Understanding Personality Functioning Without Forced Choice: Expanding the Possibilities for Management Education Based on Empirical.

Transcription

1 Understanding Personality Functioning Without Forced Choice: Expanding the Possibilities for Management Education Based on Empirical Evidence Kim Wilson, MBA Haskayne School of Business University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW Calgary AB T2N 1N4 CANADA Phone: Sloane Dugan, PhD Haskayne School of Business University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW Calgary AB T2N 1N4 CANADA Phone: Pamela Buckle, MBA Haskayne School of Business University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW Calgary AB T2N 1N4 CANADA Phone: pmbuckle.ucalgary.ca Working Paper July 8, 2002 Please do not cite or circulate without the authors permission

2 ABSTRACT This paper explores Carl Jung s bipolar assumption, and several Jungian psychological instruments that have been designed to describe people s personalities. Using the Singer-Loomis Type Mode Profile data of 259 business students, we determined that, in the majority of cases, the bipolar predictions of people s personality strengths did not hold up. INTRODUCTION Contemporary managers, consultants and organizational leaders encounter a world of unprecedented complexity every day. Increasingly, these individuals turn (or return) to management schools to learn how to more effectively navigate the white waters of the contemporary workplace. Often, such schools use personality tests to help individuals better understand their own and others approaches to the world. As management educators and consultants, our goal is to assist individuals more effectively deal with the modern world s complexity. Jung s theory of psychological types is one perspective on the complexities of human functioning. The Gray-Wheelwright Jungian Type Survey (JTS), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), and more recently the Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory (SL-TDI) attempt to operationalize Jung s theory. Although researchers increasingly find serious technical criticisms of the MBTI assumptions and design, 1 management educators and practitioners continue to use it widely to describe personality functioning. The MBTI is, 1 Some of these technical criticisms are detailed in: Randolph Arnau, David Rosen and Bruce Thompson, Reliability and validity of scores from the Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory, Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2000, 45,

3 without question, the most prominent example of the first generation of personality measures based on Carl Jung s psychological concepts. To say that the MBTI is influential would be a considerable understatement. It is, with the possible exception of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2 the most widely used personality inventory in existence today. Professionals in many settings have used the MBTI to provide academic counseling, design curricula, conduct team building, train managers and leaders, support personal development, and encourage career development. This paper examines the origins of psychological type theory, including assumptions Jung made and how they influenced subsequent efforts to develop a personality assessment instrument that accurately carried out his assumptions. We explore a chronology of different instruments that have tried to explicate Jung s theory of psychological type. Finally, using the Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory we present exploratory research designed to test the bipolar assumption espoused by the MBTI. This research begins to explore the degree of alignment between actual Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory data and that data predicted by the bipolar assumption about individuals personality functions as prescribed by the MBTI and other earlier Jungian psychological instruments. As well, the paper discusses the implications of this misalignment for management education, consulting, and future research. 2 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, a trademarked publication of NCS Assessments of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2

4 BACKGROUND Sparked by the differences among Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, and himself, and motivated by an interest in understanding human differences and development, Carl Jung developed his theory of types as a means to understand the conflicts between the three individuals. Jung hypothesized that their conflict related to their different ways of perceiving the world. His explorations of historical ideas from psychopathology, philosophy, and contemporary human behaviour revealed similar ideological conflicts in other facets of human experience. Several years of research led to his development of a theory of personality functioning first published in This theory of personality functioning identified two very different perceptual modes, labeled attitudes or orientations, as Extraversion and Introversion. The Extraversion and Introversion orientations describe two ways individuals direct their psychological energy: Extraverting orients the person toward the outer, objective world; Introverting orients the person toward the inner, subjective world. However, the extraversion introversion attitudes still did not seem to account for the tremendous differences that existed in the conscious personality. Through further observation and clinical work, Jung formulated his description of four function types, Sensation, Intuition, Feeling, and Thinking. Two of the Type Functions, Sensation and Intuition, describe two different ways to receive information and provide the basis for Perceiving (for gathering information about what is and what could be). The remaining two Type Functions, Thinking and Feeling, describe different ways of processing information and provide the base for Judging. A person uses these latter two Type Functions to process information obtained from Perceiving to create meaning, formulate decisions, or define 3

