HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

FROM THE BIRKMAN METHOD PERSPECTIVE

Frank R. Larkey & Jennifer L. Knight, 2002

Given the dynamic movement of human capital within and between

organizations, many employees and managers find themselves confronted with a
growing cultural-language problem. This cultural-language problem does not come
under the usual rubrics of ethnic, nationalistic, gender, or social differences. Rather, the
language problem concerns personality and trait assessment. With the increased
popularity of using personality-related instruments in many phases of organizational
processes, current workers are required to be multilingual in that they often must switch
the terminology they use in team building, leadership training, and succession planning
as they move from one company (and consequently one method of personality
assessment) to the next. In fact, it is not unusual for a manager to learn Birkmanese
(The Birkman Method) in one organization and then need to understand and use
Typology (MBTI) or Big Five Factorese (NEO-PI-R) in a separate division or plant.
Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to compare and contrast Birkman
constructs with MBTI constructs to facilitate multilingual understanding of the two
instruments. In order to verbally associate the language of the Birkman to the MBTI,
the current study focused on one central research question: To what degree do Birkman
components and scales relate to MBTI types? That is, if we know a persons Birkman
scores, can we correctly classify them into their MBTI preferences (and vice versa)?
Though the intended audience is current Birkman users, the information will no doubt be
helpful to MBTI users who must transition to using the Birkman.
This white paper will use data from validity research comparing the Birkman with
the MBTI but will present the information in a format accessible and comprehensible to
consultants who are not formally trained in statistics. As such, the discussion will be
organized in a user-friendly format. Furthermore, the research design will follow the
recommendation of the MBTI manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenck, & Hammer, 1998) in
order to assure compliance with MBTI research recommendations. For those who are
interested in learning about the types of analyses conducted and the quantitative results
of this study, a more empirical research paper is also available (Knight & Larkey, 2002).
METHOD
Participants
In order to statistically compare the Birkman and the MBTI, a fairly large group
(100 to 200) of participants must take both assessments. Typically, the results for the
group being studied are first compared to a larger database in order to ensure that the
traits of the sample mirror the traits of the general population. This paper was based on
a sample of 175 people who took both the Birkman and the MBTI. As is often the case
with research in organizations, certain sensitive demographic information such as race,
gender, and age was only partially collected and, therefore, not included in these
analyses.

Descriptive Analyses
The first step of the research involved comparing the current samples with the
norms of both the Birkman and the MBTI. Both groups favorably reflected the normal
descriptive data reported for the two instruments. As seen below in Tables 1 and 2, the
distribution of MBTI types in the current sample closely approximated the distribution in
the national sample. For example, in the current sample ESTJs comprised 9.7% of the
sample, whereas in the national sample ESTJs composed 8.7% of the sample. Table 3
reveals that our sample most closely matched the national sample on the INFP type
(0.2% difference) and was least closely matched on the ENFP type (7.8% difference).
Table 1
Distribution and Frequencies of MBTI Types in the Current Sample (N = 175)
ISTJ
23 (13.1%)
ISTP
1 (0.6%)
ESTP
5 (2.9%)
ESTJ
17 (9.7%)

ISFJ
13 (7.4%)
ISFP
5 (2.9%)
ESFP
6 (3.4%)
ESFJ
10 (5.7%)

INFJ
14 (8.0%)
INFP
8 (4.6%)
ENFP
18 (10.3%)
ENFJ
10 (5.7%)

INTJ
8 (4.6%)
INTP
8 (4.6%)
ENTP
15 (8.6%)
ENTJ
16 (9.1%)

Table 2
Distribution and Frequencies of MBTI Types in the National Sample (N = 3,009)
ISTJ
348 (11.6%)
ISTP
162 (5.4%)
ESTP
129 (4.3%)
ESTJ
261 (8.7%)

ISFJ
416 (13.8%)
ISFP
152 (8.8%)
ESFP
256 (8.5%)
ESFJ
370 (12.3%)

INFJ
44 (1.5%)
INFP
132 (4.4%)
ENFP
243 (18.1%)
ENFJ
74 (2.5%)

INTJ
62 (2.1%)
INTP
98 (3.3%)
ENTP
96 (3.2%)
ENTJ
54 (1.8%)

Table 3
Difference in Distributions
ISTJ
+1.5%
ISTP
-4.8%
ESTP
-1.4%
ESTJ
+1.0%

ISFJ
-6.4%
ISFP
-5.9%
ESFP
-5.1%
ESFJ
-6.6

INFJ
+6.5%
INFP
+0.2%
ENFP
-7.8%
ENFJ
+3.2%

INTJ
+2.5%
INTP
+1.3%
ENTP
+5.4%
ENTJ
-7.3%

Furthermore, Figures 1 and 2 illustrate that the Birkman scores were equivalent
across the current and the normative sample. For example, the Authority Usual means

(M = 47.34 and M = 51.79) and Authority Need means (M = 57.65 and M = 65.75) were
similar in both samples.

