1

The Myers-Briggs Type Inventory and Team Performance Jared L. Burkholder James Madison University

2 Abstract This paper discusses the many factors that contribute to the current definition of "team-building" and "team performance." A study is conducted in order to determine whether a link exists between team performance and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). An independent samples t-test is used to determine whether there are any significant mean differences in perceived levels of team performance 30-days after a work team in a medium-sized healthcare organization is given a workshop training about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Once data analysis is completed, it is found that there were no significant changes in perceived levels of team performance; however, the work team did find the MBTI to be an effective tool for team-building.

For all of the friends, family members, and professors that have continually helped and supported me throughout this process. None of this would be possible without each and every one of you and I cannot truly express my gratitude. Thank you.

4 Table of Contents Abstract...............................................................................................................................2 List of Tables.......................................................................................................................6 List of Figures.....................................................................................................................7 Introduction........................................................................................................................8 Statement of the problem..............................................................................................8 Research Gap..............................................................................................................10 Purpose of this study...................................................................................................10 Justification of this study.............................................................................................10 Research Questions.....................................................................................................11 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................11 Significance of research..............................................................................................12 Definition of terms......................................................................................................12 Brief overview of this study........................................................................................13 Literature Review.............................................................................................................13 Conceptual framework................................................................................................13 Social Cognitive Theory..............................................................................................14 How the MBTI was developed...................................................................................14 Team performance.......................................................................................................15 Team effectiveness......................................................................................................18 Team-building.............................................................................................................20 Team function.............................................................................................................24

5 Team leadership..........................................................................................................28 Employee satisfaction.................................................................................................29 Goal attainment...........................................................................................................32 Methodology.....................................................................................................................34 Research Design..........................................................................................................34 Description of sample.................................................................................................35 Data collection instruments.........................................................................................35 Internal and external validity, reliability, generalizability, and limitations.................40 Description and Justification of statistical techniques................................................41 Expected Results and Conclusion...............................................................................42 Results...42 Storage of Data42 Description of Actual Sample.43 Quantitative Data Results44 Conclusion...48 Discussion..49 Discussion of Results......49 Comparison to Literature............................................................................................50 Limitations...................................................................................................................51 Implications for Practice..............................................................................................52 Recommendations for Future Research...52 Lessons Learned...........................................................................................................53 References.........................................................................................................................54

6 Appendices........................59

7 List of Tables Table 1. Work team problems and the percentage of participants who reported these problems.............................................................................................................................21 Table 2. Team Performance Scale......................................................................................37 Table 3. Leader-Team Perceptions on Goal Accomplishment Scale..................................38 Table 4. Researcher-created Evaluation.............................................................................39 Table 5. Gender of pre-test sample....................................................................................43 Table 6. Ages of pre-test sample........................................................................................43 Table 7. Gender of post-test sample...................................................................................43 Table 8. Ages of post-test sample.......................................................................................44 Table 9. Researcher-created Evaluation results..................................................................45 Table 10. Pre-test results....................................................................................................46 Table 11. Post-test results...................................................................................................46 Table 12. Results of Independent Samples Ttest...............................................................48

8 List of Figures Figure 1. A model of the impact of personality type on team productivity" (Bradley & Hebert, 1997, p. 344)..........................................................................................................16 Figure 2. Transformational Leadership and Team Performance Model (Dionne et al., p. 187, 2003)..........................................................................................................................27 Figure 3. Transformational Leadership and Team Performance Model (Dionne et al., p. 187, 2003)..........................................................................................................................29

9 Introduction Personality testing is one of the most widely used methods of assessment in psychology today. Hogan (2007) lists personality assessment used for clinical, counseling, research, and personnel selection purposes (p. 447-448). Shaffer and Schmidt (1999) found that: In a recent survey, forty percent of Fortune 100 companies indicated that their employment selection systems included some form of psychological testing. A similar survey by the American Management Association showed that forty-four percent of its responding members used testing to select employees. (check website) While cognitive ability testing is the most popular form of testing, pre-employment personality assessment is gaining popularity for its many uses. Most importantly, personality testing can be used in predicting future job performance of an applicant. It is an objective way of measuring the deeper interests and values of an interested candidate, whereas traditional forms of preemployment screening, such as interviews, are largely subjective (Eisenbraun, 2006). Personality assessment can also help identify any underlying personality characteristics that may be in conflict with a companys values. Personality testing can be used for specific purposes such as measuring levels of introversion and extroversion of a potential sales employee. Also, a personality assessment is an important tool in ruling out potential psychopathology problems in job candidates. One of the most popular personality assessments being used in several different areas of studies, including the industrial setting, is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is based on the theories of Carl Jung (1910) who analyzed the psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions. Jung believed that there are two dichotomous ways of functioningrational (thinking and feeling) and irrational (sensing and intuition)which act together to make up our cognitions (Myers & Myers, 1980). The

10 MBTI sorts these psychological differences into four opposite pairs: Introversion-Extroversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judgment-Perception. These pairs can be combined to form 16 different personality types that are represented by the first letters of each pair. For example, a personality type may be recorded as ENFP. The ENFP type means that the individual prefers to use extroversion, intuition, feeling, and perception to make decisions and perceive his or her world. This tool is currently being used for predicting specific career choices among dentists (Grandy, Westerman, Ocanto, & Erskine, 1996), developing effective team-building practices (Varvel, Adams, Pridie, & Ruiz Ulloa, 2004), enhancing workplace communication (Berney, 2010), and for many other uses. Individuals can also use this test to gain a further understanding of their own personality before deciding upon a career. The results of the MBTI can help a person decide what type of work he or she would enjoy based on cognitive preferences. For example, it may help him or her to understand what working situations would be comfortable and uncomfortable based on Introversion-Extroversion scores. However, the MBTI can also be used by a hiring company to help determine if an applicant has the personality characteristics for the position the company is trying to fill. According to the Myers-Briggs Foundation (www.myersbriggs.org, 2012), Type can be introduced into an organization to support many different functions and situations that include: managing others, development of leadership skills, organizing tasks, creation and management of teams, training for management and staff, conflict motivation, executive coaching, diversity, recognition and rewards, and resolution,

change management.

Based on this data, companies could be better able to satisfy current employees psychological needs with their work and make changes to their workload or environment to improve satisfaction and/or productivity.

11 Research Gap Previous research has used the MBTI in varying ways and for several different purposes. It has been found that the MBTI has a very weak correlation with job satisfaction and there may in fact be no significance (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). The MBTI has been used in very specialized samples for purposes of selecting future career changes and job specializations (Grandy, Westerman, Ocanto, & Erskine, 1996). Its results have indirectly been used to provide evidence for the fact that effective teams need to understand the differences between personality types in order to reach maximum performance (Varvel, Adams, Pridie, & Ruiz Ulloa, 2004). However, there has been little to no experimental research to determine whether MBTI training to build teamwork will result in higher team performance over a predetermined amount of time. It is true that personality testing is gaining popularity in the workplace and the MBTI is one tool being used more often. It is important that the current study fill in a crucial gap in the research to determine whether the MBTI has an application for team-building and improving team performance for organizations across the country and world. Purpose of this study There is a sufficient lack of research concerning whether this personality tool can, like many others, be used in the process of team-building and improving perceived team performance. Since researchers have recently began to explore the possibility of using personality assessment as a team-building practice, it is important to know if such instruments can provide useful information about whether training work groups on the MBTI correlates with a significantly higher perceived rating of team performance. Justification of this study If the MBTI is found to be an effective tool for team-building and increased team performance, then there are several possible compounding benefits for the organization and also

12 for individuals. For example, if an employees Type based on the MBTI included feeling (concern for his or her impact on others), then work teams involving customer service or employee relations may be an excellent fit. Myers and Myers (1980) believed that An even more destructive conflict may exist between people and their jobs, when the job makes no use of the workers natural combination of perception and judgment but constantly demands the opposite combination (p. 4). Therefore, if the MBTI is found to have the ability to increase team performance, then there is a possible tangential benefit of having increased job satisfaction and motivation. In a meta-analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and individual performance, Petty, McGee, and Cavender (1984) state that "According to Organ, social exchange theory suggests that performance or productivity might be viewed as an appropriate form of reciprocation to the organization in exchange for whatever satisfaction is afforded an employee by his or her job" (p. 713). Therefore, using the MBTI training for team-building can be a beneficial tool for human resource managers to have, and it is of great value to ensure that the MBTI is a valid measure to use in these situations. Research questions The researcher would like to answer the following questions: Is the MBTI an effective tool for team-building? Does a greater understanding of MBTI typology among team members increase levels of overall team performance? Hypotheses The researcher has the following hypotheses in regards to this study: MBTI training will increase team members perceptions of team performance. Participants will view the MBTI as an effective team-building tool in the

workplace.

13

Significance of research This study contains research that is very important to practitioners and those in Human Resources positions if it is found that the MBTI has a significant impact on perceived levels of team performance. The MBTI tool could be more widely used in team-building practices and potentially reduce the costs of having ineffective team-building activities. It could also have a potentially great benefit of increasing worker productivity and even lead to higher levels of job satisfaction within an organization. Definition of terms Personality Inventory- "any of several tests that attempt to characterize the personality of an individual by objective scoring of replies to a large number of questions concerning his or her own behavior" (Personality Inventory Merriam-Webster, 2012). Extroversion-Introversion- describes where people prefer to focus their attention and get their energyfrom the outer world of people and activity or their inner world of ideas and experiences (www.mbti.com). Sensing-Intuition- describes how people prefer to take in informationfocused on what is real and actual or on patterns and meanings in data (www.mbti.com). Judging-Perceiving- describes how people prefer to deal with the outer worldin a planned orderly way, or in a flexible spontaneous way (www.mbti.com). Thinking-Feeling- describes how people prefer to make decisionsbased on logical analysis or guided by concern for their impact on others (www.mbti.com). Work Team- "a group of members with interdependent interaction and mutually shared responsibility for achieving specified outcomes" (Cohen & Bailey, 1997 p. 242,). team-building- "a long-term, data-based intervention in which intact work teams experientially

14 learn, by examining their structures, purposes, norms, values, and interpersonal dynamics, to increase their skills for effective teamwork" (Liebowitz & De Meuse, 1981, p. 357). Brief overview of the study This study will attempt to measure whether an instructor built MBTI training tool has any correlation with higher levels of team performance within an organization. The researcher will create a survey using empirically tested team performance measures as well as evaluative questions and offer this survey to several work teams who have been given MBTI training after at least a 30-day time frame has passed. The researcher will then analyze this survey data in order to draw a conclusion about this relationship. The next section of this paper addresses the studys overarching theoretical and conceptual frameworks. All important literature pertaining to the MBTI instrument and personality testing is reviewed in detail. Finally, the seminal literature covering team performance and team-building is investigated.