5 a course of action. Thus Jung s theory of personality differences consists of three pairs of concepts or six dimensions: a) two orientations Introverting and Extraverting; and b) four Type Functions Sensing, Intuiting, Thinking, and Feeling. Jung originally suggests that these six dimensions operate in a bipolar relationship, that is, if the person uses one highly, he necessarily uses the other minimally or not at all. Myers and Briggs predicated the development of their personality instrument on this bipolar assumption. However, a careful reading of the 1923 version of Psychological Types or the Psychology of Individuation reveals a number of instances where Jung backs away from this assumption (Jung, 1971). Jung s interests lay in the theoretical realm and he left to others the work of translating his theory of personality functioning into practice. What follows is a survey of three translations of Jung s personality theory into application: Gray-Wheelwright Jungian Type Survey; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; and Singer Loomis Type Deployment Inventory. Gray-Wheelrights Jungian Type Survey The first personality instrument based on Jung s theory of typology was created in 1944 by Joseph Wheelwright, Jane Wheelwright, and Horace Gray, all Jungian analysts who studied with Jung. Shortly after returning from Zurich where they finished their training, the Wheelwrights teamed up with Gray s expertise in statistical analysis. Together, they produced the Gray-Wheelwright Jungian Type Survey (JTS), which they later revised with the help of Elizabeth and John Buehler. The JTS was administered to persons whose preference type they had previously ascertained by clinical observation. The instrument was refined several times 4

6 based on clinical experience and anecdotal information. In its present form, this instrument consists of eighty-two forced choice items to provide a measure of preference on the dimensions introduced by Jung (that is, Introversion Extraversion, Sensation Intuition, and Thinking Feeling). The JTS makes the bipolar assumption and presents a score for each of the two attitudes, Extraversion and Introversion, and all four of the functions. Thus, a person can tell which of their attitudes and functions are strong and which of the other ones are weaker, and the degree of difference between them. The JTS presents the respondent with a series of questions with two responses to choose from, and the person selects one of the two choices for each of the questions on the instrument. An example of an item from this instrument follows: At a party, I (a) Like to talk. (b) Like to listen. JTS (1942) Here the construction of the instrument assumes a particular set of categories, in this case six elements: two attitudes and four functions. We can also see that the instrument assumed a bipolarity in the choices. Gray and the Wheelwrights first published their instrument in 1942 when psychological testing was in its infancy and rigorous construction of psychological instruments was not a primary concern as it is today. Based on the bipolar assumption and their clinical experiencetheir instrument seemed to work quite well at the time. 5

7 Myers Briggs Type Indicator The Myers Briggs Type Indicator was developed by a mother, Katherine C. Briggs, and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. These researchers developed this instrument empirically by placing persons in a specific type, having them take the instrument under construction, and then selecting the items that discriminated among the persons of the various types. Since its development in the 1940 s, the MBTI operates on the premise that the bipolar assumption accurately characterizes the relationships between the six dimensions of Jung s theory of personality. The authors of the MBTI added another dimension to Jung s ideas to categorize an individual s preferred way to gather information or make decisions (Perceiving Judging). This additional dimension increased the number of personality types from Jung s eight to a structure that yields the MBTI s 16 personality types. An example of a item from this instrument follows: At parties, do you (a) sometimes get bored, or (b) always have fun Myers Briggs (xxxx). The Myers Briggs Type Indicator is the most popular and widely commercially available instrument in existence for measuring Jungian personality dimensions, with between 1.5 and 2 million persons completing it each year (Jackson, Parker, Dipboye, 1996). Part of the reason for its wide use across a variety of areas may be its emphasis on description rather than judgment, as it examines normal variations of personality dimensions, rather than abnormal characteristics (Thompson and Ackerman, 1994). 6