Figure 1
Comparison of Birkman Usual Scores in the Current Sample (N =
175) and the National Sample (N = 379,237)
100
90
80
70
60

Current Sample

50

National Sample

40
30
20
10
0

Figure 2
Comparison of Birkman Need Scores in the Current Sample (N =
175) and the National Sample (N = 379,237)
100
90
80
70
60

Current Sample

50

National Sample

40
30
20
10
0

Relational Analyses
For the second step, regression analyses1 were conducted to assess the
relationships between the Birkman and the MBTI components. The diagrams in Figures
2-12 illustrate which of the Birkman usual and needs components are related to the four
specific MBTI components. The thickness of the line is in direct proportion to the
strength of the relationship between the components. That is, the more highly related
the two components are, the thicker the line between them. Furthermore, the valence of
the sign (i.e., a plus or minus) next to each line indicates the direction of the
relationship. For the four MBTI component continuums, the scores were coded such
that the E, S, T, and J poles represent the higher (positive) end of the continuum
whereas the I, N, F, P poles represent the lower (negative) end, as suggested by the
MBTI manual (Myers, et al., 1998). For example, as seen on the following page, a
positive relationship between the Birkman Acceptance Usual component and the MBTI
Extraversion/Introversion component would indicate that the higher ones Acceptance
Usual score, the higher his or her corresponding MBTI Extraversion score. Although the
MBTI score calculations are designed not as scales for measurement of traits or
behaviors but rather as indicators of preference for one pole of a dichotomy or its
opposite (Myers, McCaulley, Quenck, & Hammer, 1998; p.7), validity MBTI researchers
commonly treat MBTI continuous scores as scales to compare with scales of other
instruments. However, in keeping in line with the MBTI research recommendations,
additional discriminant analyses were also conducted using the MBTI scores as
dichotomous and not continuous scores.
Classification Analyses
As such, a separate set of analyses was conducted to determine the extent to
which scores on the Birkman usual and needs components could accurately predict
which MBTI type a person would be. The discriminant analyses2 revealed that the
Birkman Usual components, the Interest scales, and the Organizational Strength scales
were effective in correctly classifying people on the Extraversion/Introversion type
(80.0% accuracy rate), the Sensing/Intuition type (78.8% accuracy rate), the
Thinking/Feeling type (73.8% accuracy rate), and the Judging/Perceiving type (76.3%
accuracy rate).
RESULTS
The analyses clearly demonstrate the strong relationship between MBTI types
and a subset of Birkman components. The following section discusses the conceptual
rationales for why certain Birkman and MBTI scores are related to one another as well
as the predictive strength of the Birkman Method to classify individuals into the
different Myers-Briggs types.
Birkman Usual Scores Relationships
Many of the Birkman usual scores were highly related to the Myers-Briggs types,
as seen in the following four sub-sections.
1

A multiple regression assesses the degree to which a set of continuous variables (e.g., the Birkman Usual
components) can predict scores on one continuous variable (e.g., the MBTI Extraversion raw score).
2
A discriminant analysis assesses the degree to which a set of continuous variables (e.g., the Birkman Usual
components) can accurately predict membership in a dichotomous group (e.g., the MBTI E/I type).