Literature Review Conceptual framework

MBTI Training

Higher Team Performan ce

15 The framework for this study is a very simple one. By using the MBTI to build teamwork and understanding among work teams, it can be expected that these teams will have higher levels of perceived team performance once a 30-day time period has passed. Social Cognitive Theory Social Cognitive Theory is grounded in the work done by Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961). These researchers hypothesized that much of the learning that occurs throughout the life span is done by simply observing others' behaviors, determining what consequences resulted from these behaviors, and either replicating them or being deterred from participating in the same or in a similar way. The researchers tested this hypothesis by allowing children to observe an adult model of the same sex either acting aggressively or non-aggressively to an inflatable doll (the Bobo doll). The researchers then allowed the children to interact with the same doll and noted whether they behaved in an aggressive or non-aggressive way. The researchers found that the children were more likely to act in the same way that they had originally observed in the adult model of the same sex. This theory is relevant to the current study in that the foundation for teamwork rests in the observation and learning from others in a social environment. For example, if a majority of team members indicate their dismay towards a task and behave in a manner that suggestions decreased motivation and performance towards completion of this task, then others in the group are very likely to replicate the same behavior. Therefore, the results of this study may be linked purely to the social dynamics and learning that occurs among work teams, rather than resulting from any positive gains from the MBTI intervention in other areas that are related to teams. How the MBTI was developed The MBTI is theoretically based in the ideas of Carl Jung (1910). Jung first created the idea of different types of personality. He believed that humans had a preference for taking in

16 information about the outside world and forming opinions and making decisions with that information. These different tendencies can lead to the ability of researchers to classify people into certain personality types. Jung believed that there were four dichotomous pairs that could be defined and used to understand these differences in perception and thinking. The first scale, Extroversion-Introversion (E-I), relates to where individuals mainly focus their perception and judgments. Extroverts tend to base their thinking and judgments on people and objects in the outside world. However, introverts base their cognitions on inner concepts and ideas. The next scale, Sensing-Intuition (S-N) reflects the two different ways that individuals perceive the world. People who score highly on the sensing index tend to rely primarily on their five senses to gather observable facts about the world around them. People who score highly on the intuition index take the information gathered from the outside world and only make decisions about their perceptions after the sensory information has been internally processed. The scale of Thinking-Feeling (T-F) is indicative of how people prefer to make judgments. Those who prefer to use thinking base their judgments on logical facts and conclusions. However, those who prefer feeling tend to base judgments on personal or social values. The final scale, Judgment-Perception (J-P), encompasses information from the previous scale to give an overall view of what preferences an individual tends to have. Those who fall on the judgment side tend to use logic and observable information when dealing with the outside world. Those who score highly on the perception side tend to use inner thoughts and values when dealing with the outside world. Myers and Myers (1980) state that "Whichever process they prefer, whether sensing or intuition, they will use more, paying closer attention to its stream of impressions and fashioning their idea of the world from what the process reveals. The other kind of perception will be background, a little out of focus (p. 2). Team Performance

17 The seminal article that this entire study is based on comes from an article written by Bradley and Hebert (1997). The authors focus on modern Information Systems (IS) teams and the difficulty with which these teams are formed in the workplace. They first outline the most popular method of creating IS teams, the "Joint Application Design (JAD)," which outlines the importance of understanding individual differences in order to create the most effective IS teams. According to the JAD approach, teams would be composed of stakeholders involved in different pieces of the process who can all bring their own set of specialties and knowledge to the table. The authors also state that there are four characteristics of productive teams that are related to individual differences: effective leadership, intra-team communication, heterogeneity, and group cohesion. The authors then transition into how individual personality types (based on the results of the MBTI) factor into success on these four levels that are crucial for effective teams. They present their findings in the following figure:

18 Figure 1. "A model of the impact of personality type on team productivity" (Bradley & Hebert, 1997, p. 344). This figure first shows that the best leaders for a team would be an ESTJ or an ENTJ. Next, it shows that the effectiveness of intra-team communication is dependent on how an individual falls in the measures of extroversion or introversion, sensing or intuition, and thinking or feeling. Also, it shows that the heterogeneity of a team depends on how each individual falls on the four major MBTI dichotomies. Finally, this figure shows that the amount of team cohesion is dependent on how individuals fall on the measure of thinking or feeling. The researchers present the importance of this information by using a case study example obtained from a "mediumsized software development company in the Southeastern USA" (p. 345). Managers at this company noticed a significant difference between the quality and efficiency of two of their work teams. They measured each team member on critical thinking skills, IQ, age, and MBTI personality types. The only noticeable difference between the two groups was the distribution of MBTI types. Bradley and Hebert (1997) came to the conclusion that Based on the analysis presented in this section, team composition of personality types does appear to be an important explanatory variable for differences in team performance.

The literature and this case example suggest that in general, diversity and balance in team member personality types is needed to produce successful team performance. (p. 350)

This article (Bradley & Hebert, 1997) is seminal in the fact that it was the first to determine that personality type does affect team performance based on a small review of the literature and through analyzing a case study. The only limitation to the conclusions made in this article is the fact that an experimental or quasi-experimental design was not used. The major benefit to using these designs is the fact that causality can be implied from the results. This means that most, if not all, of the extraneous variables were accounted for and that the independent variable caused

