A personality type test sorts your preferences into one of 16 types, and used well it gives a team a shared, non-judgemental language for the ways people differ. This guide walks through what completing one involves, how type compares with other personality test types, and where its limits lie for decisions about jobs.

What completing a personality type test involves

Most type questionnaires build on Carl Jung's idea that we each have preferences: where we direct our energy, how we take in information, how we reach decisions and how we organise the world around us. Each preference is a choice between two poles, and the four choices combine into 16 personality types.

Viewpoint's Type Dimensions Profiler (TDP), our Jungian 16-type questionnaire, is registered with the British Psychological Society. It has 60 items. Each one gives the start of a statement and two possible endings, and you pick the ending that describes you better. There is no time limit, and there are no right or wrong answers, only a more or less accurate picture of how you prefer to work.

A worked example shows how the results are best handled. Priya, a newly promoted team leader, completes a type questionnaire before a development workshop. Her profile shows clear preferences on two dimensions and only slight preferences on the other two. In feedback, the slight preferences are treated as provisional: Priya reads the descriptions of both poles and decides which fits her better. Where she is unsure, the practitioner encourages her to notice over the next few weeks which approach she reaches for when under pressure. The type she ends up with is one she has checked and owns, not one handed to her.

Personality test types: type, trait and situational measures

When people search for personality test types they usually meet three families. Type instruments place you in a category. Trait questionnaires, such as the Big Five family, place you on continuous scales, so two people can both be "extraverted" yet differ in how strongly. Situational judgement tests are not personality tests at all; they ask how you would handle work scenarios, and they are covered in our situational judgement tests range.

The two personality families are closely linked. McCrae and Costa found that the scales of a widely used type indicator corresponded to four of the five dimensions in the five-factor model, and behaved like continuous traits rather than separate types [1]. That cuts both ways. It means type preferences connect to well-researched dimensions of personality. It also means the dividing line between two neighbouring types is somewhat arbitrary for anyone who scores near the middle, which is exactly why Priya's slight preferences deserved a second look.

BPS registration is worth understanding too. The Society reviews tests that publishers submit against the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations review model, looking at documentation, materials, reliability, validity and the information needed to interpret scores [3]. Registration tells you a test meets a technical standard; you still need to decide whether it suits your purpose.

The 16 personality types at work: where type adds value

Type comes into its own when the aim is understanding rather than ranking. Consider a six-person project team that keeps clashing in meetings. After everyone completes a type questionnaire, the facilitator maps the team's preferences on a flipchart. Two members prefer to think things through before speaking; three prefer to talk ideas out loud. Nobody is wrong, but the quieter pair have been leaving meetings feeling overlooked. The team agrees to circulate agendas a day in advance and to end discussions with a short pause for written comments. The change is small, practical and grounded in a shared vocabulary.

The same logic applies to coaching, career conversations, leadership programmes and resolving friction between colleagues. Because no type is better than another, people tend to engage with the feedback rather than defend against it.

Why trait questionnaires carry more weight for selection

Selection is a different job. To compare applicants, you need to know not just which side of a line someone falls but how far. Judge and colleagues' meta-analysis of 410 independent samples found that conscientiousness was the strongest of the five broad traits in predicting overall job performance, and that narrower facets added useful detail [2]. That kind of evidence comes from continuous trait scores.

For decisions about hiring or promotion, a trait measure such as the Talent Dimensions Survey, a BPS-registered personality questionnaire, is the better fit. Its results are best read in bands from Very Low to Very High and weighed alongside interview and work-sample evidence, never as a pass or fail. A type questionnaire can then support onboarding and development once the person is in post, which is where the TDP's 16-type feedback does its best work.

Frequently asked questions

Is one personality type better suited to management?

No. Every type can lead well, and each tends to bring different strengths and blind spots. Type describes preference, not ability, so it should never be used to screen people in or out of a role.

Can my personality type change?

Clear preferences tend to be stable, but how you express them shifts with experience and context. If your preferences are slight, retaking a questionnaire may give a different type, which is a reason to verify your result in feedback.

Should an employer use a type test to shortlist candidates?

We would not recommend it. For selection, a trait questionnaire interpreted in score bands alongside other evidence is better supported by research.

How long does the Type Dimensions Profiler take?

It is untimed. You work through 60 items at your own pace, choosing the ending that fits you better for each statement.

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. Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S. & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875–925.
3. British Psychological Society. About BPS test reviews and registration. bps.org.uk.