Extraversion/Introversion. Extraversion is defined as directing energy mainly toward the

outer world of people and objects and Introversion as directing energy mainly toward the inner world
of experiences and ideas (Myers, et. al., 1998, p. 6). Intuitively, one would predict that a person who
is sociable, likes groups, talkative, and enjoys others (a high score on Acceptance Usual) and who
also is open to opportunity and new experiences (a low score on Structure Usual) would be a person
whose preference would be in directing energy towards the outer world of direct interactions with
individuals and especially with groups. Notably, these Birkman scores account primarily for the social
characteristics associated with Extraversion/Introversion. However, as demonstrated in other
comparison research (Myers, et. al., 1998) the MBTI E/I preference also is related to less socially
driven constructs, such as self-reliance, dominance, and rule consciousness (16PF concepts). The
analysis did reveal a weak relationship between Extraversion and a low Freedom Usual
(conventionality) score but not Authority Usual (dominance) or Advantage Usual (incentive-driven). As
expected, Acceptance Usual and Structure Usual were quite accurate (78.9% accuracy rate) at
classifying people into their respective E/I type, as seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3
The Relationships Between the Birkman Usual Components and
the MBTI Extraversion/Introversion Component

Advantage Usual

Thought Usual

Esteem Usual

Freedom Usual

Structure Usual

(-)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Change Usual

Challenge Usual

Acceptance Usual

Empathy Usual

Authority Usual

Activity Usual

(+)

Sensing/
Intuition

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a high Acceptance Usual (relating to people in groups) score and a
low Structure Usual (systems and procedures) score will likely have a high MBTI Extraversion
(focused on people and the outer world) score.

Sensing/Intuition. The MBTI describes Sensing as focusing mainly on what can be

perceived by the five senses, whereas Intuition is seen as focusing mainly on perceiving patterns
and interrelations (Myers, et al., 1998, p. 6). Our analyses revealed that a person with a high
Structure Usual score, a high Advantage Usual score, and a high Thought Usual score would typically
have a preference for Sensing. This is an intuitive finding as well, since it follows that someone who is
orderly and attentive to detail, motivated by physical incentives, and takes time to thoroughly examine
issues would naturally be attuned to definitive, tangible information from the senses and not more
abstract interrelations among people and events. The relationships between the Structure Usual,
Advantage Usual, Thought Usual, and the Sensing/Intuition preference are illustrated in Figure 4.
Although less accurate than the previous type, these three Birkman components still had a relatively
high accuracy rate (61.7% correct).
Figure 4
The Relationships Between the Birkman Usual Components and
the MBTI Sensing/Intuition Component
Advantage Usual

Thought Usual

Esteem Usual

Change Usual

Freedom Usual

Structure Usual

(+)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Challenge Usual

Acceptance Usual

(+)

Empathy Usual

Authority Usual

Activity Usual

(+)

Sensing/
Intuition

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a high Structure Usual (systems and procedures) score, a high
Advantage Usual (idealism versus realism) score, and a high Thought Usual (active versus
reflective orientation) score will likely have a high MBTI Sensing (focused on sensory information)
score.

Thinking/Feeling. Thinking is classified in Myers-Briggs typology as basing conclusions on

logical analysis with a focus on objectivity and detachment and Feeling is viewed as basing
conclusions on personal or social values with a focus on understanding and harmony. Someone who
scores high on Structure Usual is likely to prefer Thinking to Feeling. Logically, people who are
attuned to order, detail, and facts would naturally be inclined to value objectivity rather than
subjectivity in their judging processes. Figure 5 shows the relationships between the Structure Usual
Birkman component and the Thinking/Feeling MBTI type. As would be expected, the accuracy rate
was relatively high for this component (57.1% correct).
Figure 5
The Relationships Between the Birkman Usual Components and
the MBTI Thinking/Feeling Component
Advantage Usual

Thought Usual

Esteem Usual

Change Usual

Freedom Usual

Structure Usual

Challenge Usual

Acceptance Usual

Empathy Usual

Authority Usual

Activity Usual

(+)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Sensing/
Intuition

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a high Structure Usual (systems and procedures) score will likely
have a high MBTI Thinking (focused on logic and objectivity) score.