19 the change in the dependent variable. In this case, it means that diversity in personality types among group members is what definitely caused the higher team performance. Unfortunately, since an experimental or quasi-experimental research design was not used, the significance of the results is slightly reduced. However, the current study will attempt to create a more definitive conclusion about these variables by using a quasi-experimental design. Team Effectiveness This study, conducted by Varvel, Adams, Pridie, and Ruiz Ulloa in 2004, was trying to determine whether people with similar MBTI scores would work more effectively in a team together. The participants were 188 senior design students at the University of Nebraska. The researchers randomly placed the students into different work groups and assigned each of them several tasks that were similar to situations that they would encounter in the workplace. About one month into the study, half of the teams were given training with the MBTI which included what each of the personality types meant and how to deal with each type. The other teams were simply given the MBTI and no discussion was involved. The teams were also given a Team Effectiveness Questionnaire that includes seven dimensions: productive conflict resolution, mature communication, role clarity, accountable interdependence, goal clarification, common purpose, and psychological safety. The researchers (Varvel, et al., 2004) wanted to see if certain personality types worked well or poorly together and they based this on the final team grade that each group received on their project. They correlated the average MBTI types with the TEQ measures. They also correlated the MBTI types with the grades the teams received on their final project. The researchers found that there was not a particular combination of personality types that had a direct influence on team effectiveness. However, they found that by simply knowing and understanding how the different personality types interacted with each other; the teams were able to improve their effectiveness. This

20 research is important because it does use an experimental design and the results contradict the previous article because it shows that certain combinations of people with MBTI types do not have a direct influence on team performance. However, the study implies that by simply knowing about personality type differences and the most effective forms of communication, both indirect results of the MBTI, can have a positive impact on team performance. Gorla and Lam (2004) expanded upon the work done by Bradley and Hebert (1997). The authors present the argument that software projects often have trouble managing costs and schedule and this can be attributed to poor team composition and the resulting poor levels of personality heterogeneity, team leadership, intra-team communication, and team coordination. The authors argue that previous research has not had a large enough sample to draw from (instead focusing on case studies) and that it has not focused on small (3-7 member) IS teams. Therefore, the researchers created a study using the four MBTI dichotomies and a team productivity measure to determine, "The effect of the project leaders personality on team performance; The effect of team members personalities on team performance; and The effect of heterogeneity of personalities on team performance" (p. 80). The researchers created a survey and sampled 92 IS professionals from 20 different software companies located in Hong Kong, China. The respondents were first given the MBTI and were then asked to, Rank the amount of work done by the team (from 1 = too little to 5 = too much), the quality of work (from 1 = low quality to 5 = high quality), efficiency of team least efficient to 5 = most efficient), the effectiveness of user operations (from 1 =

interaction (from 1 = least

effective to 5 = most effective), the frequency of schedule adherence (from 1 = never to 5 = always), and frequency of budget adherence (from 1 = never to 5 = always)" (p. 80). The researchers found that team leaders were more productive if they score higher on the Intuition and Feeling scales. They also found that teams with a systems analyst who scored

21 higher on the Thinking scale performed better than those who had a Feeling orientation. Finally, the researchers found that programmers performed better if they fell on the Extroversion side of the scale. The researchers (Gora & Lam, 2004) concluded that small IS teams require different personality allocations than larger teams; that there should be personality heterogeneity between the team leader and other team members but that heterogeneity among team members is not as important; and that optimal team performance will come from selecting each team member based on the above findings of preferred personality type for each member role. This article is important because it builds off of the previous research done by Bradley and Hebert (1997) but is done in a manner that involves a quasi-experimental design. Therefore, more significant conclusions can be drawn from this study. Team-building The first article that is important to include in this review of the current literature about team-building is an article written by Offermann and Spiros (2001). The researchers wanted to determine what current practices were being used for team-building, what further research is needed to create better practices, and ways to improve the link between research and practice when in the process of team-building. The researchers sampled 442 members of the Academy of Management's Organizational Development and Change Division. They created a 29-item mailout questionnaire that assessed demographic information, Organizational Development experience, practice experience with groups and teams, perceptions of teams and team development needs, and resources used to inform practice with teams. The researchers (Offerman & Spiros, 2001) analyzed and reported the data from a variety of angles. However, the most relevant information to this study comes from their results about the most common problems that respondents reported when working in teams and the assessments used in intervention attempts to solve these problems. The following chart lists the problems (in

22 order) and the percentage of participants who reported these problems in their work teams: Work team problems (in order) Percentage of participants who reported

this problem Goal Issues 91 Communication 90 Role Issues 88.6 Problem Solving 87.6 Decision Making 84.3 Table 1. Work team problems and the percentage of participants who reported these problems. This information can be related to the problems that previous researchers have found that effect team performance. For example, Bradley and Hebert (1997) list that the four characteristics for effective teams are: effective leadership, intra-team communication, heterogeneity, and group cohesion. Role Issues and Decision Making problems could be related to a lack of effective leadership. Communication problems are directly related to Bradley and Hebert's intra-team communication characteristic. Goal Issues and Problem Solving issues could also be related to poor group cohesion. Obviously, these connections are just inferences made by this researcher, but it is clear that a link could potentially exist between the team-building problems that Offermann and Spiros (2001) reported and the characteristics of effective teams that Bradley and Hebert (1997) documented. Secondly, the researchers found that 49% of academic practitioners and 60% of full-time practitioners used the MBTI as an intervention assessment tool aimed at increasing team-building. Unfortunately, data was not available as to whether the tool was being used for attitude or performance improvement. Therefore, the authors (Offermann & Spiros, 2001) state that, Given particular criticism of the MBTI as a performance enhancement measure (e.g., Druckman & Bjork, 1991), it would be important for future research to determine when and how the MBTI is being used-that is, whether it is being used for attitude or improvement...Although these instruments may be valuable because of performance the degree of their

