issue 5, p443-446. Retrieved
from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=c424
20d4-1791-4196-93eb-f1f52211e471%40sessionmgr4010
Good Therapy, 2007-2018, https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-
about-therapy/issues/isolation
![from the other comparative
Chinese professional student groups.
Keywords: personality, MBTI, dental postgraduate, education,
cross-culture.
The personality types of dental school applicants, dental
students and dentists
have been discussed in previous papers (Chamberlain, Catano,
& Cunningham,
2005; Morris, 2000; Murphy, Gray, Straja, & Bogert, 2004;
Ranney, Wilson,
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2007, 35 (8),
1077-1086
© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)
1077
Shengjun Wu, Danmin Miao, Xia Zhu, Jie Liang, Xufeng Liu,
Zhengxue Luo, and Wei Wang,
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Aerospace Medicine,
Fourth Military Medical University,
Xi’an, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China.
The authors are grateful to all the postgraduate students for
participation in this research.
Appreciation is due to reviewers including: Robert J. Murphy,
Department of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine, Temple University Hospital, Broad Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA,
Email: [email protected]
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Danmin
Miao, Department of Psychology,
Faculty of Aerospace Medicine, Fourth Military Medical
University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710032, P.R.]()