|
personality theories | Torna a pag1david keirsey's personality model and the 'keirsey temperament sorter'As mentioned above, David Keirsey's work refers significantly to the age-old 'Four Temperaments' model, and to the work of Carl Jung, and Katharine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, who also drew strongly on Jung's work. Keirsey's key book (with Bates) was 'Please Understand Me', first published in 1978 and since revised and re-issued several times, more recently as 'Please Understand Me II', which is a wonderful book and includes a self-test to discover your detailed temperament type (of the sixteen types). David Keirsey's ideas extend and develop the Four Temperaments and the ideas of Carl Jung, and also relate very directly to the Myers Briggs MBTI system. In fact according to Keirsey the two systems - Keirsey and MBTI - are quite similar. (Here's a good explanation of the similarities and differences between the Keirsey and Myers Briggs systems.) Keirsey's model has for many years underpinned a highly regarded personality assessment methodology, which Keirsey claims to be the most widely used in the world. Keirsey's model has also enabled the development of a considerable supporting business corporation, which markets his testing instruments and their associated training and accreditation. Like Myers Briggs, Keirsey's personality model analyses human personality according to sixteen types, which are compared below to the Myers Briggs MBTI equivalents. There are fundamental similarities between the Keirsey types and the Myers Briggs types, but there are also some significant differences, so do not see the two systems as being the same thing. keirsey/MBTI types correlationsKeirsey's personality model is particularly helpful because of the meaningful personality 'type' descriptions, especially when used alongside Myers Briggs abbreviated letter codes. The colour-coded groupings reflect Keirsey's view that certain categories of MBTI or Keirsey types equate strongly to the Four Temperaments. Keirsey is a fan of the Four Temperaments. Not everyone is, particularly when it comes to categorising MBTI types. This layout is shown because Keirsey favours it. The use of colours are purely to aid comparison with the Four Temperaments model shown earlier in this section. Other than an echo of Jung's 'Perceiving' and 'Judging' within the SP and SJ blocks, these colours do not relate to the colours used in the Jung and Myers Briggs sections.
N.B. Again bear in mind that certain copyright protections apply to the MBTI and Keirsey terms so I recommend that you be wary of using these in the provision of chargeable services or materials since under certain circumstances they are likely to be subject to licensing conditions. A free 'lite' Keirsey personality test and descriptions of each of the Keirsey sixteen types is available via the Keirsey website at Keirsey.com. The 'lite' test indicates your dominant or preferred temperament of the four main types, but not your detailed type within the temperament, which is something you need to pay to discover. In my view the most enjoyable and useful way to do this is to buy a copy of Keirsey's book 'Please Understand Me II', which contains the 70-question Keirsey Temperament Sorter II personality test, which will in a few minutes reveal your detailed Keirsey personality type, and also provides a vast amount of descriptive information relating to your type and all the other fifteen types within the Keirsey model. eysenck's personality inventory and the four temperamentsBritish psychologist Hans Jurgen Eysenck (1916-97) was born in Berlin. A Jewish sympathiser, he left Germany in 1934 for England, where he studied and later taught psychology at London University. He became a prolific writer in the field of clinical psychology and also had a great interest in psychometrics. He disagreed with the principles of psychoanalysis and preferred the (at times controversial) view that genetics (inherited factors - our genes) are significant in determining the psychological differences between people, and more besides. Eysenck used extensive research and questionnaires to build a personality inventory which he related to Galen's Four Temperaments. The fit is not perfect with the more recent interpretations of the Four Temperaments (Keirsey, Myers Briggs) but there are certainly many common aspects between the Eysenck and Galen models. Eysenck's concepts are particularly interesting, and provide a valuable additional perspective compared to the Four Temperaments, Jung, Myers, and Keirsey, because they explore and analyse a personality dimension related to emotional stability. Eysenck's approach to personality assessment was the first popular scalable mathematical methodology. Previous theories generally placed a person within one of the defining types, or between two types, or attributed a mixture of types to a person's personality. Eysenck's 1950's theory (he later added a third dimension) measures personality using two scales:
Eysenck's theory also refers to instability as unstable, emotionally unstable, or neurotic. *While Eysenck's scientific headings of 'stable' and 'unstable' or 'neurotic' can be seen as judgemental (good or bad) it's important not to see them in this way. Academics (including Eysenck) tend to write for other academics and forget or disregard that certain language carries negative meanings and stigmas in normal life, such as the words unstable and neurotic. Eysenck did not use the words to convey a sense of good or bad - he used them because he felt scientifically comfortable with the terms. If discussing these concepts with people who might be sensitive to words like 'unstable' or 'neurotic' it can be helpful to interpret Eysenck's 'instability' or 'neuroticism' to mean 'emotional', and for 'stable' to equate to 'unemotional'. 'Unemotional-emotional' was not Eysenck's alternative scale, it's my suggested alternative for seeing that this scale is not a question of good or bad. By surveying many thousands of people, using many and various adjectives (traits) representing behaviours and types, Eysenck built a scalable model which also formed the basis of what became the Eysenck personality test. Eysenck's theory regards the choleric and melancholic temperaments as being emotionally unstable (let's say 'emotional'), and the sanguine and phlegmatic temperaments as being emotionally stable (unemotional). The theory sees the phlegmatic and melancholic temperaments as being introverted, and the choleric and sangine temperaments as being extraverted. At this point there is clear divergence from the Eysenck model and certain recent interpretations of the Four Temperaments, since, for example, Keirsey and Myers Briggs clearly assert that introversion and extraversion appear in each of the four temperaments. Eysenck's ideas are a part-fit with MBTI and Keirsey, but certainly not a direct overlay. The Eysenck theory produces four main types types of personality, which he said resembled Galen's Four Temperaments:
Within which are several key words of graduated significance relative to the heading elements (Eysenck presented this as a four-quadrant circle containing his describing words, rather than the matrix shown here). The colours merely reflect those used in the Four Temperaments section for ease of comparison and do not appear in Eysenck's theory:
Can you see yourself, and others perhaps, in this model? Could you define yourself according to a mixture of these characteristics? Perhaps you can see in yourself a leading 'type' with one or two supporting types? (This is not how Eysenck intended the model to be used, but seeing it in this way can be helpful for understanding your own and others' personality types.) Again note that the fit is not perfect between Eysenck's model and recent interpretations of the Four Temperaments such as Keirsey and Myers Briggs, but there are certainly many common aspects between Eysenck and Galen. The significant difference between Eysenck's ideas and the Four Temperaments interpretations of Galen and the older theorists is that Eysenck's (1950's) theory measures personality according to two scalable dimensions, introversion-extraversion and stability-instability; whereas traditional Four Temperaments ideas simply seek to define personality according to one of the four temperaments. In this respect Eysenck's model is far more sophisticated, and indeed add an extra dimension (stable-unstable) that is not found at all in popular systems such as Keirsey and Myers Briggs. In this respect Eysenck's model offers a highly significant and helpful additional perspective to the Four Temperaments, Jung's Psychological Types, and the Keirsey and Myers Briggs systems on which they were based. Eysenck's ideas have been developed and supported using studies and surveys of many thousands of people. Eysenck was one of the most prolific researchers and writers on the subject of personality and its measurement, and yet he continued to strive for improved understanding and interpretation into the 1990's, having worked for 60 years in the field. Proof, if any were needed, that this is indeed a complex area, and one which we are still a long long way from fully comprehending. It is interesting to note also that Eysenck's 1950's key words feature strongly in at least one modern version of the DISC personality testing system, which testifies to the enduring importance of Eysenck's work, and which provides yet another indication of the similarity and common themes between many of these 'different' personality models. Eysenck later theorised about a third dimension: psychoticism, from his studies of mentally disturbed people, and which can be related to risk-taking and eccentricity. In his later life Eysenck also developed better scientific understanding of Jung's introversion and extraversion 'attitudes', which, along with his other ideas helped Katherine Benziger develop her own ideas of personality and behaviour. Hans Eysenck's key books include: Uses and Abuses of Psychology (1953); Know Your Own IQ (1962); Race, Intelligence and Education (1971), and the autobiographical Rebel without a Cause (1990). katherine benziger's personality and brain-type theoryBenziger's model is relatively recent compared to the Four Temperaments, Jung, Eysenck, etc. Her theories and tools have been widely used by many of the world's major corporations, and are still the subject of ongoing research and refinement. Benziger's key book, The Art Of Using Your Whole Brain, was first published in 1989, revised as 'Thriving In Mind' in 2000. Benziger's main psychometrics instrument is the BTSA (Benziger Thinking Styles Assessment). Katherine Benziger is unusual compared to many other personality thinkers (and particularly the way that other seminal theories have been developed into highly commercialised 'testing' systems) because she places greatest emphasis on 'wellness' and the need to help people avoid 'falsifying' their true type. Benziger says that very many people 'falsify type', so as to fit into a role or career path that might not be right for them, which has a negative impact on health, happiness and personal effectiveness. Benziger drew great inspiration from Carl Jung and from the work of Myers Briggs and Hans Eysenck. Her work has also been influenced and supported by the late 20th century scientific developments into brain imaging, using modern scanning technologies - basically using safe equivalents of X-Ray techniques - to actually determine which parts of the brain are being used for various functions and types of thinking ('thinking' here in the general sense of what the brain is doing, not in the 'logical' Jungian sense). Put simply, Benziger's theory expresses personality in terms of four quadrants of the brain (basal means rear or back):
Benziger relates these modes of thinking to Jung's Four Functions, and Benziger's theory provides many people an immensely helpful way to make sense of what Jung said and advocated. For ease of comparison between Benziger's and Jung's models the same colours are used for corresponding 'functions' or 'styles', although these colours were not part of either theorist's concepts. Importantly Benziger acknowledges and uses the Jungian Extravert and Introvert dimension, but does not represent it within the four-quadrant model of the four functional types (Benziger's 'behaving' or 'thinking' or 'preferred' styles - the word 'thinking' is used here in a more general sense than the specific Jungian meaning). These brain-type functions also correlate to the Myers Briggs and Keirsey models, naturally since all of these theories make use of the fundamental Jungian 'four functional types' reference points - Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, Intuition.
According to Benziger each of us possesses natural strengths in only one of these specialised areas, which causes us to favour and use a certain style ahead of others. Outside of that one style, we may have strengths and weaknesses which are based on what competencies we have been exposed to, or developed, and indeed which competencies we have not been exposed to. Katherine Benziger refers to the natural specialised area as the 'preferred thinking and behavioural mode'. Typically this will equate to the Jungian 'superior function' and the Myers Briggs 'dominant function' as described in this section. Benziger's books ('The Art of Using Your Whole Brain', and in revised form 'Thriving in Mind') contain an excellent and simple personality assessment to illustrate this point. The benziger personality assessment relies on complete honesty when answering - if you are 'falsifying your type' then you will distort the analysis (which of course is true for any personality assessment or psychometrics test, although most theorists and providers seem to emphasise this aspect far less than Benziger). Incidentally the Benziger assessment also contains a section which determines the extent to which the person is falsifying type, and this for Benziger is a fundamentally important aspect of her theory and assessment methodology. Without wishing to go off on a long tangent, Benziger's ideas about 'falsification of type' relate strongly to the need for people to seek proper 'congruence' and 'alignment' between their own true natural personal preferences, style, strengths, and the organisations and services within which they work. Organisations and employers need increasingly to wake up to these issues, both in terms of re-aligning their own values and aims so that they become more helpful for the world at large, and also in helping their people to identify and pursue and fulfil their own unique potential and destiny. Benziger's ideas are at the heart of this very modern sort of organisational philosophy. Now back to the model. Here's how Benziger's model relates to Jung's Four Functions. Once more the colours are merely to help with comparisons to the Jung and Myers Briggs models:
Remember while Benziger certainly acknowledges and makes use of Jung's Extravert-Introvert dimension, it is not represented within Benziger's four-quadrants brain model. These are Benziger's brain functions or 'modes' in more detail. Note again the correlation to the Jungian functions.
Benziger says that people possess one and only one natural leading function or 'mode' in which their brain is naturally efficient. People can and often do however develop competencies in other modes. When they do in practice they will be using more areas of their brain, and when they do this the competencies outside their natural lead are always somewhat draining, which links to Benziger's ideas about the dangers of falsification of type. If it's 'draining' using competencies that are not our natural strength, it must be more stressful still when we have to work exclusively in a competence other than our natural preference. benziger and correlations to other personality modelsBenziger's model is particularly helpful for many people in providing an excellent framework for comparing and understanding other personality models, including Jung's original four functional types, Kolb, and one or two other less well-known ideas from around the world. Once more the colours aim to help show the relationships with Jung's model, and are not part of the original theories. The correlations to the Myers Briggs MBTI types (and by implication Keirsey's also) are based on the functional dominance within each of these types (explained in the functional dominance sub-section of the Myers Briggs section).
More detail about Katherine Benziger's fascinating theory is on the Benziger page. DISCYou will see the DISC model often represented as DiSC®, which reflects the ownership of this particular logoform by the US Inscape Publishing company. Inscape has extensively researched and developed its own DISC systems, which according to the company's publicity have been used by over 40 million people since the early 1970's, which are used with the intention of enabling people to "...gain the insight they need to be more successful, productive, and fulfilled at work..." Inscape also say, "... DiSC® instruments are based on a simple idea - that the foundation of personal and professional success lies in knowing yourself, understanding others, and realizing the impact of your actions and attitudes on other people..." The DISC model is attributed to Dr William Moulton Marston, whose book Emotions Of Normal People (1928) first explained the model using the DISC terminology, and which also provided the descriptive words on which the commonly used DISC personality assessment systems were built. Marston didn't create an assessment tool. This was done initially by researchers at the University of Minnesota, in 1972 according to Inscape. Inscape, and others, have continued to develop, test and validate DISC assessment systems, which are marketed with gusto to the corporate and organisational development communities. The dimensions of Behaviour and Situation feature strongly in Marston's ideas. There are several slightly varying interpretations of this model. Here's a general outline. DISC basic personality types modelThere are different interpretations of this model, based on the same underpinning structure. This presentation of the DISC model borrows from various interpretations. The colours mainly emphasise the columns - they are not part of the original DISC theory - but they also reflect the logical correlations to two of the Four Temperaments and Keirsey main types (D = Phlegmatic/Rational; I = Choleric/Idealist) and the Jungian Extravert-Introvert 'attitudes'. Other than this there is no attempt here to overlay the DISC model or personality traits directly onto any other personality model. There are overlaps and correlations between DISC and other personality systems but not a direct overlay. Logical comparisons and correlations between DISC types and the types contained in the theories of Jung, Benziger, etc, are shown lower in the grid below.
N.B. The closest equivalent types shown above from the models of Jung, Myers Briggs and Keirsey are just a guide, and have been arrived at by factoring in the typical DISC dimensions of extraversion-introversion and proactive-passive, which imply the obvious Extraverted or Introverted Jungian equivalents, and Judging (proactive) or Perceiving (reactive) Jungian equivalents. As we've seen, none of this is a perfect science, and the correlations are formed by logical extension rather than clear admissions of statements from the originating theorists. Benziger's correlations however are those stated by Katherine Benziger herself. Unlike testing systems such as Myers Briggs and Keirsey which typically match people to defined 'types', The DISC model instead presents a series of four main 'type' descriptions (titled above as Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance). The DISC testing instruments tend to identify people's dominant or preferred type and one or two supporting types from the four available, and this mixture is then represented by a graph or personality description based on the mixture of the types. In this respect no person is exclusively just one of the four DISC types. Most people have a dominant or preferred main type, plus one or two supporting types in different degrees depending on the person and the situation. DISC systems commonly not only assess the person but also the person's mix of dominant types from different perspectives. It is important to note again that the DISC system of personality assessment, like all personality models, provides a guide and a perspective of personality; it is not a 100% reliable or definitive measurement. Under certain circumstances DISC and related terminology are protected or trademarked intellectual property, so if you have ideas to use any DISC theory or tools in connection with the commercial delivery of personality assessment or testing services it's wise to check whether you can do so freely or whether such use is governed by licensing conditions. DiSC® is a trademark of the US Inscape Publishing company. belbin® team rolesDr Meredith Belbin, UK academic and consultant developed the Belbin team roles model in the late 1970's. Belbin's work at Henley Management College demonstrated that balanced teams comprising people with different capabilities performed better than teams that are less well balanced. Belbin's key book 'Management Teams - Why They Succeed or Fail', was first published in 1981. According to Belbin publicity (Belbin founded Belbin Associates, who produce and provide psychometrics (personality and behavioural testing) instruments and other related services based on Belbin's theories) the Belbin Team Roles model is used by over 40% of the UK's top 100 companies, and thousands more internationally. N.B. The Belbin Team Role model and certain related teminology is © Belbin Associates - if in doubt about usage check with Belbin. The use of Belbin tests and training materials is subject to licence from Belbin. Meredith Belbin initially identified a set of eight roles, which, it is argued, are all present in a team provide good balance and increase likelihood of success. The eight roles were later increased to nine, with the addition of the 'Specialist' role. Presumably due to political correctness and changing attitudes in organisations, the names of certain roles have been altered in recent years. Below are the modern role names and brief descriptions, with notes of what they were previously called where appropriate. There are no 'good' or 'bad' roles. People are as they are, and all roles play important parts in successful teams. Belbin suggested that certain roles tend to be more extraverted (outgoing, proactive, outward-looking) while other roles tend to be more introverted (inward-looking, reactive). These days less emphasis is placed on whether a role was considered extravert or introvert, but for the record, the roles originally presented as extravert are indicated with an asterisk* within the roles listing and descriptions below: belbin team roles and descriptionsIt is not easy to correlate precisely the Belbin team roles to specific personality types in other personality models, although there are certain common elements, for example Extraverted and Introverted roles, which are colour coded appropriately below. There are also some useful correlations with the Big Five Factors model. This colour-coding does not form part of the original Belbin theory, it simply aims to assist comparisons with other models explained in this section.
* Belbin suggested these roles are more extravert than introvert. N.B. It does not follow that extraverted roles are always self-motivating. Neither does it follow that introverted roles need 'motivating' or instructing. The proactivity, direction, attitude and motivation of any roles, in a Belbin context (as for any other personality profiling system), depend on a wide variety of factors, including alignment of organisational and personal aims and values, personal circumstances, emotional maturity, life-stage, leadership influences, reward systems, and more. Greater understanding of these issues can be achieved by considering many different behavioural perspectives, theories and models. The simplest central point relating to motivation is that different people respond to different stimuli. Therefore the more we understand about ourselves and people, then the more we understand about what motivates us. People are more motivated and happy when they are performing and working in a way that is natural to them. Expecting a person with a particular personality type (be it represented by a Belbin team role, a Jung psychological type, a Myers Briggs MBTI, or whatever) to perform well and enthusiastically in a role that is foreign or alien to their natural preferences and strengths is not helpful for anyone. The UK DTI quality management guidance notes provides further some useful interpretation of the parts that these roles play in teams: 'belbin team roles' within teamsThe Co-ordinator clarifies group objectives, sets the agenda, establishes priorities, selects problems, sums up and is decisive, but does not dominate discussions. The Shaper gives shape to the team effort, looking for pattern in discussions and practical considerations regarding the feasibility of the project. Can steamroller the team, but gets results. The Plant is the source of original ideas, suggestions and proposals that are usually original and radical. The Monitor-Evaluator contributes a measured and dispassionate analysis and, through objectivity, stops the team committing itself to a misguided task. The Implementer turns decisions and strategies into defined and manageable tasks, sorting out objectives and pursuing them logically. The Resource Investigator goes outside the team to bring in ideas, information and developments to it. They are the team's sales-person, diplomat, liaison officer and explorer. The Team Worker operates against division and disruption in the team, like cement, particularly in times of stress and pressure. The Finisher maintains a permanent sense of urgency with relentless follow-through. All of these roles have value and are missed when not in a team; there are no stars or extras. An individual's team role can be determined by the completion of a Belbin questionnaire. It is not essential that teams comprise eight people each fulfilling one of the roles above, but that people who are aware and capable of carrying out these roles should be present. In small teams, people can, and do, assume more than one role. In addition, analysing existing teams and their performance or behaviour, using these team role concepts, can lead to improvements, for example:
Despite having well defined roles within a team, the interaction between the different personalities of individuals can be a frequent source of friction. However, this can largely be avoided by understanding and valuing people's differences. (The above notes about Belbin team roles within teams are UK DTI quality management guidance notes and are Crown Copyright.) the 'big five' factors personality model'The Big Five' is the commonly used term for the model of personality which describes the five fundamental factors of our personality. This summary and explanation has been provided by psychologist and psychometrics expert Paul Sinclair (see Paul's biography below), which is greatly appreciated. The Big Five 'super traits' have been researched and validated by many different psychologists (WT Norman 1963, McCrae & Costa 1987, Brand & Egan 1989, LR Goldman 1990 and P Sinclair 1992) and are at the core of many other personality questionnaires. While Raymond Cattell 'uncovered' 16 traits from his factor analysis (a statistical way of reducing a variety of things down to a smaller number of related clusters) in the development of the 16PF; no one else was able to replicate his work. On the other hand, the Big Five Factors have been replicated in studies across the world and give us a confident summary of our mental building blocks, according to trait theory. This had led to a number of slightly different 'translations' of the Big Five model, although each version essentially deals with the same theory and content. The words describing the characteristics change, but the basic characteristics do not. The 'translations' between the different interpretations are explained later. Trait theory, on which many of our occupational questionnaires are based (for example, Cattell's 16PF and Saville & Holdsworth's 'OPQ' Occupational Personality Questionnaire), states that by the time we are in our early 20's and start work, our personality traits become more stable and reliable. This does not necessarily mean we become more stable or reliable, but that our individual personality traits become more fixed and are thus capable of being reliably measured. For example, loud, confident, creative people tend to remain loud, confident and creative people throughout their careers. Quiet, unassuming, dependable people tend to remain so also. When the first Big Five questionnaire was launched the UK in 1990, people were surprised and a little sceptical about the speed of the personality profiler; it took under 10 minutes to complete. This was because it was only measuring five factors and not sixteen or thirty-two personality factors. Suffice it to say, validation studies were published and presented to the British Psychology Society by the end of the 1990's the Big Five was established as a significant and fundamental personality testing model. N.B. The pink colour in the tables is used for the Big Five terminology recommended by Paul Sinclair. Aside from this, colour is used (hopefully) to improve presentation only, and does not relate to other personality models on this webpage.
the big five model - five 'bipolar' scalesThe bold names in the left column are the recommended names (by Paul Sinclair) for these factors. Other names are used for each of the factors, which might equate to names in the left or right columns. See the OCEAN names below.
These scales are commonly alternatively represented by the OCEAN acronym and descriptions:
While some psychologists refer to the OCEAN terminology it's not particularly recommended for use where people are likely to be sensitive to the words, notably 'neuroticism'. Other words in the OCEAN scale can also be perceived as judgmental or stigmatised. And while 'Conscientiousness' is technically accurate, using this word tends to influence decision-makers (notably users of psychometric testing systems) towards the characteristic and those displaying it, not least because the other end of the scale would logically be called 'Unconscientious'; better instead to refer to the scale of 'Detail-conscious - Unstructured', which carries no sense of good or bad. It is generally more helpful to use the Big Five terms as detailed in the grid, which tend to present the scales as 'one or the other' rather than 'good or bad'. For the sake of reference however, here is the correlation between the OCEAN Big Five factor names and the more user-friendly names. See above for the precise description correlations.
You will find other variations of how people refer to the Big Five Factors. For example The Big Five according to McCrae & Costa (1987) is typically shown as:
The following tables show the typical behaviours within this model. Psychologists and psychometrics practitioners use the term 'Factor' to describe each of these five 'large traits' or scales. In turn, each of the Big Five Factors contains several behaviours, which are clustered under the five main Factor headings. Of course each main Factor can be further broken down into 'sub traits' or 'facets', for example, Extraversion could have sub-traits such as Sociable, Competitive, Energetic and Seeking Recognition. Each factor is named according to the 'high scoring' end of each scale. Low scores logically indicate behaviours at the opposite side of the scale. High scores are not good or bad. Low scores are not good or bad. The majority of us actually tend to score close to the middle (the 'norm'). The higher a person scores for the behavioural elements shown within each of the five factors, the more (logically) they will exhibit these behaviours, and be less able to sustain the tendencies of the low scorer. And vice versa. Again, there is no good or bad. It's simply a measure of what we are the big five factors including behavioural elementsOther commonly used factor names (notably OCEAN) for the Big Five Factors are shown in Green.
the combinations of factors define the personality - not single scalesWhen using this model, as with many other personality concepts, it is the combination of scores from all of the scales that shows us how people operate and identifies their underlying preferences. Looking at a single scale in isolation tells us hardly anything, and can be very misleading. For example: Although a creative (non-conformist) has the intellectual ability to be creative, if their non-conformity is combined with introversion and low confidence, they may not express their creative thoughts and ideas. A creative (non-conformist) who is also extravert, confident and unstructured (low detail-conscious), will not only express their ideas but may also propose quite impractical suggestions. usage of the big five factor modelThe Big Five is a very useful model for assessing non-managerial staff, but it lacks some of the rigour required for assessing people in or destined for managerial and executive roles. The Big Five model gives us an accurate and fast way of assessing the main drivers of someone's personality. But the model by itself is not able to drill down into complex management capabilities or competencies. For this we must refer more to work-related behaviours rather than 'pure' personality. Management performance depends more on the subtle use of discretionary elements of the job, which the Big Five will not measure. The Big Five is a 'broad brush' personality methodology. A different approach is required for management assessment, to gauge the 'components' of people's behaviour and the detailed combinations of working style. The 'PRISM' model (about which more will be published soon on this page) and similar systems are more appropriate for measuring management style and potential than the Big Five. Each of the Big Five factors consists of 'sub-traits', for example, 'Agreeable' (at the opposite end of the 'Tough-minded' scale) consists of sub-traits (behavioural elements) such as 'Tactful', 'Diplomatic', 'Team-centred', 'Submissive', 'Warm', 'Friendly','Tolerant' and 'Democratic'. In typical use of the Big Five model and tests, a person's score on the 'Agreeable' scale will be an average of how they match the sub-traits. Showing the detail and variance of the sub-traits scores would entail a vastly more complex and time-consuming analysis. The strengths of the Big Five Factor model lie in its speed and ease of use and this makes it a very useful tool for gaining a rapid overview of a person's key drivers. The Big Five Factor model has been very well validated, and while it has shown correlations with performance in jobs, studies indicate that the correlation with particular jobs does not exceed 0.30, which accounts for no more than 15% of the variables. There is a big difference between measuring job suitability, style, etc., and measuring personality per se. The Big Five model is a modern, widely replicated and validated methodology for understanding, explaining and measuring personality. Various Big Five tests have been developed. The first to be launched in the UK, and one of the most popular, is the RPQ (Rapid Personality Questionnaire), which is available from various suppliers. Here is a free Big Five mini-test (5 mins max) on the excellent website of Professor George Boeree (pronounced boo-RAY). This test gives a very quick Big Five profile and is more for understanding the model thank for serious personality assessment, although as a quick simple guide it works well. Bear in mind that the Big Five factor headings Professor Boeree's mini-test vary slightly compared to factor names mentioned above, and correlate as follows (precise correlations in bold). Aside from 'Stability' Boeree uses the OCEAN headings:
the big five - some notable combinationsThe 'personality-based sub-types' in column one are broad generic profiles and do not relate to any particular model's definitions. Be careful not to read too much into these single-word descriptions - they provide a rough guide, not a detailed scientific correlation.
'the big five' correlations with other personality modelsHere are correlations between the Big Five factors and respectively the models of 16PF, OPQ and the Belbin 'team role' types. Below first are the Big Five correlations with Cattell's 16PF model. Understanding these correlations is aided by knowing the 16PF scale definitions. As ever, single word descriptions are open to different interpretations, hence inclusion of the 16PF letter codes. An explanation of the 16PF model will appear on this page in due course. The word 'negatively' below means that the correlation is with the opposite end of the Big Five scale concerned, for example, below, the 16PF description 'Shrewd' correlates to the opposite of the Big Five 'Extraversion', ie., 'Introversion' big five and 16pf
the big five and opq (occupational personality questionnaire)Below are the Big Five correlations with the OPQ model (Occupational Personality Questionnaire). Understanding these correlations is aided by knowing the OPQ scale definitions. As ever, single word descriptions are open to different interpretations, hence inclusion of the OPQ letter codes. Again, an explanation of the OPQ model will appear on this page in due course. And again, the word 'negatively' signifies that the correlation is to the opposite end of the Big Five factor concerned, eg., OPQ description 'Modest' correlates to the opposite of the Big Five 'Extraversion', ie., 'Introversion'.
the big five and belbin 'team role' typesBelow are the Big Five correlations with the Belbin team role types. Given the overlap of Big Five factors across the Belbin team role types, the correlations are shown between the Belbin types and the corresponding dominant Big Five factors. See the Belbin section above.
paul sinclair biographyPaul Sinclair is the founder and managing partner of Sinclair Associates and has spent fifteen years at the leading edge of psychological profiling and performance development. He works with companies to assess individual and team potential and develops plans to improve personal competencies. Paul co-launched the UK's first 'Big Five' personality profiler in 1990 and published a paper on 'Personality and Performance' in the British Psychological Society's journal - Selection and Development Review, and also presented a validation of the Big Five against the OPQ and the 16PF, at the BPS conference in 1992. Paul has been interviewed on BBC Radio 4 and consulted on the BBC2 TV series, 'Mind of the Millionaire'. Paul now focuses on business coaching and team building. A member of the European Mentoring & Coaching Council, Paul is based near Bath and works across the UK & Europe. Paul's website is: www.assess2perform.com and his email is paul@assess2perform.com Paul's contribution of this explanation of the Big Five Factor model is gratefully acknowledged. firo-b®Firo-B stands for Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behaviour. Developed by William Schutz in 1958, Schutz first used the Firo-B tool to assess how teams performed in the US Navy. The Firo-B is an assessment tool used to help individuals and teams better understand their preferences in satisfying three basic social needs:
For each of these factors, Firo-B assesses individuals as to:
In this respect, Firo-B is measuring the three aspects of Inclusion, Control and Affection, from two 'needs perspectives' of expressing (outwardly directed behaviour towards others) and wanting (behaviour from others directed towards oneself). The overall 'scores' from the assessment also reveal the degree to which people attain satisfaction from their interactions with others versus time spent alone. The Firo-B assessment data is particularly rich in enabling understanding individual and team behaviour. As with many other personality assessments, there are no 'right or wrong', nor 'good or bad' profiles. By reviewing the assessment information, an individual can gain insight into what kind of teams they prefer to work in, what kind of environment they'd like to work in, and what roles they prefer in the workplace. The Firo-B model and assessment tool can also provide information regarding leadership styles and areas of potential conflict. If teams take the assessment together, they can compare the extent to which each person's preferences complement or conflict with colleagues. For example, a team member wanting a high degree of inclusion would appreciate and respond well to a manager who invites him/her to various meetings. A team member with a high degree of expressed affection is likely to work well with a colleague who seeks affection and attention. The Firo-B system is a simple and elegant model that particularly assists understanding of team dynamics, greater self-awareness, mutual awareness among team-members (which relates helpfully to the Johari Window model), and team leadership development. My acknowledgements to Barbara Heyn for these introductory notes about the Firo-B assessment. Barbara runs Atticus Consulting LLC in Blue Ash, Ohio, and specialises in developing teams, leadership and organisations. Firo-B is a trademark of the CPP organisation (Consulting Psychologists Press), who, according to them, are exclusive publishers of the Firo-B system. other personality theories and psychometrics tests modelsReview and explanation of additional personality types theories and psychometrics tests models will be added to this section in due course. If you have suggestions, or if you are a principal provider of personality testing services, psychometrics tests or personality and behavioural assessment instruments, and wish to contribute some helpful explanatory theory please get in touch. cattell's 16PFHere's a very brief summary. Raymond B Cattell (1905-1998) developed his 16PF in the 1940's. Most sources indicate an original publication date of 1949, so it's been around for a while, and has gone through at least five edition revisions, which probably explains the strange letter coding sequence. The PF stands for 'Personality Factors', and there are sixteen of them, hence 16PF. The 16PF is one of the longest-standing and most widely used personality testing systems of all. Belbin used the Cattell 16PF model in constructing his 'Belbin Team Roles' theory, model and testing instruments. Cattell's theory asserts that every person possesses a degree of each of the following sixteen traits. Note that these traits include scale descriptions (not shown here) and terminology can vary; hence the code letters are helpful references. Cattell's 16PF personality testing instruments are available from various providers.
The Cattell systems also include an interpretation of the 'Big Five' factors, which the Cattell organisation refers to as 'Five Global' factors (and which mostly use different descriptive factors names). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||