8 The MBTI remains the most widely used instrument of Jung s theory of psychological types. However, growing criticism about the MBTI has centered on three issues (Arnau, Thompson, and Rosen, 1998). First, the instrument yields dichotomized types rather than continuous scores (Cowan, 1989; Garden, 1991; Gardner & Martinko, 1996; Girelli and Stake, 1993; Loomis and Singer, 1980). Second, the instrument does not acknowledge persons filling out the instrument may have relatively neutral preferences on some dimensions. Third, the MBTI instrument uses a forced-choice format that yields a misleading negative correlation among resulting items (Kerlinger, 1986, p. 463). Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory Starting more than two decades ago, two independent streams of activities began to erode MBTI s dominance as the primary instrument to apply Jung s theory. First, Jungian analysts June Singer and Mary Loomis used Jung s original theory to develop an instrument as an alternative to the MBTI. Their motivation to develop their own instrument grew from their increasing experience that many individuals characteristics did not fit their MBTI profiles. Second, other researchers (such as Arnau, Rosen, and Thompson, 2000) have increasingly raised concerns about the validity of the MBTI s assertions. In particular, through its use of forced choice items, the MBTI asserts that the attitudes and functions fall into a predetermined sequence, i.e., the dominant function determines a person s auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions. 7

9 In 1979, two Jungian analysts, June Singer and Mary Loomis, started development of a more sophisticated expression of Jung s original concepts in a new personality inventory, the Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory (SL-TDI). Singer and Loomis suspected that the discrepancy between clinical observation and the observations provided by the MBTI was due to the structure of the MBTI rather than the limitations of Jung s concepts. They identified the problem as the oppositional pairs in the forced choice items of the MBTI inventory. Singer and Loomis viewed the two orientations as inseparable from the four functions that is, each function finds its expression separately through Introversion and Extraversion. For example, when the Thinking Function combines with Introversion, people are likely to begin their problem solving from a subjective position, starting with an inner conviction (Singer and Loomis, 1997). By contrast, when the Thinking Function combines with Extraversion, people want to live their lives in accordance with a universal ideal or law. They tend to judge their own behavior and the behavior of others, on the basis of shoulds and oughts connected with that ideal (Singer & Loomis, 1997). Singer and Loomis administered the standard MBTI and a scaled version of the inventory (with forced-choice removed) to a sample of 74 adults. If the bipolar assumption were correct, removing the forced choice of items should result in identical personality profiles. Singer and Loomis compared the results of both inventories and found that 46% of subjects reported a different Dominant function on the scaled version of the instrument, compared to the results of the standard version of the MBTI (Loomis, 1991). Moreover, the Inferior (or Least Developed) Function changed in 36% of cases 8

10 as compared with MBTI s results (Loomis, 1991). Thus, Singer and Loomis empirically demonstrated that the bipolar assumption did not hold for a significant proportion of the research sample. This study suggested the need for a less presumptive approach to Jung s personality concepts. SINGER LOOMIS TYPE DEPLOYMENT INVENTORY The SL-TDI instrument developed by Singer and Loomis measures an individual s Type Modes in 20 specific situations that yield results seeking to reflect what a person actually does, rather than MBTI s results, which attempt to present one s preferences. Each reaction corresponds to a unique combination of the two Jungian orientations with the four possible functions. Using a five-point Likert scale, respondents indicate how often they would make that response. By eliminating the forced choices, the SL-TDI directly measures the Extraverted and Introverted expression of each of Jung s four functions. The instrument independently assesses each of the eight dimensions (i.e., Extraverted Sensing, Introverted Sensing, Extraverted Intuition, Introverted Intuition, Extraverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extraverted Feeling, Introverted Feeling) to examine the personality of individuals including those who possess two opposite but well developed Type Modes. An example of the SL-TDI version of a situation measuring each of the eight dimensions follows: At a party, I Like to learn how things are set-up. Do what enables me to have a good time and hope it does not disturb others too much. 9