23 individualized focus, they provide the field with limited ability to accumulate knowledge across organizations (p. 388). This research is valid to the current study in that it proves that practitioners in the field are using the MBTI during team-building practices. However, the obvious limitation is that a determination cannot be made as to how exactly this tool is being used since data was not collected in that regard. In an article written by Culp and Smith (2001), the authors compare the characteristics that Myers (1998) described for each of the dichotomous pairs found in the MBTI to their application for improving the performance of engineering project teams by identifying possible problems that could be caused through the interactions of individuals with opposite preferences. The authors (Culp & Smith, 2001) support the use of the MBTI in this process because it can help clearly identify where team members' preferences lie. They (Culp & Smith, 2001) begin the discussion with the communication preferences for introverts and extroverts and highlight the fact that extroverts tend to talk before they think and it is often the opposite case for introverts. They describe how this can lead to a possible breakdown of communication and scope creep if introverts assume that each idea that an extrovert presents is a well thought-out idea that needs to be explored further, when in reality these ideas are just part of the extrovert's process of thinking out loud. The researchers state that the MBTI can be a useful intervention tool here because it will clearly highlight the thought preferences between the two personality types and hopefully will increase the understanding among team members if extroverts are able to think out loud and introverts are allowed the time they need to internally process these ideas. They also state that the brainstorming process could be improved if both introverts and extroverts understand the fact that there needs to be a balance between talking and listening among group members and that behavior modification may be necessary for this to

24 occur. Next, the researchers (Culp & Smith, 2001) move onto the discussion about the difference between those who prefer to take in details about the observed environment (Sensing) and those who prefer to try and see the bigger picture and make inferences based on the information that is around them (Intuition). The authors point out the fact that the relationship between these aspects of personality can be very valuable to a project team but tension can be created if a balance is not struck between the two. For example, those who prefer Intuition will most likely offer creative and broad ideas; however, those who prefer Sensing will usually take a practical approach to these ideas and determine, based on the environmental characteristics, whether they are feasible. They state that intuitives will often be happy working with the conceptual planning and framework of a project whereas sensors will be best suited for the detailed design phase. Sensors will be more likely to determine the exact details of a problem and the intuitives will probably be the ones to offer creative solutions. The researchers (Culp & Smith, 2001) then discuss the differences between those individuals who prefer to think simply about the logical consequences of a decision (Thinking) and those who take into consideration the thoughts and feelings of themselves and others (Feeling). They give an example of a project manager who preferred Feeling and was very good at building rapport with possible clients and winning project bids, but was very poor at the actual planning and execution of the projects. Therefore, it was important to include a manager who preferred "thinking" in order to ensure that the project details and design were planned and executed in a logical manner. The authors advise project teams to use the Thinkers to determine what ideas make logical sense and then filter these ideas through the Feelers to determine the impact that they will have on others within and outside of the organization. In the final part of their discussion about improving project team performance, the authors

25 (Culp & Smith, 2001) identify the difference between those who prefer to have a planned and orderly life (Judging) and those who prefer to live in a flexible and spontaneous way (Perceiving). The authors described the problems that can be caused with deadlines and scheduling if a team does not have an adequate amount, if any, judgers on the team in order to plan and maintain a schedule and handle time management. However, it is also important to have perceivers who will be more likely to determine project priorities and allow for changes in the schedule if necessary. An overly rigid group of judgers may be able to keep the group on task but it is important that the perceivers ensure that the group is moving in the right direction. This article (Culp & Smith, 2001) is of utmost importance to the current study since it outlines the personality preferences and characteristics that the MBTI identifies, the problems that can arise, and possible solutions for these problematic situations. Ultimately, this study is attempting to replicate these findings in a slightly different setting by actually using team performance measures to determine whether these problems either did not arise or were helped by an MBTI training intervention. However, the results of previous studies (Culp & Smith, 2001) could help identify possible obstacles that work teams were not able to overcome if it is found that team performance levels did not increase after the MBTI training. Some of these problems may require further intervention and will allow the researcher to recommend possible hurdles that must be overcome in the workplace in order for an improvement in team performance to occur. Team Function Team communication It is important to discuss other variables such as team communication that may have an effect on team performance. Ancona and Caldwell (1992) wanted to determine the effect that diversity and relating factors had upon levels of team performance. The authors acknowledge the

26 fact that many work teams are beginning to include a very diverse demography and it is important to study the amount of influence that this diversity has on a variety of variables. In relation to this study, the researchers hypothesized that the efficiency of internal task processes (which includes team communication) will have a direct impact upon team performance. In particular, the researchers believed that teams with more efficient internal team processes would have higher levels of team performance. They tested this hypothesis by surveying 47 new product teams in five different high-technology companies. These teams had to meet the following criteria: were then working on a new product development initiative, had a development cycle of at least one and one-half to three years, and were in the same organizational division. The survey included questions relating to several variables but again, the important variable here is that of internal processes. The researchers obtained a response from 409 participants that totaled to 45 teams. The researchers found that "internal task processes were positively related to team performance but not to other measures of performance (r = 0.54, p <0.001)" (p. 332). This study (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) is important to the current research because part of the evaluative questions relating to the MBTI training is that an improved level of team communication will be present after the training. The researcher hopes to measure this variable with the statement, "The workshop discussion of the MBTI has improved communication in my department (see Appendix B)." If there is a significant difference in the before and after levels of this statement, then it can be implied that team performance did increase to some degree simply as a result of improved communication. Such a conclusion can be drawn because this study (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) shows that a cause-and-effect relationship between effective internal task processes and higher levels of team performance does exist. Team cohesion

