Right of Reply: Vegter’s “hollow criticism” of the Myers-Briggs indicator
The Myers-Briggs Company responds to Ivo Vegter's critique of the MBTI, arguing that his criticisms are based on using a knockoff and misunderstandings of the tool's theoretical framework. The MBTI, grounded in decades of research, offers scientifically validated insights into personality types, akin to right- or left-handedness. The company highlights that the MBTI is not intended for hiring decisions and defends its rigorous application standards and wide acceptance across industries.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Join us for BizNews' first investment-focused conference on Thursday, 12 September, in Hermanus, featuring top experts like Frans Cronje, Piet Viljoen, and more. Get insights on electricity and exploiting SA's gas bounty from new and familiar faces. Register here.
By Jordan Slade
The recent piece attacking the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator by Ivo Vegter offers hollow criticism of the MBTI which rests on essentially two points. The first is Vegter's personal experience taking what he openly admits is a knockoff of the MBTI, which gave him conflicting personality types. This is akin to accusing Rolex of making poor watches because you purchased a fake Rolex from a vendor on the street and it broke down. The actual MBTI is based on decades of research and is continually updated, with manuals that provide validity and reliability scores as well as a wealth of other data describing its scientific basis made publicly available at https://www.themyersbriggs.com/MBTIvalidity. To criticize the instrument based on your experience with a free online knockoff is irrational.
The second pillar of his criticism is based on his distaste for the binary classification system used by the MBTI. For this, he asserts that personality preferences exist on a continuum, and therefore any instrument that uses classification to report these preferences cannot possibly be based on science. However, this is a misrepresentation of both the theory behind the instrument, as well as the reality of how it produces its results.
The MBTI instrument takes a similar approach to right-handedness or left-handedness. While people are capable of using both hands to varying degrees of skill, most people prefer one or the other. Similarly, we have found that in many settings the classification approach of personality type theory offers a useful way to report test results. However, the theory behind the instrument does not claim that people can only function with one preference or the other. Furthermore, in those instances where more detail than a binary score is beneficial, the MBTI provides a Preference Clarity Index (PCI) that identifies one's personality preferences as slight, moderate, clear, and very clear.
The author goes on to express dislike for the rigorous training that is required to administer the MBTI, which both The Myers-Briggs Company and The Myers and Briggs Foundation view as critical to ensuring that the instrument is used properly. We have found that the numerous respected organizations that use the MBTI greatly appreciate these efforts to maintain the integrity of the instrument's application.
Additionally, the author mentions the tool leads to misguided decisions in hiring and personal development. The MBTI should not be used for hiring. A central tenet for the MBTI framework is that no personality type is better than another, and the tool's not meant to predict performance. Furthermore, both The Myers-Briggs Company as well as The Myers and Briggs Foundation have taken a public stance against using the MBTI tool for hiring or selection for decades. The MBTI was not designed for hiring and selection and it is unethical to do so with it.
With all this said, Vegter gets some points right. Academic papers do support the reliability of the instrument and elucidate type distribution patterns. In fact, a simple search on the Center for Applications of Psychological Type's MBTI Bibliography Search yields nearly 11,000 citations of the MBTI assessment. For this and many other reasons, he correctly notes that "…Two and a half million people take an MBTI test every year, and 89 of the Fortune 100 companies report using it."
In conclusion, Vegter's assertion that the MBTI is "corporate astrology" is based on his own dislike for certain theoretical constructs, the company's policies, and his rather bizarre assertion that taking a fake version of the MBTI proves something meaningful.
The authentic MBTI instrument, on the other hand, is psychometrically validated, conforms to all standards for psychological tests, and has demonstrated its value in work settings and applications such as conflict resolution, leadership development, team building, and numerous other areas. As a result, its status as the world's most popular personality assessment endures.
Thanks for understanding!
Read also: