Personality questionnaires come in two broad families: type tools, which sort people into categories such as the 16 personality types, and trait tools, which measure how much of each characteristic a person shows. Both are useful, but for different jobs. This article explains the difference, looks at the debate about using type tools in recruitment, and sets out how Viewpoint uses each.

Two ways of describing personality

Type questionnaires are based on Jung's theory of psychological types. They describe preferences, such as whether someone draws energy from the outside world or from their inner world, and combine them into a type, often shown as a four-letter code. Types are memorable, easy to discuss and focus on what people bring rather than what they lack.

Trait questionnaires, most of them built on the Big Five model, place people on continuous scales, such as how organised, sociable or emotionally steady they tend to be. They capture how strongly a characteristic is shown, which makes them precise and easy to compare between people.

The two are related. McCrae and Costa found that the four type preferences correspond closely to four of the Big Five traits [1]. The difference lies mainly in whether results are treated as categories or as points on a scale.

The debate about type tools in hiring

Type questionnaires are often criticised when used for recruitment. Critics point out that sorting people into categories loses information about how strong a preference is, that people near the middle of a scale may come out as a different type on another occasion, and that type has not been shown to predict job performance in the way that some traits have [2]. The organisation behind the best-known type questionnaire itself advises against using it for hiring.

The criticism is fair when type tools are used for something they were not designed to do. It is much less relevant when they are used for what they do well: helping people understand themselves and work better with others.

Where each works best

For selection, trait questionnaires are the stronger choice. Research links traits such as conscientiousness to performance across many jobs [3], and trait scores can be compared directly between candidates and against what a role needs. Viewpoint's Talent Dimensions (TDS) and Development Dimensions (DDS) questionnaires are trait measures designed for recruitment as well as development.

For development, type tools come into their own. They give people a positive, accessible language for their preferences, which makes them well suited to coaching, team building, communication and change. Viewpoint's Type Dimensions Profiler (TDP) is a Jungian type instrument designed for this purpose, with reports for coaching, teams, leadership, communication and more. It is for development and coaching, not selection.

Using type tools responsibly

• Use type for development, coaching and teams, not to decide who gets a job or a role.

• Present types as preferences, not limits: everyone uses all the functions, and behaviour can be developed.

• Pay attention to how clear each preference is, rather than treating every result as fixed.

• Let people check their results against their own experience in a feedback conversation.

See our article on personality types at work, our guide to personality questionnaires in recruitment, or our article on selecting for strengths and risks.

Frequently asked questions

Can a type questionnaire be used for recruitment?

We don't recommend it. For selection, use a trait questionnaire such as Talent Dimensions, and use type tools for development.

Is type less scientific than trait?

Type and trait measure related things in different ways. Trait scales are more precise for comparing people; type is often more useful for self-understanding and teamwork.

What is the TDP used for?

Development, coaching, teams and leadership, not selection.

Can someone's type change?

Underlying preferences tend to be stable, but people near the middle of a scale may come out differently on different occasions, and everyone can develop their less preferred styles.

References

1. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40.
2. Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221.
3. Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.