Judging/Perceiving. Finally, the MBTI defines Judging as preferring the decisiveness and
closure that result from dealing with the outer world, whereas Perceiving is preferring the flexibility
and spontaneity that results from dealing with the outer world. Our finding that high Structure Usual
scores and low Acceptance Usual scores are typically associated with a judging orientation is a
rational and commonsense one. Specifically, it follows that someone who insists on order, execution,
and systems and who is less concerned with interpersonal relationships would also prefer the
decisiveness and certainty needed to manage systems and not the flexibility and adaptability needed
to work with people. In sum, Figure 6 displays the relationships between the Birkman Structure Usual,
the Acceptance Usual, and the MBTI Judging/Perceiving preference. As would be predicted, these
two Birkman components did a good job (73.1% accuracy rate) at classifying people with regards to
their Judging/Perceiving type.
Figure 6
The Relationships Between the Birkman Usual Components and
the MBTI Judging/Perceiving Component
Advantage Usual

Thought Usual

Esteem Usual

Change Usual

Freedom Usual

Structure Usual

Challenge Usual

Acceptance Usual

Authority Usual

(+)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Sensing/
Intuition

Empathy Usual

Activity Usual

(-)

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a high Structure Usual (systems and procedures) score and a low
Acceptance Usual (relating to people in groups) score will likely have a high MBTI Judging (focused
on decisiveness and closure) score.

Figure 7
The Relationships Between the Birkman Usual Components and the MBTI Components

Advantage Usual

Thought Usual

Esteem Usual

Freedom Usual

Structure Usual

Extraversion/
Introversion

Change Usual

Challenge Usual

Acceptance Usual

Sensing/
Intuition

Empathy Usual

Authority Usual

Thinking/
Feeling

Activity Usual

Judging/
Perceiving

Birkman Usual Components Summary: Figure 7 above is a composite illustrating the interrelationships between all of the Birkman Usual components and the four MBTI types. Birkman scales
that do not predict any of the MBTI preferences are shaded with a darker tone.
Birkman Need Scores Relationships
The Birkman Needs scores were not as directly related to the Myers-Briggs types as the Usual
scores because the MBTI does not intend or purport to measure a persons needs and stress
behavior. Although four Need components were related to MBTI scores, the relationships were
relatively weak, and results should be considered speculative. These relationships are discussed in
greater detail on the following pages.

Extraversion/Introversion. The current analyses revealed that the Birkman Esteem Need
score was negatively related to the MBTI Extraversion type. This finding seems logical, as a person
who needs direct, straightforward communication in one-on-one situations would also prefer to direct
energy toward the outer world of people and interactions. This relationship between Esteem Need
and the MBTI Extraversion/Introversion type is depicted in Figure 8.
Figure 8
The Relationships Between the Birkman Needs Components and
the MBTI Extraversion/Introversion Component
Advantage Need

Thought Need

Esteem Need

Change Need

Freedom Need

Structure Need

Challenge Need

Acceptance Need

Empathy Need

Authority Need

Activity Need

(-)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Sensing/
Intuition

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a low Esteem Need (sensitivity in relating to individuals) score will
likely have a high MBTI Extraversion (focused on people and the outer world) score.

10

Sensing/Intuition. The next finding revealed that people scoring high on the Birkman
Structure Need score should have a high MBTI Sensing score. This is a less intuitive result, but in
retrospect it makes sense that a person who has a need for detailed rules and systems would prefer
an environment in which he or she would always have the opportunity and encouragement to gather
and absorb detailed sense information. The relationship between the Birkman Structure Need and the
MBTI Sensing/Intuition type is shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9
The Relationships Between the Birkman Needs Components and
the MBTI Sensing/Intuition Component
Advantage Need

Thought Need

Esteem Need

Change Need

Freedom Need

Structure Need

Challenge Need

Acceptance Need

Empathy Need

Authority Need

Activity Need

(+)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Sensing/
Intuition

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a high Structure Need (systems and procedures) score will likely
have a high MBTI Sensing (focused on sensory information) score.

11

Thinking/Feeling. Further analyses showed that a high score on the Birkman Empathy Need
scale was positively related to high scores on the MBTI Thinking type. This is a counterintuitive
finding in that we would expect someone who has a need to involve feeling in decision making would
be someone who bases his or her decisions on understanding and harmony needs. Figure 10
illustrates the relationship between the Empathy Need component and the Thinking/Feeling
preference.
Figure 10
The Relationships Between the Birkman Needs Components and
the MBTI Thinking/Feeling Component
Advantage Need

Thought Need

Esteem Need

Change Need

Freedom Need

Structure Need

Challenge Need

Acceptance Need

Empathy Need

Authority Need

Activity Need

(+)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Sensing/
Intuition

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a high Empathy Need (involvement of feeling) score will likely have
a high MBTI Thinking (focused on logic and objectivity) score.