27 It would be wise to begin the discussion of team cohesion by referring to a work that has previously been cited in this study. The research done by Dionne et al. (2003) also includes information relating to greater levels of team cohesion being involved with higher levels of team performance. The researchers include team cohesion in the category of "teamwork processes" that can be improved through the use of transformational leadership and ultimately can increase team performance levels. The researchers suggest that "Idealized Influence/Inspirational Motivation impacts cohesion through visioning behaviors involving rapport building and empathetic language" (p. 183). Therefore, the researchers state that if transformational leadership is used (and the subsequent "leader individualized influence/inspirational motivation" factor) then it should lead to the development of a shared team vision and should create commitment among team members. This, in turn, should lead to a greater sense of cohesion among group members. This process should ultimately lead to higher levels of team performance. The relevant part of their model is shown below:

28

Figure 2. Transformational Leadership and Team Performance Model (Dionne et al., p. 187, 2003). This figure visually represents the linear relationship between Leader Individualized Influence/Inspirational Motivation (factors of transformational leadership), team shared vision, team commitment, cohesion, and team performance.

29 This article (Dionne, et al., 2003) is important to the current research because it offers a linear and somewhat causal relationship between team cohesion and team performance. The researcher hopes to measure this variable with the statement, "The MBTI workshop has made my work team more cohesive (see Appendix B)." If there is also a significant difference in the before and after levels of this statement, then it can be implied that team performance did increase to some degree simply as a result of improved cohesion among team members.

Team Leadership Dionne et al. (2003) argue that several aspects involved in transformational leadership have importance to levels of team performance. They attempt to synthesize previous research done relating to leadership, teamwork process, and team performance variables and create a model that explains the relationship between the three. The relevant material relating to this study is included in the proposed link between transformational leadership and the teamwork process of communication. The authors cite research done by Bass and Avolio (1994) who refer to transformational leadership as comprised of: idealized influence/inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. These authors (Dionne et al., 2003) argue that if group leaders follow transformational leadership, which includes these three factors, then teamwork process factors such as communication, conflict management skills, and cohesion, will be more developed and ultimately team performance levels will be higher. They base this assumption on previous research done in each of these fields and propose that a linear link does exist between transformational leadership, teamwork processes, and team performance. They state that, "The individually considerate leader is responsible for constructing a one-to-one relationship with each team member, listening to concerns, and addressing individual needs (Bass, 1994;

30 Yammarino et al., 1998). As such, the transformational leadership dimension of individualized consideration may be an appropriate precursor to effective team communication" (p. 185). Therefore, the researchers state that if transformational leadership is used (and the subsequent "leader individualized consideration" factor) then it will lead to a more empowered team environment which includes more effective communication and other teamwork processes. This process should ultimately lead to higher levels of team performance. The relevant part of their model is shown below:

31

32 Figure 3. Transformational Leadership and Team Performance Model (Dionne et al., p. 187, 2003). This figure visually represents the linear relationship between the leader's individualized consideration (a factor of transformational leadership), an empowered team environment, communication, and team performance. This article (Dionne, et al., 2003) is important to the current research because it offers a linear and somewhat causal relationship between an improved leadership style that results in more effective team communication. This study shows that such a link should ultimately lead to higher levels of team performance. Again, if it is found that the MBTI training improves levels of team communication through effective leadership then it can also be expected that team performance levels will increase to some degree. However, "leadership" is not a variable that the researcher will focus on and whether some form of effective leadership resulted in the improved communication will remain unbeknownst for the purposes of this study. Employee Satisfaction Maslows hierarchy of needs and job satisfaction Abraham Maslow (1943) developed a theory of human needs in his landmark paper A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow described humans as having distinct categories of needs that are in a hierarchal structure. That is, the lowest need must be satisfied before the next can be attained and so forth. At the bottom of Maslows pyramid are Physiological needs. These are simply the basic requirements in order for humans to survive: food, water, shelter, etc. The next step is Safety and Security. These needs include proper shelter and also a relationship with other human beings with whom the individual feels safe with. After safety and security needs are met, then the individual will be able to satisfy the needs of Love and Belonging. These needs include a sense of belonging with others and intimate connections with friends and family members. The

33 next step in this hierarchy is the need for Self-Esteem. Maslow argued that humans need to believe in their own abilities and respect themselves. After all of these needs have been met, the individual can finally reach the level of Self-Actualization. This is where a person feels that he or she is living life to its fullest potential and that he or she is becoming everything that he or she is capable of. Lawler III and Porter (1967) proposed a study to determine whether personal performance at work had an impact on job satisfaction. The researchers wanted to first determine whether perceived intrinsic or extrinsic rewards for increased performance would lead to rises in job satisfaction. They compared these reward systems to the levels of Maslows hierarchy. Extrinsic rewards included those in the lower levels of the hierarchy (Physiological and Safety/Security) while the intrinsic rewards included the higher levels of the hierarchy (Love and Belonging, SelfEsteem, and Self-Actualization). 148 middle and lower level managers were randomly selected from five different large organizations. In this study (Lawler & Porter, 1967), superiors and peers rated each manager on 1) how hard the manager worked and 2) how well the manager performed his job. Each manager was also given a 13-item questionnaire that was designed to measure his or her degree of satisfaction in each of Maslows (1943) five need areas. These two different ratings of performance by superiors and peers were correlated with the self-evaluation of job satisfaction. The researchers (Lawler & Porter, 1967) found that intrinsic rewards were more likely to be related to performance which in turn led to higher levels of job satisfaction. The highest correlation actually appeared between rewards related to self-actualization and job performance. This study (Lawler & Porter, 1967) suggests that a link may very well exist between meeting certain intrinsic needs and increasing levels of performance and job satisfaction. This relates to the proposed study because a measure of personality may give employers insight into which

