|
|
|
Source: Group & Organization Management, March 1993 v18 n1 p50(16). Title: The Myers-Briggs personality indicator and its usefulness for problem solving by mining industry personnel. Author: J. Austin Davey, Bernadette H. Schell and Kim Morrison
____________________________________________________________________________ Database: Expanded Academic ASAP Sent from SearchBank. Library: California State Univ. Fullerton ____________________________________________________________________________ Full content for this article includes illustration and table. Source: Group & Organization Management, March 1993 v18 n1 p50(16). Title: The Myers-Briggs personality indicator and its usefulness for problem solving by mining industry personnel. Author: J. Austin Davey, Bernadette H. Schell and Kim Morrison Abstract: The usefulness of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in assessing the information-processing methods and problem-solving capabilities of mining employees is examined using the Project Planning Situation exercise. Personnel from northeastern Ontario mining firms completed these two tests over two years. The MBTI classifies individuals as either introverted or extroverted, sensing or intuitive, thinking or feeling and perceiving or judging. An individual's dominant decision-making style is indicated by a four-letter description made up of the stronger tendency in each of the Above pairs. Results of both tests indicate that mining personnel are predominantly sensing, thinking and judging individuals, with introverts outnumbering extroverts by 2:1. These results indicate an implicit selection mechanism in this industry. Subjects: Problem solving - Psychological aspects Human resource management - Psychological aspects Nmd Works: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Usage Business Collection: 69Z3396 Electronic Collection: A14080008 RN: A14080008 Full Text COPYRIGHT Sage Publications Inc. 1993 In recent years, a number of changes have occurred in the mining industry. The industry, once facing a more stable environment and production patterns, now has to deal increasingly with uncertainty as a result of global exploration, currency fluctuations, environmental concerns, technological advancements, and structural changes. The current recession ary environment in major nations around the world, resulting in production cutbacks and, at times, generous collective bargaining agreements and rising health and safety costs, has magnified the need to emphasize productivity of mining personnel (Kaplan, 1991; Whiteway, 1991). Adding to these constraints is the lack of experienced managers in the mining industry, partly as a result of individuals' leaving this environment for more fruitful ones during the lean years in the early 1980s (Buckland, 1990). With these changes in the resource industries, personnel qualifications beyond technical skills are being sought. These skills include team management potential and high levels of interpersonal and communication skills -- necessary to cope with this new and ever-changing marketplace (Buckland, 1990). With restructuring, cost cutting, and increased automation -- all aimed at improving competitiveness -- higher degrees of flexibility, diversity, and teamwork in personnel are essential to gain productivity improvements. A number of manufacturing companies are thus turning away from traditional structures and management styles to develop self-managing work teams as a way of effectively solving problems and, in the process, improving productivity (Bunning & Althisar, 1990; Wilgus, 1991). According to current computer on-line literature searches, little research Has been reported investigating personality variables and problem-solving capabilities of mining personnel, yet consultants are growing increasingly richer by suggesting personality inventories as the key to identifying star producers and problem solvers to meet the challenges of the increasingly complex mining environment. This article describes the results of a survey study in the mining industry to determine if the use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (the MBTI; Myers, 1987) could be used to delineate problem-solving capabilities of mining personnel in groups, as measured by the Project Planning Situation (Lafferty & Associates, 1975). FACTORS INFLUENCING GROUP PERFORMANCE The link between personality and performance is a complex one and, reportedly, multidimensional in nature. Research on individuals has linked personality traits to business performance (Slater, 1989) and to creativity (Kabanoff & Bottger, 1991). Personality variables in group composition have also been linked to group performance (Strube, Keller, Oxenberg, & Lapidot, 1989; Williams & Sternberg, 1988) and to preferences for particular modes of conflict resolution (Jones & White, 1985). Over the years, a number of variables have been found to improve group performance and group processes, including individual factors such as members' stress levels, abilities, and personality traits; group factors such as team building, goal setting, group size, and decision-making procedures; and environmental factors such as task characteristics and rewards (Buller & Bell, 1986; Driskell & Salas, 1991; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Weldon, Jehn, & Pradhan, 1991). However, it is not clear if the relationship between performance and the said factors is a direct function of these variables. The increase in the use of work teams by a large number of companies Suggests that group performance and group decision