12

Judging/Perceiving. The final analysis revealed that someone who has a high Birkman
Structure Need score is likely to prefer the MBTI judging type. As might be expected, a person with a
need for definite rules and procedures should most likely also favor decisiveness and closure as
opposed to flexibility and spontaneity. Figure 11 illustrates the relationship between the Structure
Need component and the Judging/Perceiving type.
Figure 11
The Relationships Between the Birkman Needs Components and
the MBTI Judging/Perceiving Component
Advantage Need

Thought Need

Esteem Need

Change Need

Freedom Need

Structure Need

Challenge Need

Acceptance Need

Empathy Need

Authority Need

Activity Need

(+)

Extraversion/
Introversion

Sensing/
Intuition

Thinking/
Feeling

Judging/
Perceiving

Summary: A person with a high Structure Need (systems and procedures) score will likely
have a high MBTI Judging (focused on decisiveness and closure) score.

13

Figure 12
The Relationships Between the Birkman Needs Components and the MBTI Components
Advantage Need

Thought Need

Esteem Need

Change Need

Freedom Need

Structure Need

Extraversion/
Introversion

Challenge Need

Acceptance Need

Sensing/
Intuition

Empathy Need

Authority Need

Thinking/
Feeling

Activity Need

Judging/
Perceiving

Birkman Usual Components Summary: Figure 12 above is a composite illustrating the interrelationships between all of the Birkman Need components and the four MBTI types. Birkman scales
that do not predict any of the MBTI preferences are shaded with a darker tone.

14

Classification Analyses
Although the Birkman usual components were able to accurately classify people
into their four MBTI components fairly well, additional analyses were also conducted to
determine if and to what extent the other Birkman scales (i.e., Areas of Interest and
Organizational Strengths scores) could improve classification.
Extraversion/Introversion. Because the accuracy rate was already high for this
MBTI type, classification was only slightly improved from 78.9% to 80.0% by using the
additional scales. As can be seen in Table 4, the Birkman profiles of the MBTI
Extroverts and Introverts are quite different, with Extroverts scoring higher on the
Persuasive Interest scale, the Social Adaptability Organizational Strengths (OS) scale,
the Social Service OS scale, the Sales OS scale, the Consultative Sales OS scale, the
Self Development OS scale, the Conceptual OS scale, the Concrete OS scale, and the
Acceptance Usual component, and Introverts scoring higher on the
Office/Administration OS scale and the Artistic OS component. These Birkman
components clearly map onto the MBTI Extroversion/Introversion type in distinguishing
between those who are interested in the outer world of people and objects and those
who are more interested in the inner world of experiences and ideas.
Table 4
Comparison of Birkman scale means for the Introversion and Extraversion Types
Acceptance Usual
Social Services
Social Adaptability
Sales
Office/Admin.
Persuasive Interest
Consultative Sales
Artistic
Self Development
Conceptual
Concrete

Extraversion
84.11
60.83
71.16
57.24
61.71
49.59
58.09
55.59
74.23
58.28
44.94

Introversion
50.14
45.64
55.74
44.04
72.29
35.41
44.26
68.53
62.29
72.71
32.60

Summary: In general, people who are the Extraversion preference have higher
scores on scales related to the Red and Green quadrants and people who are the
Introversion preference have higher scores on scales related to the Blue and Yellow
quadrants.

15

Sensing/Intuition. Using other Birkman scales dramatically improved the

accuracy rate from 61.7% to 78.8% for the Sensing/Intuition MBTI type. As depicted in
Table 5, people who use Sensing in perception score higher on the Birkman Fiscal
Organizational Strengths (OS) scale, the Enforcement OS scale, the Clerical Interest
scale, the Office/Administration OS scale, and the Structure Usual component, whereas
people who use Intuition in perception score higher on the Sales OS scale, the Social
Services OS scale, the Social Adaptability OS scale, the Artistic Interest scale, the
Literary Interest scale, the Musical interest scale, and the Self Development OS scale.
These specific Birkman scales also intuitively delineate those people who prefer to work
with tangible facts and information from those who prefer to work with interrelationships
among people and theories.
Table 5
Comparison of Birkman scale means for the Sensing and Intuition Types
Sensing
Intuition
56.49
Structure (Usual)
68.56
Sales
44.19
56.97
Social Services
47.60
59.06
31.41
Fiscal
45.42
49.66
Enforcement
67.81
Self Development
61.57
74.68
36.69
Clerical Interest
61.13
Social Adaptability
56.44
70.41
43.43
Numerical Interest
64.63
Artistic Interest
53.71
67.86
Literary Interest
43.35
71.40
Musical Interest
51.86
70.82
Summary: In general, people who are the Sensing preference have higher
scores on scales related to the Yellow and Red quadrants and people who are the
Intuition preference have higher scores on scales related to the Green and Blue
quadrants.