11 Observe what people are wearing and the choice of food. Will go all-out to have a good time and help others to have a good time also. Sometimes have trouble telling others about my experience in a way they can understand. Find it hard to stay in one conversation very long. Think about what others are saying and whether their ideas are compatible with mine. Quickly sense how the party will turn out and decide whether it is best for me to stay or leave. Singer, Loomis, Kirkhart, & Kirkhart, 1996) The instrument also measures the interaction of the functions and orientations of a person in terms of eight Type Modes. The person creates a Type Mode Profile by rank ordering these eight Type Modes. Through thistype Mode Profile, individuals learn of their unique personality structure their particular usage of each of all eight type modes. This Type Mode profile reveals the relative influence of each Type Mode on the individual s personality. By contrast, the MBTI prescribes relationships between an individual s expressed preferences for Introverting or Extraverting, Sensing or Intuiting, Thinking or Feeling, Perceiving or Judging. Until now, the accuracy of the MBTI s prescriptions that is, unequivocal predictions has never been empirically tested making its enormous popularity and acceptance truly astounding. SL-TDI S ASSUMPTIONS The SL-TDI represents a departure from previous attempts to operationalize Jung s theory of psychological types. Four central assumptions provide the theoretical underpinning of the instrument. First, as previously discussed, the Extraverted and 10

12 Introverted aspects of each function are expressed independently of each other. Based on empirical evidence (Loomis & Singer, 1980), the instrument independently measures the Extraversion and Introversion dimension of each function. Second, The four functions -- Sensing and Intuition, and Thinking and Feeling can act independently of each other. Based on the research results (Loomis & Singer, 1980), the functions can act independently of each other. The functions may or may not act in conflict with each other. If they do conflict with each other, this reflects the person s behaviour in practice. If one scores high on one function, one does not automatically score low on another function. Third, A person s behaviour reflects both inner traits and outer states. The instrument assumes that its scores result from the interaction between two variables: the person s personality and the situation or context in which the person acts. It assumes that both enduring character traits and immediate life and work circumstances affect personality functioning. Fourth, Change occurs throughout the person s lifetime. The instrument assumes that an individual s Type Mode skills and capacities will change as the person develops and takes on new challenges. KEY FEATURES OF THE SL-TDI The assumptions underpinning the SL-TDI lead to several notable features. The SL-TDI emphasizes the uniqueness of each person and their potential contribution to the larger good. This personality instrument is designed to emphasize the uniqueness of the person and the potential contribution a person can make to a relationship, team or organization. The instrument avoids forcing a person into a box or category. Everyone has the same eight type modes, but the combination and 11

13 interactions among various type Modes are virtually limitless. Rather than identifying people s personalities with one of a set number of labels, this instrument permits each person to develop a refined description of one s own unique self. A person can utilize each one of the eight type modes to contribute to the circumstances that one faces, bringing his or her newly discovered pattern of strengths and skills to a situation or relationship. Thus, the instrument supports people in identifying their unique contribution to the challenges they face. Educators and Counselors use the SL-TDI to examine the strengths of an individual and to explore the differences among people and their work groups. These differences provide a potential source of strength to the persons working together on teams. Legitimizing differences among group members remains an important feature of this instrument. It helps persons concretely understand and value the nature of their differences. It emphasizes the measurement of behaviour by eliminating forced choices and substituting a Likert scale. Jung s original theory made a bipolar assumption. Although he initially assumed that type mode functions were bipolar, Singer and Loomis determined his assumption was incorrect for much of the population (Loomis, In fact, they demonstrated that it could be wrong more times than it was right. The bipolar assumption holds for some people but certainly not for everyone. The MBTI forces a person to choose one or the other of two alternatives. Thus, in completing the instrument, the person gives up a whole host of alternatives that are not recorded as part of the respondent s personality. For example, the MBTI asks if one wants to be alone or with people when attending a party it presents a forced choice of only one or the other. This categorizes one s choices rather than measuring any 12

