Prior to the day of the workshop, we each had to answer a questionnaire with a rather lengthy series of “forced choice” questions, whereby we had to select one out of two options. This is unlike some of the free online personality tests or unofficial MBTI assessments I have taken, which are generally shorter, and have a Likert (agree-disagree) scale instead of “forced choice” questions.

Questions range from ones about your preferences in social settings to the types of situations that appeal to you more. According to Myers-Briggs, the key is to answer the questions as you are outside of the various roles you play, whether work or personal. You’ll also want to base your answers on your natural, core self over how you’ve learned to act under specific circumstances. It is important to note that there is no right or wrong answer.

But considering how variable the responses could be and how multi-faceted people are, I felt the result could be skewed. For instance, I prioritise details and a plan when working on a project but prefer spontaneity (itinerary? what itinerary?) during a leisure trip.

In the same vein, could cognitive bias in identifying with a certain personality type come into play? And could recent events impact the way I answered the questions?

Turns out, my profile’s INTP (Introversion, Intuition, Thinking and Perceiving).

I was hardly surprised to find out I fell into the Introvert category, given my inclination for socialising in closely-knit groups. What was surprising was that I fell into the Thinking preference when I had always associated myself with more the “Feeling” type (who typically base their decisions and conclusions on personal and social values, and the primary goals of understanding and harmony).

I spoke about this to my sister after the session, and guess what — she saw me as the ‘Thinking’ type (which bases conclusions on logical analysis with a focus on objectivity). Guess there’s always something you never knew about yourself.

But it’s not all black and white either — it’s not uncommon to be straddling the line between either preference. For instance, you could be in the mid-zone between Sensing and Intuition, or Introversion and Extraversion.

Says The Weekly’s associate editor Karen, “It was not so much of a surprise but more of a confirmation that I had suspected, which is that I am pretty 50-50 between being an introvert and extrovert professionally. While I think of myself as an introvert socially, I do feel that I get energised and enjoy being around colleagues or clients when working.”

It was also fun seeing and comparing what each of us scored. It also drove home the point that the MBTI is an indicator of preferences, and not necessarily behaviour. Two team members who come across as quite different in their characters and the way they act have the same INFJ profile. And the way they described their working styles were rather similar too — one sought to find the happy medium between navigating complex social dynamics (read: feelings) and structured processes, while the other described herself as being very value-oriented but also favouring structure and a clear direction.

The group was also given a series of activities to better understand how the Myers-Briggs assessment works. One moment in particular that stood out for me was a group activity that required the team to solve a series of riddles and find the murderer.

Obviously, the entire point of the exercise wasn’t really to find the murderer, but for the trainer to observe the behaviour of each individual when working together.

Some people were detailed, some saw the bigger picture, and others scribbled down the sequence of events. And then there were the ones who often got interrupted mid-sentence— a common enough scenario during workplace meetings — and whom Stuart pointed out could be the ones who actually had a solution.

While I still have reservations about MBTI profiling, it does have its merits. For one, the session has made me much more aware that people do not necessarily see things the same way I do. It’s also worth bearing in mind not to jump to conclusions too quickly when working as a team, and to work towards managing differences in working styles, and preferred organisational and communication methods.

“Through the workshop, I’m now more aware of each MBTI type’s stressors and preferences for communication, leadership, change, and problem-solving, and will seek to appreciate the gifts of other types in my team,” says The Weekly editor Estelle. “I was surprised that 80 per cent of us (participants) thrive on order and structure, as shown by their Judging (J) preference. I’m definitely more attuned to the needs of these team members now, and I’m working to minimise instances of surprises, open-endedness and last-minute changes at work, since they are the majority!”

Karen adds, “It does make me think sometimes about how best to phrase something or go about approaching a problem. Another key takeaway I had was that our team seems to lack someone with a profile that starts with an ‘ES’, or the ‘typical’ leader profile. As a result, we will sometimes have to adapt in our roles and personalities. I thought this was quite interesting as it suggests the MBTI results aren’t concrete and we need to be more fluid in them to work well professionally.”

You can find out more about MBTI here or take the questionnaire here.

Read Next

What I Learned From Putting My Local Child In An International School

Extraordinary Attorney Woo's Park Eun-Bin To Hold Meet Up In SG

Op-Ed: Are We Really Setting Our Children Up For Success With Endless Tuition Classes?