making are more effective than individual performance and decision making. However, research results have been mixed, with some studies not supporting the effectiveness of group decisions over those of the most competent group member (Hill, 1982; Miner, 1984) and other studies purporting that group decisions are superior to all individual members' decisions (Cooke & Kernaghan, 1987; Michaelsen, Watson, & Black, 1989). It has been suggested that these contrasting results are due, in part, to the foreign and at times unstimulating test environments encountered by the subjects under study (Hackman & Morris, 1975). Watson, Michaelsen, and Sharp (1991) attempted to resolve this issue by examining group decision making and behavior over time in an environment representative of a work organization; their study results indicated that group decision making was optimal, even over that of the most knowledgeable member. Other researchers have argued that, because most of the studies in this area have used problem-solving situations to show the superiority of group performance over individual performance, the results may be an artifact of the scoring techniques used (Lane, Mathews, & Buco, 1981; Slevin, 1978). However, in their review of scoring techniques, Cooke and Kernaghan (1987) found that groups outperformed individual members on problem-solving tasks regardless of the method used to compare individual and group performance. Kernaghan and Cooke (1990) have suggested that "rationally-directed" feedback, as compared to "interpersonally-directed" feedback positively influenced group problem solving, but only for high-ability groups. They concluded that before designing group intervention strategies for improving groups' performances, consultants and researchers should first develop baseline criteria on the individual members' and groups' problem-solving capabilities. Kernaghan and Cooke (1990, p. 113) further noted that the performance of low-ability groups does not appear to be related to the adequacy of their rational processes; their performance appears to be related instead to such factors as the pooling of solutions and the canceling out of compensatory errors. In contrast, the performance of high-ability groups does appear to be related to their rational processes. PERSONALITY TYPES USING THE MBTI Personality types of individuals' information-processing predispositions can be classified using the MBTI, the reliability and validity of which has been extensively researched and judged to be acceptable by current social science standards (Murray, 1990). Based on Jung's theory of psychological type (Myers, 1962), the MBTI assumes that individuals are predisposed to be (Moore, 1987): extroverted (E) or introverted (I), sensing (S) or intuitive (N), thinking (T) or feeling (F), and perceiving (P) or judging (J). By definition, E types focus attention on the external world of people and things, whereas I types focus attention on the inner world of ideas and feelings. Lyons (1980) found that, in the United States, two thirds of 903 subjects preferred introversion, despite popular beliefs around the world that Americans are very extroverted. By definition, S types look for details and practical uses and are realistic. N types, in contrast, tend to process meaning beyond the information given, with a preference for "the bigger picture" and creative problem solving. T types prefer to use logic and impersonal methods for solving problems, whereas F types search out more subjective methods, optimizing personal values. And, according to estimates, about 80% of the general population prefer the thinking dimension, regardless of the sex of the individual (Lyons, 1980). P types tend to be more adaptable and flexible than their J counterparts, keeping options open and being able to revisit a problem once solved if new information surfaces. J types, in contrast, prefer to plan their lives around routine events and to complete and resolve issues without wasting time. The division of J and P types is reportedly about equal in the general population, with women preferring the J mode (Lyons, 1980). Using a four-letter description that summarizes the stronger predisposition In each of the four pairs described above, individuals can be classified into 16 personality types based on the way that they process information (Myers & McCaulley, 1985, pp. 20-21). The dominant decision-making style may, in turn, reflect the type of information perceived, how problems are defined and conceptualized, and the method selected for finding a solution (Rice & Lindecamp, 1989). Since 1976, the MBTI has become one of the most popular tools for helping working populations to gain insights about their information processing (McCaulley, 1990). Companies such as Allied-Signal, AT&T, GE, 3M, and Exxon, colleges, hospitals, and the U.S. armed forces have used the inventory in management development programs to assist managers in decision making and team building and to match staff and assignments on information-processing requirements to optimize productivity and job satisfaction of individuals (Kummerow & Hirsh, 1986; Murray, 1990; Provost & Anchors, 1986). Managers have suggested that staff members' understanding of their own information-processing types has proved to be useful as an interpersonal communications tool for their interacting with and understanding of others (Lynch, 1985; Rideout & Richardson, 1989) and themselves. A number of research studies have found that the different personality typings affect performance in problem-solving and decision-making