16

Thinking/Feeling. As above, the inclusion of additional Birkman scales

considerably increased the accuracy rate of the Thinking/Feeling MBTI type from 57.1%
to 73.8%. Table 6 illustrates that those who use Thinking in making judgments score
higher on the Directive Management Organizational Strength (OS) scale, the Production
OS scale, the Enforcement OS scale, the Engineering OS scale, the Delegative
Management OS Scale, the Mechanical Interest scale, and the Outdoor Interest scale,
and those who use Feeling in making judgments score higher on the Corporate
Adaptability scale, the Arts OS scale, the Education OS scale, the Knowledge Specialist
scale, the Social Service Interest scale, and the Artistic Interest scale. These Birkman
scales also distinguish well between those who have a more direct, detached, and
logical approach to making decisions and those who use a more democratic,
harmonious, and empathetic approach.
Table 6
Comparison of Birkman scale means for the Thinking and Feeling Types
Thinking
Feeling
Arts
54.74
72.62
Education
42.57
61.41
37.04
Production
54.37
24.87
Directive Mgmt.
49.16
Corporate Adaptability
53.56
68.09
Artistic Interest
51.77
71.47
51.44
Enforcement
64.05
29.56
Engineering
46.69
Knowledge Specialist
62.33
83.29
34.86
Delegative Mgmt.
45.47
Social Service Int.
48.93
69.15
32.27
Mechanical Interest
51.31
40.87
Outdoor Interest
50.88
Summary: In general, people who are the Thinking preference have higher
scores on scales related to the Red quadrant and people who are the Feeling
preference have higher scores on scales related to the Blue quadrant.

17

Judging/Perceiving. As with the Extroversion/Introversion MBTI type, the

Birkman Usual components were well able to capture the Judging/Perceiving type, so
the inclusion of the additional scales only improved the accuracy rate from 73.1% to
76.3%. As Table 7 shows, people who use Judging when dealing with the outside world
score higher on the Structure Usual component, the Fiscal Organizational Strengths
(OS) scale, the Numerical Interest scale, and the Clerical Interest scale, whereas
people who use Perceiving in dealing with the outside world have higher scores on the
Acceptance Usual component, the Self Development scale, the Sales OS scale, and the
Consultative Sales OS scale. These specific Birkman scales also delineate those
people who prefer to have closure and work with tasks from those people who prefer to
have flexibility and work with people.
Table 7
Comparison of Birkman scale means for the Judging and Perceiving Types
Judging
Perceiving
51.54
Structure (Usual)
66.37
Acceptance (Usual)
63.29
81.04
31.19
Fiscal
40.51
Sales
49.12
56.13
Self Development
64.63
78.48
39.48
Numerical Interest
58.75
37.31
Clerical Interest
52.13
Consultative Sales
49.94
56.08
Summary: In general, people who are the Judging preference have higher
scores on scales related to the Yellow quadrant and people who are the Perceiving
preference have higher scores on scales related to the Green quadrant.
General Summary: As seen in the diagram below, the eight MBTI types can be
roughly mapped onto the Birkman color grid. E/I and S/N distinguish from among people
on the upper/lower and left/right sides of the grid, respectively, whereas T/F and J/P
seem to distinguish between people who are on diagonally opposite quadrants of the
grid.
T