34 rewards an individual may need in order to increase his or her job satisfaction. However, this study was conducted 44 years ago and the results may not be significant today. Also, there was little to no data to confirm the validity of any of the measures. Personality and job satisfaction One important study is directly related to this research. A study of personality and job satisfaction by Judge, Bono, and Locke in 2000, compared self-evaluations of four different aspects of personality to job complexity and perceived job characteristics. Participants were randomly selected from all zip codes of a mid sized midwestern city. The researchers mailed out surveys to 1,981 men and women between the ages of 24 and 58. These surveys included questions aimed to measure four personality characteristics as well as information about perceived job characteristics (14-item version of the Job Diagnostic Survey) and job complexity (Dictionary of Occupational Titles scale). The researchers (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000) measured the level of job satisfaction using four different models of this measure. The first model suggested that self-evaluations, job complexity, and job characteristics were all related to job satisfaction. The second model stated that there would be no relationship between self-evaluations and job satisfaction. The third model stated that there is no relationship between job complexity and job satisfaction. The fourth model stated that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between self-evaluations and job characteristics. The four specific personality evaluation measures were: self-esteem (10-item self esteem scale), generalized self-efficacy (7-item self made scale), locus of control (Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scale), and neuroticism (12-item Eysenck Personality Inventory). These four personality measures and the scores on job complexity and job characteristics were all correlated with each other. These measures were then correlated with scores on a job satisfaction survey. The researchers (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000) found that job complexity

35 was an important explanatory variable in the relationship between the self-evaluations and job satisfaction. This relationship was also found to be stable over time. The researchers also found that, regardless of which model was tested, the core-evaluations had a significant relationship with job satisfaction. This study (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000) is an important foundation when trying to support the idea that personality and job satisfaction are related and dependent upon one another. In the case of this research, it is attempting to provide evidence that the MBTI, a personality measure, can have positive effects on job satisfaction when the results are interpreted and discussed properly in the team-building process. The primary difference between this study (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000) and the proposed research is the fact that it did not involve any specific organization, but instead used surveys sent to a diverse sample of individuals. Goal Attainment Knight, Durham, and Locke (2001) examined the effects of goal difficulty, monetary incentives, and efficacy on the strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance of teams. The researchers cite work done by Locke and Latham (1990) and state that "Prior research has shown that goals can motivate the discovery and use of analytic strategies, increase the use of "trained strategies" (those learned through training), enhance planning quality, interact with strategies to influence performance, and have a mediated effect on performance through strategies" (p. 326). The relevant information here is contained in the discussion about goal attainment and its direct and indirect effects on team performance. The researchers (Knight, Durham, & Locke, 2001) believe that more difficult goals will affect team performance through the use of the strategies that teams select in order to attain their goals and the involved risk with each strategy and incentives for using them. Therefore, they hypothesize that the highest performing teams will be those with difficult goals and incentives.

36 The researchers tested this hypothesis by creating 88 3-person teams with 264 students who were enrolled in senior-level management courses at a public university. These teams were tasked with completing a computer simulation in which each team had to destroy 16 "enemy" pillboxes with their virtual tanks while minimizing the number of "friendly" tanks that were destroyed. Teams were assigned to a "difficult-goal condition" or an "easy-goal condition" and planned out strategies to complete this task. Participants were first given a questionnaire to assess team goals and efficacy before beginning the simulation. Team performance was measured in terms of the number of pillboxes destroyed and friendly tanks lost. The researchers found that the mean performance level was significantly higher for those who were in the "difficult-goal condition" than those in the other conditions, thus supporting the previously discussed hypothesis. This study (Knight, Durham, & Locke, 2001) is relevant to the current research because it highlights the fact that team goal attainment is an important factor in team performance. This is meaningful to note since the team performance measures include questions relating to goal attainment such as, "This team accomplishes its objectives," "This team meets the requirements set for it," and "This team achieves its goals (see Appendix C)." The researcher hopes that the subsequent MBTI training will help to improve the motivation for group goal attainment. Now that relevant research has been reviewed, an overview of the methodology for this study will be given followed by data analysis and accompanying results. These results will be followed with a discussion about the limitations of this study and recommendations for future research. Methodology Research Design The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between the use of the MBTI for team-building practices and later team performance. The researcher used a

37 quasi-experimental design in order to measure team performance levels in the group who were exposed to MBTI training as a team-building practice at least 30 days earlier. A quasiexperimental design was chosen because the work teams who received the MBTI training were pre-selected beforehand. Therefore, random selection of participants was not possible. A 19 item survey was created using Qualtrics and this survey was distributed to all participants in hard copy format immediately before the MBTI training and electronically to the same work teams after at least a 30-day time frame had passed since the training was given. Participants were given 7 days to respond to the survey with a reminder e-mail sent to them on the fourth day during this time period. The researcher used empirically tested team performance measures as well as items specifically created for this study. Evaluative questions were created by the researcher and used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Team performance data was quantitative in nature and was measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Inaccurate) to 7 (Very Accurate). A quasi-experimental design was chosen because this study took place in a real life work setting and there is a variable being manipulated to study its effects. It would be extremely difficult to control for all of the other variables that contribute to team performance in order to justify a cause-and-effect relationship. However, inferences may be drawn about a possible relationship between the two variables if a significant difference is found.