14 strength of preference. In contrast, the SL-TDI asks a series of questions about the degree to which respondents engage in specific behaviours in various situations. This increased choice allows a person to more finely calibrate the degree to which s/he engages in each of eight possible behaviours. It measures what people actually do in situations, thus providing baseline data for personal and professional development. The MBTI measures respondents preferences between two alternatives, forcing a choice between two alternative items. The SL-TDI presents situations and asks the person to examine these situations in terms of actual eight behaviours or actions. Persons indicate their frequency of each possible behavioral response. For example, given a situation, the person indicates the degree to which s/he would engage in each behaviour or action outlined. The SL-TDI emphasizes actual choices that a person makes in his present life. It assumes that respondents will examine the 20 scenarios in terms of their present life situation the social and cultural context in which they find themselves to answer the questions. Upon completion of the instrument, respondents identify their rank ordered profile of the eight type modes. The instrument reports the type modes and their rank order and provides a measure of the degree to which the person has capacity or skill to utilize each of the eight type modes. This provides respondents with information on the strength and relative importance of each type mode in relationship to the other type modes. It is descriptive rather than judgmental. The profile does not force people in categories such as good or bad, required or not required, functional or dysfunctional. 13

15 Describing personality functioning rather than judging it is important. Individuals then select from a bank of descriptors those that specifically apply to their own experience of themselves in their personal and professional life space. For example, descriptors for the Extraverted Sensing Type Mode include realistic; making few factual errors, good assimilation of details; experiencing each moment fully, enjoying the good things of life (such as food, art, music, sports, the beauty of nature); easygoing, tolerant, patient; often good with mechanical equipment, carpentry, decorating, graphic art, fashion, cooking and other work demanding attention to detail (Moving Boundaries, 1999). The emphasis on description rather than judgment makes it easier for the person who reads these type modes and the descriptors to pick or choose items that fit because they are not presented in a value-laden way. This individualized profile of descriptors provides individuals and their instructors, coaches, or therapists with valuable information about each person s ego-conscious behaviour and view of the world. If descriptors are not neutral and carry a negative loading for the society or organization in which a person works, then s/he may be unwilling to use these terms to describe him- or herself. The descriptions of each Type Mode seek to help people understand their unique mix of skills and capacities, rather than identifying pathological behaviour. Also, neutral descriptors help people avoid being categorized by their organizations or professions. The instrument helps people to construct an individualized description of themselves instead of focusing on workplace alignment with the ideal of an externally imposed normative framework. 14

16 Individuals can interpret their Type Mode Profiles themselves. Respondents do not have to compare themselves with what others have said about particular profiles or what others say about the relative importance of particular profiles. Rather than being prescriptive about what a person should be doing, the instrument helps one better understand one s own current behaviour. The emphasis remains on developing a descriptive profile that is tailored specifically to each individual respondent. As people look for patterns in their own experience, they develop a closer sense of the alignment between their profiles and the challenges they face. Given a person s goals and aspirations, an individual can get a better grasp on the degree to which the current Type Mode Profile is an actual fit and what choices he or she wants to make about what to do. Sometimes, individuals may initially disagree with what the profile tells them, or they may be quite skeptical about the descriptors that are offered. However, when encouraged to remain open minded about the description and work with it over a period of time, a Type Mode Profile often makes more sense. In our experience, this increased acceptance of the Type Mode Profile occurs for two reasons. First, individuals become more familiar with the Type Modes capacities and skills. Second, the profile makes sense as a person closes the gap between one s self-professed view of his or her competencies and those competencies that s/he is manifesting on a day-today basis. 15