styles. Hunter and Levy (1982), for example, found that NP types attempted more problems than the SJ types and were more capable of solving a test requiring perceptual flexibility. The SJ types' tendency to focus on concrete aspects and order, these authors asserted, may have impaired their ability to solve problems. Schweiger and Jago (1982) found that S types, concerned about accuracy and details in their work, preferred participative decision-making methods and working with others, as compared to N types, who tended to prefer fast conclusions and working alone. Mills, Robey, and Smith's (1985) study on project management personnel found that most respondents were STJ types, who concentrated on facts, analyzed them objectively, and had a practical orientation to their problem solving. Also, these types were assertive and competitive when faced with conflict situations. This tendency seems to suggest that STJ types prefer dealing with task rather than with people problems. T types of management personnel also preferred assertive conflict-handling modes, whereas F types preferred accommodating conflict modes. Finally, E types tended to exhibit assertive and integration conflict modes, whereas I types tended to avoid conflict situations. Henderson and Nutt (1980) found that ST types were more risk averse and conservative in adopting new projects, whereas SF types were more likely to accept risk, to adopt new projects, and to seek group consensus in decision making. NT types tended to seek logic and to test alternatives before deciding on a final course of action, whereas NF types considered the problem context before deciding on a course of action. Moreover, Davis, Grove, and Knowles (1990) found that S types performed more effectively within a fairly structured decision situation, as compared to N types. Finally, other researchers (Ruble & Cosier, 1990) have reported no significant effects of cognitive styles on decision-making performance. Apart from the influence of MBTI typings on problem solving and decision making, other studies have reported that similarity in typings is related to mutually agreeable perceptions and preferences congruent with one's own type, resulting in higher self-esteem and longer job tenure for workers sharing such (Craig & Sleight, 1990; Hai, Ziemelis, & Rossi, 1986; Handley, 1982; Marcic, Aiuppa, & Watson, 1989; Schacht, Howe, & Berman, 1989). Additionally, a number of studies have found that certain professions have a preponderance of certain types. Health-oriented and educational careers, for example, seem to attract and retain a larger number of F types, whereas business tends to attract and retain a larger proportion of T types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Rice and Lindecamp (1989) found that the majority of small retailers tended to be ESJ types, even though the ET types appeared to be the most successful. Some reports (Agor, 1985, 1986) have stated that upper-level management individuals seemed to prefer N cognitive styles, necessary for environments characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and a lack of Facts and time, but others have found that, although SP types were less prevalent in upper management than in the general population, the SJ and NF types were equally represented in upper-management settings (Vaccaro, 1988). STUDY HYPOTHESES The Project Planning Situation, used here and in other studies to assess participants' problem-solving capabilities, has been designed to simulate a problem situation that would typify that confronted by managers on their jobs. Thus it has been suggested that this simulation is face valid for individuals in industry who have as part of their job descriptions problem-solving tasks, as it attempts to reproduce the pace and pressure of managerial work but still allows individuals to interrelate freely in an effort to solve a given problem situation jointly. Ultimately, the validity of this instrument for study groups depends on what the simulation is eventually used for (McCall & Lombardo, 1982) and on what the distribution of group results looks like in comparison to normative data and to that of high- and low-ability groups (Kernaghan & Cooke, 1990). Consistent with the reasoning outlined above, the following predictions were made. (1) Given that mining personnel should not be significantly different from other males in business and given the norms already established for MBTI types for managers (Davis et al., 1990; Henderson & Nutt, 1980; Rice & Lindecamp, 1989), in particular, it was hypothesized that the bulk of mining and resource personnel would fall in the extroverted (versus introverted), sensing (versus intuitive), thinking (versus feeling), judgmental (versus perceptual) typing. Such a profile would suggest a predominantly ESTJ typing (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). (2) Given that we conjectured that the mining environment would attract the very practical STJ types (who may run the risk of deciding too quickly before they have fully examined the situation; Myers, 1987, p. 10), given that the study groups would likely have one major typing (presumably the STJ-typed members) dispersed among them, and given that the participants had predominantly non-university education backgrounds and little or no training in problem-solving principles, we hypothesized that (a) the respondents would have individual and group average scores indicating lower initial problem-solving capability (Lafferty & Associates, 1975) but that (b) the benefit of group problem solving over individual