Implementer

Communicator

N
Administrator

Planner

18

CONCLUSIONS
Unique Characteristics of the Birkman Method
The study thus far has demonstrated that knowledge of four Usual Birkman
components provides a basis for predicting, albeit incompletely, the four MBTI
preferences. Figures 7 and 12 illustrate an important question for those seeking to
compare and contrast the Birkman Method with the MBTI. Seven Birkman Usual
components and eight Need components demonstrate no relationship to the MBTI
preferences even though these components do map onto personality characteristics of
other well-published, reliable, and valid instruments (Birkman, 2001).
One of the reasons that the Birkman predicts more traits beyond the MBTIs fourway classification system is that the MBTI does not measure emotional stability, which
is a factor almost universally identified across all personality assessments. No doubt
due to its limited number of scales (preferences), the MBTI scores also do not appear to
be related to the Birkman usual constructs that measure sensitivity (Esteem), directive
behavior (Authority), pace of action (Activity), conventionality (Freedom), restlessness
(Change), emotional reaction (Empathy), and social image (Challenge), nor are they
related to the Birkman needs constructs that assess stress behaviors through need for
conventionality (Freedom), need for decision-making (Thought), need for group
relations (Acceptance), need for directive behavior (Authority), need for financial
motivation (Advantage), need for social image (Challenge), need for variation (Change),
and need for action (Activity). Furthermore, the Birkman also utilizes an array of
Interest, Stress, and Organizational Strength scales that extend far beyond the MBTI
four-way categorical classification system (as discussed below). Assuming these
additional characteristics are important in organizational and individual development,
this study suggests that the Birkman could be used in more comprehensive work
situations to compensate for the limited MBTI applications.
The MBTI Facets Strategy
Given this inherent limitation of the MBTI, users of the instrument have begun
using additional instruments (e.g., the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory [SCII] and
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior [FIRO-B]) to create a more
thorough and fine-grained analysis of individual and organizational strengths. This
Expanded Interpretive Report (EIR) was created using additional items in order to tap
into a greater number of constructs that the original MBTI failed to capture. Although
this represents a step in the direction towards providing a more comprehensive
assessment of individuals, the MBTI is still constrained by the dichotomous nature of its
types and the subsequent inability to look at gradations and the nuances of scores
along a continuum. Moreover, the language that additional tools such as the SCII and
the FIRO-B use is not compatible with that of the MBTI so users are not able to
translate the meaning of results from one instrument to another. Conversely, the
Birkman components were developed from the beginning to be used synergistically,
with all of the different Usual, Needs, Stress, Interest, and Organizational Strengths
scales using a common language to provide a complete understanding of individuals
within their social contexts (Birkman, 1961; Mefford, 1972, 1975).
19

SUMMARY
Because of the lack of common terminology among different assessment
instruments, many practitioners are unable to translate their content knowledge from
one type of tool to another. Notably, this current concept confusion occurs primarily on
the level of the end user rather than on the level of the psychometrician. The reason for
the lack of confusion on this level is that psychometricians and researchers share a
common statistical language. Although inventory/assessment/test developers might
disagree as to the quality and methodology for developing a personality-related
assessment instrument, these differences can be discussed in terms of descriptive and
inferential statistics. Users and practitioners do not typically speak or understand this
language and thus must grapple with interpretation differences several steps removed
from the actual calculation of constructs. Nearly twenty years ago (Gough & Heilbrun,
1983), test developers addressed semantic confusion by beginning a process of
standardizing the universe of items used to create personality-related constructs, and
current researchers are continuing to push for this standardization (Goldberg, 1999).
This process has facilitated researchers in efforts to compare constructs across
instruments (known technically as establishing construct validity).
The current paper should provide another step in the standardization of
personality and interest assessments and hopefully give Birkman Method and MyersBriggs Type Indicator users a better theoretical and empirical foundation for
understanding how the two assessment tools relate to one another. By understanding
the relationship between these two instruments, users can begin to translate the
meaning and language of constructs across assessments, and they can gain an
appreciation for the incremental advantages of the Birkman over the MBTI.
REFERENCES
Birkman, R. W. (1961). Development of a personality test using social and selfperception. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.
Birkman, R. W. (2001). The Birkman Method Reliability and Validity Study. Houston,
TX: Birkman International, Inc.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory
measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. Personality
Psychology in Europe, 7, 7-28.
Gough, H.G. and Heilbrun, A.B. (1980). The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Knight, J. L., & Larkey, F. R. (2002). Apples and oranges: An empirical comparison of
the Birkman Method and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Research report.
Mefford, R. B. (1972). The Birkman Method for manpower selection, classification,
assessment, motivation counseling, and training: Its reliabilities and validities.
Houston: Birkman & Associates, Inc.
Mefford, R. (1975). The Birkman Method: Reliabilities and validities for business and
industry. Houston: Birkman & Associates, Inc.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenck, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A
guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

20