17 Current Research This study starts with the dominant Singer-Loomis type mode and compares the outcomes of the Singer-Loomis profile to the Myers Briggs Type to determine the degree of alignment between MBTI and SL-TDI scores. In the preliminary stages of this research, 520 management students completed the instrument. We scored the Type Mode Profiles of each individual to identify their Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior Type Modes. 259 of these individuals (95 female; 131 male; 33 unidentified) had single dominant Type Mode Profiles (i.e. they had only one Type Mode as their Dominant way of interacting with the world). To facilitate comparison with MBTI assumptions of only one possible Dominant Type Mode per person, this group of single- Dominant individuals comprised the sample analyzed for this phase of our study. Our intent was to see how often, given a Dominant Type Mode, the MBTI s bipolar assumption held true. Within this sample, 159 of subjects had some graduate level of education. A further 77 did not identify their educational level. The age of the subjects ranged from 21 to 63 years. We interpreted our raw data to credit the MBTI instrument for any of the Type Modes it would consider within the realm of possibility for each level of Type Mode usage. For any given dominant Type Mode, the MBTI allows for 2 possible Type Modes at the Auxiliary level; at the Tertiary level, 4 possible Type Modes; at the Inferior level, 1 Type Mode. The SL-TDI places no such limitations on the number of allowable Type Modes possible at each level of usage for a given individual, i.e., the SL-TDI does not constrain the arrangement of Type Modes within Type Profiles by virtue of theoretical assumptions. 16

18 Taking the Dominant Type Mode of each respondent, we mapped his/her Type Mode Profile to the prescribed MBTI type pattern. We recorded matches at the various levels of this MBTI type pattern to indicate the degree that MBTI would have successfully predicted the order of subsequent Type Modes within the Type Mode Profile. For example, a SL-TDI Type Mode Profile of IS=72, ET=67, IF=63, ES=60, IT=58, EN=57, IN=53, EF=52 could be mapped to either the MBTI ISTJ or the ISFJ type patterns, i.e. the 2 possible patterns with IS as the leading process. Taking the most generous interpretation we would map this profile to the ISTJ pattern and record matches at both the Auxiliary and Tertiary levels and a non-match at the Inferior level of usage. This enabled us to determine the hit rate, or degree to which the MBTI would have predicted the remainder of an individual s Type Mode Profile from the dominant process. Results Applying this analysis to our entire sample of single-dominant individuals yielded the following results for the 8 Type Modes permitted by the bipolar assumption. Dominant ES (n=14) ESTP ESFP Auxiliary IT 5 1 IF Tertiary EF 3 0 ET Inferior IN 0 0 IN 17

19 Dominant IS (n=33) ISTJ ISFJ Auxiliary ET 3 3 EF Tertiary IF 0 3 IT Inferior EN 0 0 EN Dominant IN (n=5) INFJ INTJ Auxiliary EF 1 0 ET Tertiary IT 0 0 IF Inferior ES 0 0 ES Dominant EN (n=5) ENFP ENTP Auxiliary IF 0 2 IT Tertiary ET 0 1 EF Inferior IS 0 0 IS Dominant IT (n=70) INTP ISTP Auxiliary EN 5 1 ES Tertiary IS 1 1 IN Inferior EF 0 0 EF Dominant IF (n=46) INFP ISFP Auxiliary EN 2 5 ES Tertiary IS 0 3 IN Inferior ET 0 1 ET 18

20 Dominant EF (n=70) ESFJ ENFJ Auxiliary IS 7 3 IN Tertiary EN 2 0 ES Inferior IT 0 0 IT Dominant ET (n=16) ENTJ ESTJ Auxiliary IN 0 0 IS Tertiary ES 0 0 EN Inferior IF 0 0 IF Summing across all 8 Dominant Type Modes, we discovered the MBTI successfully predicted individuals Auxiliary Type Modes in less than 23% of the cases. Further, for remaining cases, the MBTI prediction rate deteriorated to 18.6% for Tertiary processes and 9.1% (only one case) for Inferior processes. See the table below. MBTI Accuracy Rate in Predicting Individuals Actual Type Mode Strengths Accurate Prediction Rate 22.8% 59/259 Miss Rate (Failure to Predict) Auxiliary Tertiary Inferior 77.2% 200/ % 11/ % 48/59 9.1% 1/ % 10/11 DISSCUSSION To date, our research suggests that, in the majority of cases, the MBTI s predictions of individuals Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior Functions did not hold, even 19