problem solving would nonetheless be evident in the average gain scores. METHOD Participants in the study included 610 males from two different industries in northeastern Ontario, Canada: a metal-mining firm and a uranium-mining firm. The majority were in the 40-50 age bracket. The participants included miners, staff, and lower- to middle-level managers. Over two thirds of the participants had as their highest level of education secondary school or less. The data were collected in 1988 and 1989. Those who volunteered to participate in the study were randomly assigned to problem-solving groups, ranging in size from 3 to 6 participants. The percentage of individuals assigned to these groupings was as follows: 3 members, 6.4%; 4 members, 54.9%; 5 members, 28.9%; and 6 members, 9.8%. None of the participants had completed the Project Planning Situation exercise before. All individuals were given the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form G (Myers, 1987) and the Project Planning Situation exercise (Lafferty & Associates, 1975). The MBTI is a self-report inventory consisting of 166 forced-choice questions. Studies have shown the MBTI to have satisfactory split-half and test-retest reliabilities for the F and G forms, with support for the validity of the MBTI's constructs (Carlson, 1985; DeVito, 1985). The Project Planning Situation exercise consisted of a list of 20 project management activities arranged in random order (e.g., "establish qualifications for new positions" or "set project objectives"). The responsibility of each individual and then each group was to examine the 20 activities and sequence them in the order most probable to complete the project effectively. The groups formed their plans on a consensual basis. After completing the MBTI and the two steps of the Project Planning Situation exercise, each group was asked to complete data forms containing the following information: the MBTI typing for each group member and -- based upon the experts' solutions to the problem -- the average individually based "success" scores on the Project Planning Situation exercise, the average team-based success scores, and the average team-based gain scores on the exercise (the difference between the team score and the average individual score; if the team score was lower than the average individual score, then the gain was registered as a +, but if the team score was higher than the average individual score, then the gain was registered as a -). Because companies were guaranteed anonymity, no data were collected from the participants regarding the firm. The groups and the facilitator then discussed the results of the data collected. Participants were told that lower individual and group scores on the Project Planning Situation were "better"; that is, a low score meant that the individuals' or groups' solutions met with a high level of consistency with the experts' solution. Based on the developers' data, collected on 246 participants on 50 teams (Human Synergistics, Inc., 1985, p. 5), the following normative data were shared with the participants: Although the average individual score was reported to be 58.6, the average team score was an improved 39.7. Thus evidence seems to suggest that, when individuals solve problems in teams rather than alone, there seems to be a significant gain. The average team gain score was reported by the developers to be 18.9. The participants were then told that little was known about how personnel in the mining industries performed on these two tests. RESULTS The results of the frequency analysis for determining MBTI typing revealed that, as hypothesized, the predominant three-letter typing in this group of mining personnel was the STJ type. However, contrary to the first hypothesis, the results showed that the introverted STJs in cell 1 (n = 176, or 28.9%) outnumbered the extroverted STJs in cell 7 (n = 108, or 17.7%). The remaining typings had cell sizes containing 10% or less of the study sample, consistent with Hypothesis 1. The results of the frequency analysis for determining average scores on the individual, team, and gain Project Planning Situation measures for the study group are presented in Table 2. Consistent with the second hypothesis, the findings reveal that the mean scores on the individual and team measures were higher than those obtained for the original normative group of 246 managers (Human Synergistics, Inc., 1985) and for the Kernaghan and Cooke (1990) group of 547 individuals consisting of executives enrolled in management development seminars, organizational members participating in on-site development programs, and graduate students in business administration courses. Recalling that higher scores on the individual and team measures mean less effective problem solving as compared to the normative answers developed by the experts, these findings seem to suggest, as in Hypothesis 2(a), that the mining participants had "lower problem-solving" capabilities, as compared to the normative groups of managers and professionals in other organizational settings. Because no standard deviation scores were reported by the developers of the Project Planning Situation, no further statistical analyses could be undertaken to determine whether the participants' average scores on the problem-solving exercise were significantly different from those reported for the initial normative groups. However, because standard deviation data were available for the Kernaghan and Cooke (1990) study, t-test statistics were computed to determine if the mining industry personnel's average