Jung believed that extroverted people were those that were at the forefront of creating change, that they often made good leaders with vision and that they were capable of working well within large organizations. The introverted person, however, has a tendency reflect on the past and ponder decisions before they are made (Geyer, 2006, sec. 1-3). The introverted person also prefers a quiet atmosphere in which he or she can contemplate the immediate task at hand. Additionally the person can either be “sensing or intuitive. Sensing people have the ability to analyze a situation based on reality, or the here and now. Intuitive people, however, look beyond the reality of the moment and focus on what may be or the future.
Geyer (2006) contends that the Meyers-Briggs assessment can identify these personality traits in conjunction with the organizational type (sec. 1-3). When this is accomplished the organization has the ability to then use people at key areas where they will most likely be successful, thereby benefiting the workers and the company. Personality is evaluated and coded for one of 16 types. It is important to note that all types have both “strengths and weaknesses” and that there is no one type that is more impressive that the others.
There are also areas of thinking and feeling that are judged in the Meyers-Briggs assessment. Thinking is not about the person’s intellect, but about the individual’s ability to analyze facts and processes effectively. Feeling, as the name would suggest, is not about emotions, but rather the ability of a person to “seek collaboration and harmony” in the workplace. These concepts are evaluated with the elements of judging and perceiving in the Myers-Briggs assessment. If a person prefers to make judgments that person relies on factual processes. However, if the person is inclined to perceive things, that person will take time to make a decision and let his or her perceptions guide the action.
The test is useful for any business that is attempting to determine which people would be effectively placed in positions throughout the company. This is apparently true in the case of groups or teams where all people must be capable of communicating and interacting in ways that will lead to the accomplishment of goals. When the company is capable of placing people within these groups in a constructive manner, then all workers will not only achieve the best results for the organization, but will independently grow as well. Therefore, the assessment is an effective tool for business and workers. Geyer (2006) states:
The main benefit in using the MBTI is its breadth of application. You can use it in almost any situation and it's buttressed by a comprehensive and robust theory of personality. In one sense, then, there is no competition to the MBTI in workplace use as there is no comparable theory of personality associated with other methods (Geyer, 2006)
Mattler (2005) discusses the Rorschach personality assessment. This assessment form was developed in 1921 and was intended to identify people that were affected by the “newly defined disease ‘schizophrenia’” (Mattler, 2005, p. 3). The idea behind the assessment was to present a series of inkblot images to the individual and allow the person to discuss what he or she saw on the page. What is important to the inkblot images is what the individual perceives to be there, not necessarily what is there. Additionally, Hermann Rorschach, the tool’s creator, believed that when the assessment examined the individual’s perception of the relationship of figures, colors and pattern within the inkblot a more refined assessment could be made as to the individual’s mental processing (Mattler, 2005, p. 3).
The most significant issues pertaining to the Rorschach has been the reliability of the instrument. This is because of the need for a control group in reliability testing and the individual perceptions that affect the outcome of the test. For example, researchers may create a control group that is comprised of people from a specific population, gender, class and background. Yet, the person that is being tested against the control group does not necessarily think in the same manner as the individuals in the group. This may mean that the assessment results indicate that the person’s personality is abnormal when in actuality the personality of the individual is quite stable. This has not, however, prevented the development of the assessment over time. In the United States five tests have been developed, with a number of tests being created that expand on the original Rorschach is various ways (Mattler, 2005, p. 3).
Generally this assessment tool allows the evaluator to present the inkblot images to the person and the person is then tasked with speaking about what he or she sees. That person’s ability to concentrate on the images and speak of them rationally is the basis for the analysis of the Rorschach (Mattler, 2005, p. 3).
This test would appear to be very subjective, although it is used by businesses to
evaluate the personalities of workers and professionals. The subjectivity exists with the
evaluator who would be capable of making determinations about the perceptions of the person
and determining whether or not that person could be an effective part of the organization.
Although there are specific guidelines for the evaluator to follow, it is apparent that personal
opinion can cause the results to affect the outcome of the test. Although there may be a variety of
ways to score Rorschach responses, the choice of scoring scheme seems not to make much
difference; “the overwhelming majority of Rorschach indexes” were not consistently related to
outcomes of interest.(Lilienfeld,2000) Furthermore, because there are significant disagreements
about the reliability of the test, it can be concluded that this assessment tool should not be used to
determine the future of workers, or to make concrete decisions related to the organization.
However it has a high cultural utility and people from different cultures can take it and be
graded based on their answers. While the Rorschach technique is still widely used, its
popularity has decreased somewhat in recent decades. The Rorschach must be given
individually and not to a group like the objective personality tests such as the 16PF and the
Myers-Briggs. Interpretation of responses is highly dependent on an examiner's individual
judgment: two different testers may interpret the same responses quite differently
Self help books have low applicability but high cultural utility. People can learn from the
different types of self help books but the results vary because all the books do not provide
guidance. Less than half of the books prepare readers for the possibility of setbacks and failures
and reasonable overall expectations about the potential benefits that could be expected from the
self-help techniques. Even if a majority of the books has guidance for implementing the self-
help techniques most of them do not give clear and specific methods for measuring treatment
progress.(Herman, 2002) Certain self help books have cognitive-behavioral orientation
especially if they written by mental health professionals, and by those having a doctoral degree.
The problem is most self help books are low rated and written by authors who have no affiliation
with medical or mental health organizations and they are not mental health professionals
themselves.
Despite their widespread use and apparently impressive effects, some have expressed skepticism about the validity and usefulness of many self-help books.(Pearsall,2005) Rosen(1987) concluded that self-help techniques are not always easy to administer and may be administered inappropriately. Also self-help efforts can have iatrogenic effects worsening the problem. The effectiveness of self-help books is unknown, since most have not been empirically tested (Glasgow & Rosen, 1978; Herman, 2002).While self help books have an impressive comprehensiveness, the extent to which the ratings reflect the books’ scientific grounding is unknown.
This writer compared and contrast the weaknesses of three personality assessment
instruments the Myers- Briggs, the Rorschach and self help books. Along with their validity,
comprehensiveness, applicability and cultural utility. The Myers-Briggs personality assessment
is a much more stable form of assessment because of its ability to use data that focuses on
various elements within the personality. This test characterizes personality on four
different scales extraversion vs. introversion, intuition vs. sensing, feeling vs. thinking, and
judging vs. perceiving. The Rorschach, however, is used as a means of evaluating the personal
perceptions of the worker in a method that can be misinterpreted through personal opinions of
the evaluator. The theory underlying the test is that anything that someone does or says will
reveal an aspect of that persons personality. Self help books are not reliable and do not have
validity because their concepts and guidance are difficult to follow and most of them are low
rated. Furthermore, the Myers-Briggs tool has been shown to be more reliable and beneficial for
everyone with the most accurate results.
References
Geyer, P. (2006).Understanding the MBTI and personality type Personality Pathways. Retrieved October 25, 2006, from http://www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_geyer.html
Glasgow, R.E. & Rosen, G.M. (1978). Behavioral bibliotherapy: A review of self-help behavior therapy manuals. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1-23.
Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb (2000), A critique of Lilienfeld et al.’s “The scientific status of projective techniques”’. J pers Assess. 2003; 80(3):260-71
Mattler, C. (2005). The utility of the Rorschach comprehensive system:
An increasing body of supportive research. South African Rorschach Journal. 2(1):3-31.
Pearsall, P. (2005). The last self-help book you’ll ever need. New York: Basic Books.
Polivy, J., & Herman, C.P. (2002). If at first you don’t succeed: False hopes of self-change. American Psychologist, 57, 677-689.