21 using the most generous possible data interpretation strategies designed to favour the bipolar assumption. The degree of misalignment at the levels of Auxiliary and Tertiary represent a particular concern for educators and clinicians interested in designing developmental learning activities for management practitioners and clients. Another concern arises from what the MBTI does not and cannot report: the degree to which respondents utilize the personality dimensions that they do not select when choosing one item or the other in the assessment. Frequently, the researchers found that the Type Modes excluded by MBTI fell within the particularly rich developmental range of the Auxiliary-Tertiary level of potentiality within the population sampled. The authors have utilized the MBTI for over two decades. In the past five years, they have used only the SL-TDI in their management education and consulting activities. Students and clients use their understanding of the SL-TDI Type Mode Profiles in a variety of ways. For example, they customize action plans to enhance Auxiliary and Mid Mode (Tertiary) Type Modes that impact their immediate personal and professional challenges. By focusing on non-dominant strengths, we find the SL-TDI guides students to a more focused use of clients energies with greater returns in personal and professional development. LIMITATIONS This research represents an initial step in the empirical examination of Jung s bipolar assumption of personality functioning. We discuss several limitations of this study below, and indicate directions for future research. This study of Jung s initial bipolar assumption utilized the SL-TDI test results of men and women engaged in post-secondary management courses of study. That all 20

22 participants had a demonstrated life focus on learning and practising management while taking the test may limit this study s generalizability to other populations. Further, our participants were all engaged in pursuits of higher education. [sentence about education as a force for increasing personality complexity] [sentence about a relaxing of the bipolar imperative is akin to acknowledging greater personality complexity] We may anticipate from this that our sample drew from individuals operating with more complex personality structures than the general population. Different Jungian personality type instruments make different claims about the stability of personality functioning. The MBTI claims to measure individuals personality traits giving respondents an understanding of their enduring character traits. By contrast, the SLTDI claims to measure personality functioning individuals current behaviour, which is believed (Singer & Loomis, xxxx) to be a product of both enduring personality traits and one s responses to the life circumstances a respondent currently faces. The SL-TDI claims that personality functioning reflects both trait (relatively permanent) and state (relatively dynamic) facets of behaviour. It is unclear that these differing claims would impact the proving or disproving of the bipolar assumption. Our sample was comprised of full or part-time students in a demanding management course of study, engaged in academic activities with a finite period of influence in a person s lifetime. According to MBTI assumptions, the demands of student life would have no impact on test results. According to SL-TDI assumptions, we might expect this sample to show test results skewed toward introversion in response to the concurrent academic demands respondents faced when completing the instrument. While it is unclear whether the state or trait debate would impact the bipolar assumption, 21

23 it does highlight another set of differing assumptions made by the developers of these two Jungian instruments. Finally, the SLTDI represents the first Jungian measure of personality functioning to make room for the possibility that individuals may operate with equal ease out of multiple dominant type modes. This study elected to use a sample of individuals with single dominant type modes to facilitate comparison to an instrument operating with the bipolar assumption. Given the results of this exploratory research, further investigations should employ an experimental design to determine the patterns of similarity and difference between SL-TDI and the bipolar assumption at all levels of Type Mode usage. Loomis and Singer s (1980) earlier study reported comparisons at the Dominant and Least developed levels. Further research could also explore the bipolar assumption s capacity to accurately predict the developmentally rich Auxiliary and Mid Mode levels of personality functioning. CONCLUSIONS Extraordinary faith has been placed in the MBTI s capacity to explain why people do the things they do in life and work, and why both professional and personal relationships succeed or fail. The fundamental premise of this and previous Jungian instruments is a bipolar assumption that Jung himself began to question in his later years, and that has been questioned and now empirically refuted by researchers. As professors, instructors, and coaches, we are constantly challenged to provide men and women with tools to help them understand and grow themselves, in a manner 22

24 appropriate to the very complex professional and personal lives they lead. The SL-TDI has proven helpful in empowering and supporting individuals who wish to address the challenges they face armed with a nuanced, reflective view of their strengths and capacities. Our intent is not to oversimplify their lives with one of several predetermined personality labels, a common practice among individuals who know their MBTI scores. We appreciate the SL-TDI s insistence on having individuals reflect upon their skills and behaviours in both Introversion and Extroversion, Thinking and Feeling, Sensing and Intuiting rather than permitting them an easy dismissal of any of these Functions or Attitudes as being not my type. The SL-TDI tool and the learning activities it instigates are considerably more complex than previous Jungian instruments. Rather than oversimplifying the complexity of individuals unique personalities, it assumes that contemporary men and women must acknowledge and develop the complexity of their personalities in order to cope effectively with an increasingly complex world. Jung s initial exploration into personality functioning was inspired by his interest in understanding how he and some of his contemporaries were different. Given his interest in explaining disagreeing personalities, not surprisingly, his initial assumptions about human personalities were bipolar. In Jung s own lifetime, and since then, the need to understand differences has evolved to an interest in understanding humans in their multifaceted uniqueness. The SL-TDI discards the bipolar assumption to more accurately measure and explain the complexity of personality functioning. This exploratory research supports the view that framing personality functioning solely in 23

25 terms of oppositional pairs provides a misleading view of the complexities of human functioning. 24

26 REFERENCES Arnau, R.C., & Rosen, D. H. (1998). Are Jungian preferences type classifications or continuous scores?: A critical review. Unpublished manuscript. Arnau, R. C., Rosen, D. H., & Thompson, B. (2000). Reliability and validity of scores from the Singer-Loomis type deployment inventory. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 45, Arnau, R. C., Thompson, B., & Rosen, D. H. (1999). Alternative measures of Jungian personality constructs. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 32(2), Carlson, J. G. (1989). Affirmative: In support of researching the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, Cowan, D. A. (1989). An alternative to the dichotomous interpretation of Jung s psychological functions: Developing more sensitive measurement technology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, Dugan, S., & Wilson, K. (2001, June). Singer-Loomis TDI: The next generation of psychological type instrument. Paper presented at the Petroleum Society s Canadian International Petroleum Conference Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Garden, A. (1991). Unresolved issues with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 22, Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(1), Girelli, S. A., and Stake, J. E. (1993). Bipolarity in Jungian type theory and the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, Healy, C. C. (1989). Negative: The MBTI: Not ready for routine use in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, Jackson, S. L., Parker, C. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1996). A comparison of competing models underlying responses to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), Jarrett, J. (1972). The logic of psychological opposition or how opposite is opposite? Journal of Analytical Psychology, 24,

27 Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation (H. G. Baynes, Trans). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (Original work published in 1921) Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. CW6. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1921). Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Kirkhart, L. (2001). Gathering data about Jungian type concepts. Unpublished manuscript. Loomis, M. E. (1982). A new perspective for Jung s typology: The Singer-Loomis Inventory of Personality. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 27, Loomis, M. E. (1991). Dancing the wheel of psychological types. Chiron Publications: Wilmette, IL. Loomis, M. E., & Singer, J. (1980). Testing the bipolar assumption in Jung s typology. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 25, McCaulley, M. H. (1991). Additional comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A response to comments. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23, Merenda, P. F. (1991). Additional comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23, Myers, I. B. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Singer, J. (1985, March). A New Perspective on measuring Jungian typology. Proceedings of the 1985 California Spring Conference of Jungian Analysts and Control Candidates. C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco. [K 1137] Singer, J. and Loomis, M. E. (1987). The Singer/Loomis inventory of personality: An update on the measurement of Jung s typology. In M.A. Mattoon (Ed.). The archetype of shadow in a split world: The Tenth International Congress of analytical psychology, (pp ). Singer, J., Loomis, M., Kirkhart, E. and Kirkhart, L. (1996). The Singer-Loomis Type Deployment Inventory Booklet. 26

28 Wheelwright, J. B., Wheelright, J. H., and Buehler, J. A. (1964). Jungian Type Survey (The Gray-Wheelwright Test). San Francisco: Society of Jungian Analysts of Northern California. 27