individual score and average team score were statistically different from these scores for Kernaghan and Cooke's study group. Also, t-test statistics were computed to determine if the mining personnel's average team score was statistically different from that for the high-ability and low-ability control groups in Kernaghan and Cooke's 1990 study group. The t-test results, presented in Table 2, showed that the mining personnel consistently fared worse at the problem-solving task than did the managers and professionals in the former researchers' 1990 study. TABLE 1 Frequency of MBTI Typings for Mining Personnel Typing Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage ISTJ 176 28.9 28.9 ISFJ 33 5.4 34.3 ISTP 53 8.7 43.0 ISFP 19 3.1 46.1 ESTP 31 5.1 51.2 ESFP 15 2.5 53.7 ESTJ 108 17.7 71.4 ESFJ 14 2.3 73.7 INFJ 5 0.8 74.5 INTJ 41 6.7 81.3 INFP 15 2.5 83.7 INTP 27 4.4 88.2 ENFP 9 1.5 89.7 ENTP 33 5.4 95.1 ENFJ 4 0.7 95.7 ENTJ 26 4.3 100.0 Total 609 100.0 100.0 TABULAR DATA OMITTED Consistent with Hypothesis 2(b), the results in Table 2 show that, by working in groups, the mining industry personnel were able to improve their problem-solving capabilities, as compared to those of most individuals working alone (see the average gain score column for the study group and for the normative group). DISCUSSION The results from this study indicated that about 47% of the personnel in the mining industry firms studied were of the STJ type. This preponderance of one typing seems to indicate that a screening phenomenon, intentional or unintentional, is at work in attracting or retaining personnel in this industry. Although other studies have shown that STJs are common in business, the results from this study seem to indicate that the introverted STJs are more common than the extroverted STJs. In fact, the ratio of introverts to extroverts is almost 2:1. Given these findings, it should be stated that individuals with ISTJ preferences are extremely dependable and have a complete, realistic, and practical respect for facts. They absorb, remember, and use any number of facts and are careful about their accuracy. When they see that work needs to be done, they take the responsibility and do it. When ISTJs are on work duty, their behavior is sound and sensible. If they are in charge of a project, their practical judgment and valuing of procedure makes them consistent and conservative, assembling the necessary facts to support their evaluations and decisions. They look for solutions to present problems in the successes of the past (Myers, 1987, p. 20). ISTJs are, in short, the almost perfect solution to the day-to-day problems encountered in mining. However, the question posed at the start of the article was, Are mining personnel capable of coping with the complexities of an ever-changing work environment using teamwork? The evidence from this study seems to suggest that there are some costs and benefits associated with using the team approach with a predominantly ISTJ population. Myers (1987, p. 20) cautions that a problem may arise if the ISTJs' thinking remains undeveloped; they may retreat, becoming absorbed with their inner reactions to sense impressions, with little of value being accomplished. They may also tend to be suspicious of imagination and intuition and not take it seriously. Perhaps this reasoning can explain, in part, the mediocre individual performances found in the Project Planning Situation exercise results, as compared to those of other managerial groups who completed the same exercise. Also, with team work being pushed as the method of dealing with today's complexities in industry, one must question whether introverted STJs would feel comfortable with this problem-solving approach, given that introverts prefer working alone rather than with others. Beyond determining the MBTI typings for this mining population, this study further found that, although groups' problem-solving capabilities were an improvement over those of individuals working alone, the reasons for the initially low individual capability level remain obscure. One possible explanation is that the STJ personalities rely so heavily on their sensing and task dimensions -- which have their roots in past experiences -- that they may have had difficulty relating to the more abstract problem-solving situation that was given to them. For, according to Myers (1975, p. 9), the dominant information-processing dimension in ISTJs is the S, followed by the T, followed by the F. Their least preferred dimension is the N. Similarly, the information-processing dimension of dominance in ESTJs is the T, followed by the S, followed by the N. The least preferred dimension is the F. It seems that, to match the experts' solution in terms of overall quality, individuals having dominant N capabilities (such as are found in the INFJ, INTJ, ENFP, and ENTP types) would fare better than a concrete-oriented group, primarily because they would find the simulation exercise to be meaningful, interesting, and "double" with their information-processing predispositions. Thus, if consultants are "pushing" the case that the MBTI and the Project Planning Situation (or some similar simulation) are useful instruments for identifying star problem solvers who can meet any challenge that ever-changing and complex environments have to offer, then one might question whether MBTI types other than those with high N levels would identify with and take seriously the simulation exercise brought to identify potential stars. Although the present study did not directly test the hypothesis that STJs would