In the layered theater of corporate life, personality assessments often play the role of both script and spotlight. Companies lean on tools like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), DISC Assessment, Birkman Method, Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), and StrengthsFinder (CliftonStrengths) to decode the human condition within their ranks.
These instruments promise to illuminate strengths, expose fault lines, and harmonize teams.
These tests have often been drawn upon as apparatus to promote more diverse and inclusive team cultures, encouraging employees to be more considered in their interactions with co-workers through greater awareness of personality differences.
Yet, as the tide turns on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, one must ask: Are these assessments guides or gatekeepers?
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Developed in the early 20th century by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, the MBTI was inspired by Carl Jung’s theories on psychological types. The assessment classifies individuals into 16 personality types based on four dichotomies:
- Extraversion (E) / Introversion (I): Orientation towards the external world versus the internal world.
- Sensing (S) / Intuition (N): Preference for concrete information versus abstract concepts.
- Thinking (T) / Feeling (F): Decision-making based on logic versus personal values.
- Judging (J) / Perceiving (P): Approach to structure in life, preferring organization versus spontaneity.
Individuals taking the MBTI answer a questionnaire, after which they receive a four-letter type (e.g., INFP, ESTJ) that describes their behavioral tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses.
The MBTI boasts significant corporate adoption, with over 2 million assessments administered annually. It is utilized by approximately 10,000 businesses, 2,500 colleges and universities, and 200 government agencies in the United States alone. Prominent companies such as Microsoft and Procter & Gamble incorporate the MBTI into their training and development programs to enhance team dynamics and leadership capabilities.
Supporters argue that MBTI fosters self-awareness and enhances interpersonal communication. However, critics question its reliability, noting that test-takers often receive different results when retaking the test. Its binary classification system is also seen as an oversimplification of personality traits.
It is also worth noting that both Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers did not have any formal academic credentials in psychology. This brings into question the credibility of their methods.
DISC Assessment
Based on American psychologist William Moulton Marston’s 1928 work, the DISC model evaluates behavior across four primary dimensions:
- Dominance (D): Focus on results and confidence.
- Influence (I): Emphasis on persuasion and openness.
- Steadiness (S): Preference for cooperation and sincerity.
- Conscientiousness (C): Attention to quality and accuracy.
Participants respond to a series of statements, and their answers position them within the DISC framework, typically represented using a circular graph with four quadrants. This classification helps individuals and teams understand work styles and communication preferences.
The DISC Assessment is widely used across various industries, including sales, healthcare, and education. Over 1 million people complete a DISC profile each year. Companies like Procter & Gamble utilize DISC assessments to enhance communication, conflict resolution, and leadership training.
Advocates praise DISC for its simplicity and practical applications in workplace settings. However, critics argue that it only assesses behavior rather than deeper personality traits, leading to potential misinterpretations. Additionally, as a self-reported test, responses can be influenced by social desirability bias, where individuals answer in a manner they believe is expected or favorable.
Birkman Method
Developed by American organizational psychologist Dr. Roger Birkman in the 1950s, the Birkman Method provides a comprehensive analysis of an individual's interests, usual behaviors, underlying needs, and stress behaviors. The assessment combines questions about personal interests and perceptions of various situations, resulting in a detailed report that includes:
- Interests: Activities that motivate and engage the individual.
- Usual Behavior: How the person typically behaves in various situations.
- Needs: The support or environment the individual requires to perform effectively.
- Stress Behaviors: Reactions observed when needs are not met.
The Birkman Method is utilized by organizations such as Coca-Cola and NASA to align employee roles with personal motivations, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and performance. Its comprehensive nature makes it a valuable tool for leadership development, team building, and career counseling.
The depth of the Birkman Method provides nuanced insights into both behavior and underlying motivations, offering a holistic view of an individual. However, its complexity requires trained professionals to interpret the results effectively, which can be resource-intensive. Additionally, the extensive nature of the assessment may be time-consuming for participants.
Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)
Developed by Drs. Robert and Joyce Hogan in the 1980s, the Hogan Personality Inventory is based on the Five-Factor Model of personality. It assesses seven dimensions of workplace behavior, including adjustment, ambition, and sociability.
Used by companies like Johnson & Johnson and General Motors, HPI is employed for leadership development, risk assessment, and high-potential identification.
HPI is praised for its predictive validity in workplace performance but is criticized for its length and complexity.
StrengthsFinder (CliftonStrengths)
Developed by Gallup, StrengthsFinder identifies an individual’s top five strengths from 34 themes, focusing on leveraging personal talents.
Companies like Facebook and Deloitte use StrengthsFinder for talent development and employee engagement, aiming to align employees with roles that maximize their potential.
Praised for its positive approach, critics argue that it lacks predictive validity for job performance and may overlook areas for improvement.
Same, same but different?
Each test differs in methodology, application, and outcome. MBTI and DISC are widely used for general self-awareness and team communication, with MBTI focusing on cognitive preferences and DISC emphasizing behavioral tendencies. Birkman and Hogan provide deeper psychological insights, with Birkman incorporating stress behaviors and underlying needs, while Hogan assesses personality traits in relation to workplace success and leadership potential. StrengthsFinder takes a unique approach by concentrating on identifying and leveraging an individual's innate strengths rather than highlighting weaknesses.
Presentation styles also vary significantly: MBTI uses four-letter type codes, DISC employs a quadrant-based system, Birkman presents results through a color-coded map, Hogan uses percentile scores to rank traits, and StrengthsFinder categorizes individuals into 34 distinct talent themes.
Cultural bias and inclusivity
Many of these tests were developed in Western cultures, predominantly American, raising concerns about their applicability across diverse workforces. Research has shown that cultural norms influence test responses, making results potentially biased in non-Western settings. For example, traits such as assertiveness and independence, which are emphasized in many Western cultures, may not be valued in collectivist societies that prioritize group harmony and indirect communication.
Additionally, language translation and cultural framing of test questions can affect how individuals interpret and respond to assessments, leading to inconsistencies in results across different regions.
Furthermore, some personality assessments may inadvertently reinforce racial and socioeconomic biases. Studies have suggested that standardized personality tests often reflect the dominant cultural perspectives of the societies in which they were developed, making it difficult to accurately assess individuals from underrepresented or marginalized backgrounds.
Companies that operate globally should be cautious in applying these tools without modifications and should consider culturally responsive approaches, such as integrating local psychological research and using adaptive testing methods tailored to different demographics.
To mitigate these biases, organizations should ensure that assessments are validated across diverse populations, implement alternative evaluation methods that account for different cultural behaviors, and use a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessments to provide a more holistic view of an individual’s personality and work style.
Are personality tests still relevant now?
Personality assessments have long served as useful tools for businesses—offering a framework to understand teams more deeply, sharpen leadership skills, and encourage employee growth. Their appeal is clear: insight packaged neatly into categories and scores, promising a more efficient path to a cohesive workplace. But tools, however well-intentioned, carry weight beyond their design. As conversations about diversity, equity, and inclusion grow louder, so must our caution. Relying too heavily on personality tests in hiring can blur the line between understanding people and sorting them into boxes—boxes that, too often, reflect familiar biases rather than true potential.
Lately, the landscape has shifted. Some companies step back from their DEI commitments, citing costs or politics, leaving others to wonder: Was inclusion ever a principle, or merely a policy? In this uneasy climate, personality assessments reveal their blind spots. When used carelessly, they can favor the familiar—the personalities that fit comfortably within the dominant culture—while overlooking the richness that difference brings. Talent can’t be measured on a multiple-choice grid, nor should it be. True diversity means welcoming not only new voices but new ways of thinking and being.
So where do we go from here? Perhaps the answer lies not in abandoning these tools, but in using them differently. Thoughtfully. Transparently. Companies that succeed will be those that see beyond data points to the people behind them—those who understand that inclusion isn't a checkbox but a cornerstone. In the end, it won’t be personality types that drive innovation and success, but the complex, unpredictable, and deeply human minds that no test could ever fully define.