not be stars at the simulation exercise presented and that, contrarily, other types with dominant N dimensions would, the results from this study tentatively show that a population consisting of almost 50% STJs did not compare favorably with normative data groups established for the Project Planning Situation, in particular. Whether the poor showing (or "low-ability" classification) was due to the predominance of one typing only or to the STJ typing in particular requires further study. Because the normative group study (Human Synergistics, Inc., 1985) and the Kernaghan and Cooke (1990) study did not present data on the MBTI typings for these study groups, any answer to this query remains tentative. If future studies find that other ESTJ/ISTJ populations also fare poorly on similar problem-solving situations, then perhaps there is some MBTI reasoning behind the finding of Agor (1985, 1986) and Hunter and Levy (1982) -- that upper-level management individuals seem to prefer and to use the more flexible N cognitive styles in order to cope with their environments, which are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and a lack of facts and time. Perhaps future research studies will reveal that lower initial problem-solving capability is caused not by the STJ type's inability to solve abstract problems but, perhaps, by the inability or lack of preference of ISTJs to interact with others to solve problems. Certainly the findings of Vaccaro (1988) would have researchers questioning why STJs would not fare well on such a simulation compared to other managers tested, because his findings revealed that SJ and NJ types were equally represented in upper-management circles. The point being made here is that, given this study's findings and the primitive stage, in general, of studies combining information-processing variables with problem-solving outcomes, it seems premature either to endorse or to reject the use of these two instruments in industry as a means of improving the problem-solving capabilities of members in test groups. What does appear to be consistent is the finding that, when confronted with abstract exercises such as the Project Planning Situation, individuals tend to be more successful at matching experts' opinions when completing the task in groups as compared to working alone. Beyond using the MBTI as a personality insight device for team development and the Project Planning Situation exercise as an aid for emphasizing the benefits of group problem solving over individual problem solving, mining personnel managers are probably running the risk of pairing two instruments that have questionable returns. Other data are needed to confirm that mining personnel are low-ability abstract problem solvers. The findings from this study seem to suggest that the simulation itself may not be a good indicator of problem-solving capability for this particular population, given the marked deviation in individual and group success scores from normative data previously collected. REFERENCES Agor, W. H. (1985). Intuition as a brain skill in management. Public Personnel Management, 14, 15-24. Agor, W. H. (1986). The logic of intuition: How top executives make important decisions. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 5-18. Buckland, R. (1990). Executive search reveals critical shortages of experienced mining executives, managers and professionals. Canadian Mining Journal, 3(5), 28-29. Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305-328. Bunning, R. L., & Althisar, R. S. (1990). Modules: A team model for manufacturing. Personnel Journal, 69(3), 90-91. Carlson, J. G. (1985). Recent assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 356-365. Cooke, R. A., & Kernaghan, J. A. (1987). Estimating the difference between group versus individual performance on problem-solving tasks. Group & Organization Studies, 12, 319-342. Craig, C. H., & Sleight, C. C. (1990). Personality relationships between supervisors and students in communication disorders as determined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Clinical Supervisor, 8, 41-51. Davis, D. L., Grove, S. J., & Knowles, P. A. (1990). An experimental application of personality type as an analogue for decision-making style. Psychological Reports, 66, 167-175. DeVito, A. J. (1985). Review of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), Ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 2., pp. 1030-1032). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1991). Group decision making under stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 473-478. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-99). New York: Academic Press. Hai, D. M., Ziemelis, A., & Rossi, J. (1986). Personality types: Comparison of job applications and applicants. Psychological Reports, 59, 1119-1125. Handley, P. (1982). Relationship between supervisors' and trainees' cognitive styles and the supervision process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 508-515. Henderson, J. C., & Nutt, P. C. (1980). The influence of decision style on decision making behavior. Management Science, 26, 371-386. Hill, G. W. (1982). Groups versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than 1? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539. Human Synergistics, Inc. (1985). The project planning situation. Ingersoll, Ontario, Canada: Author. Hunter, F., & Levy, N. (1982). Relationship of problem-solving behaviors and Jungian personality types. Psychological Reports, 51, 379-384. Jones, R. E., & White, C. S. (1985). Relationships among personality, conflict resolution styles, and task effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 10, 152-167. Kabanoff, B., & Bottger, P. (1991). Effectiveness of creativity training and its relation to selected personality factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 235-248. Kaplan, F. (1991). Walking a tightrope. Canadian Mining Journal, 112(9), 38. Kernaghan, J. A., & Cooke, R. A. (1990). Teamwork in planning innovative projects: Improving group performance by rational and interpersonal interventions in group process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37, 109-116. Kummerow, J. M., & Hirsh, S. K. (1986). Introduction to type in organizational consulting settings. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Lafferty, J. C., & Associates. (1975). The project planning situation: An experience in team planning. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics, Inc. Lane, I. M., Mathews, R. C., & Buco, S. M. (1981). Toward developing an unbiased scoring algorithm for "NASA" and similar ranking tasks. Group & Organization Studies, 6, 235-243. Lynch, A. Q. (1985). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A tool for appreciating employee and client diversity. Journal of Employment Counseling, 22, 104-109. Lyons, M. L. (1980). The DP psyche. Datamation, 26, 103-110. Marcic, D., Aiuppa, T. A., & Watson, J. G. (1989). Personality type, organizational norms and self-esteem. Psychological Reports, 65, 915-919. McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1982). Using simulation for leadership and management research: Through the looking glass. Management Science, 28, 533-549. McCaulley, M. H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A measure for individuals and groups. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 181-195. Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., & Black, R. H. (1989). Realistic test of individual versus group decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 834-839. Mills, J., Robey, D., & Smith, L. (1985). Conflict-handling and personality dimensions of project-management personnel. Psychological Reports, 57, 1135-1143. Miner, F. C., Jr. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 112-124. Moore, T. (1987, March). Personality tests are back. Fortune, pp. 74-82. Murray, J. B. (1990). Review of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1187-1202. Myers, I. B. (1962). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Myers, I. B. (1975). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I. B. (1987). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form G. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Provost, J., & Anchors, S. (1986). Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in higher education. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Rice, G. H., Jr., & Lindecamp, D. P. (1989). Personality types and business success of retailers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 177-182. Rideout, C. A., & Richardson, S. A. (1989). A teambuilding model: Appreciating differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with developmental theory. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 529-533. Ruble, T. L., & Cosier, R. A. (1990). Effects of cognitive styles and decision setting on performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 283-295. Schacht, A. J., Howe, H. E., & Berman, J. J. (1989). Supervisor facilitative conditions and effectiveness as perceived by thinking and feeling type supervisees. Psychotherapy, 26, 475-483. Schweiger, D. M., & Jago, A. G. (1982). Problem-solving styles and participative decision making. Psychological Reports, 50, 1311-1316. Slater, S. F. (1989). The influence of managerial style on business unit performance. Journal of Management, 15, 441-455. Slevin, D. P. (1978). Observations on the invalid scoring algorithm of "NASA" and similar consensus tasks. Group & Organization Studies, 3, 497-507. Strube, M. J., Keller, N. R., Oxenberg, J., & Lapidot, D. (1989). Actual and perceived group performance as a function of group composition: The moderating role of the Type A and B behavior patterns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 140-158. Vaccaro, A. J. (1988). Personality clash. Personnel Administrator, 33, 88-92. Watson, W. Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991). Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 803-809. Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 555-569. Whiteway, P. (1991). Excellence underground. Canadian Mining Journal, 112(6), 7. Wilgus, A. L. (1991). Forging change in spite of adversity. Personnel Journal, 70(9), 60-67. Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12, 351-377. J. Austin Davey, CA., is Assistant Professor in the School of Commerce and Administration at Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. He has an established accounting practice and is active as a project management consultant to the mining and resource industries. Bernadette H. Schell received her Ph.D. in communication from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She is currently Full Professor in the School of Commerce and Administration at Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Her research interests include the influence of personality on professionals and on franchisees, in particular. She is president of her own organizational behavior consulting firm. Kim Morrison received her M.B.A. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She is pursuing a Ph.D. from this same institution. -- End --
|