Description of Sample The researcher used a convenience sample pulled from a medium-sized healthcare organization located in central Virginia. The sample was drawn from a database of participants who attended an MBTI training workshop in order to help build teamwork within their respective work teams. There was be a variety of job roles involved in this sample so it was be difficult to

38 specify the exact nature of the sample. However, it can be estimated that most, if not all, positions at this organization require at least a high school education. Some positions may require up to a Doctoral degree for qualification. Again, these requirements will vary from position to position but it can be assumed that participants chosen will be at least 18 years of age. Data Collection Instruments Myers-Briggs Type Indicator The MBTI was used in order to give employees insight into their personalities and the personalities of those within their work teams. It is a 93-item test that takes about 15-20 minutes to administer. It provides a four-letter personality type (out of 16 possible) based on responses to the questions. With regard to reliability, the MBTI Form M Manual Supplement (Schaubhut, Herk, & Thompson, 2009) lists several different ethnic groups, age groups, and other samples used to determine internal consistency. The authors define internal consistency as, the consistency of responses to a set of items assessing the same concept. Cronbachs Alpha (a) is used to measure this concept. Higher alpha levels indicate that different test items all relate to the same group and can be used in a variety of settings. High alpha levels also mean that the Type scores received by individuals are actually measuring their personality and not some other variable such as their race, employment, etc. Some of the groups used in the data collection for internal consistency and their results are as follows: employment status (a = .86-.92), ethnicity (a = .80-.92), age (a = .87-.92), and nationality (a = .81-.91). These results mean that the MBTI can be used across different employments, ethnicities, ages, and nationalities with reliable scores being obtained for all individuals. The MBTI Form M Manual Supplement also has values for test-retest reliability. The authors define test-retest reliability as, consistency of scores resulting from a participant completing the same assessment at two different times. High correlation values mean that the scores of the test are reliable across long periods of time. The test-retest

39 correlations for the four MBTI dichotomies range from medium to highly positive which indicates that the test has good reliability for scores over time (r = .57-.81). With regards to validity, the MBTI Form M Manual Supplement has a tremendous amount of data where the test items are correlated to similar items on other tests of personality assessment. Overall, the items that the MBTI aim to measure correlate very well with other tests such as the Adjective Check List, CPI-260 Assessment, Strong Interest Inventory Assessment, among many others. However, the most interesting validity test that the MBTI uses is called Best Fit Validity. This validity test is accomplished by recording a participants opinion of whether the score he or she obtained is the best fit for his or her actual personality. The authors report that the rates of agreement between reported Type and best fit Type range from 62% to 85% from a sample of 8,836 participants. Demographic information The researcher collected simple demographic information about the participants in order to determine how well the results of the study are able to generalize to the population. The demographics were simply age and gender. Team Performance Scale The Team Performance Scale was developed by Gibson, Cooper, and Conger (2009) for the use of measuring the perceptual differences between leaders and teams in regards to performance. The scale originally appeared in an article entitled, "Do You See What We See? The Complex Effects of Perceptual Distance Between Leaders and Teams" published in The Journal of Applied Psychology. The four-item scale is shown in the following table:

40
Very Inaccurate (1) Somewhat Inaccurate (3) Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate (4) Somewhat Accurate (5)

Items

Inaccurate (2)

Accurate (6)

Very Accurate (7)

This team is consistently a highperforming team. (1) This team is effective. (2) This team makes few mistakes. (3) This team does high quality work. (4)

Table 2. Team Performance Scale There were several statistical tests done on this scale to ensure that it is both a reliable and valid measure to use in determining team performance. The first measure of reliability that the researchers used was an inter-rater agreement score which is essentially a measure of how closely experts in the field of team performance agree that this scale accurately measures team performance. The measure ranges from 0 (no agreement) to 1 (complete agreement) and 0.60 is seen as the suggested cutoff criterion for this measurement (Glick, 1985). This scale had an interrater agreement level of 0.93 which well succeeds the cutoff criterion and means that almost all experts who examined this scale agreed that it is a reliable measure for team performance. The researchers also used an exploratory factor analysis to determine whether these four statements all measured the concept of "team performance." In laymen terms, these four statements accounted for 72% of the variance when determining which variables are encompassed by the theory of "team performance" (eigenvalue = 2.87). Leader-Team Perceptions on Goal Accomplishment Scale The Leader-Team Perceptions on Goal Accomplishment Scale was also developed by

41 Gibson, Cooper, and Conger (2009) for the use of measuring the perceptual differences between leaders and teams in regards to performance. This five-item scale is shown in the table below:
Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate (4)

Items

Very Inaccurate (1)

Inaccurate (2)

Somewhat Inaccurate (3)

Somewhat Accurate (5)

Accurate (6)

Very Accurate (7)

This team fulfills its mission. (1) This team accomplishes its objectives. (2) This team meets the requirements set for it. (3) This team achieves its goals. (4) This team serves the purpose it is intended to serve. (5)

Table 3. Leader-Team Perceptions on Goal Accomplishment Scale The researchers also included statistical information for the reliability and validity of this scale. Again, the accepted cutoff criterion for inter-rater agreement is 0.60 and this scale scored a 0.95. The researchers also used an exploratory factor analysis to determine whether these five statements all measured the concept of "goal accomplishment." In laymen terms, these five statements accounted for 81% of the variance when determining which variables are encompassed by the theory of "goal accomplishment" (eigenvalue = 4.01). Researcher-created Evaluation The researcher was sanctioned by the facilitator of the MBTI workshop to create an evaluation in order to determine whether the objectives of the workshop were attained. The

42 evaluation is as follows: Table 4. Researcher-created Evaluation

Strongly Disagree (1)
The MBTI is an effective tool for team-building in the workplace. (1) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has helped me better understand my own actions within the team. (2) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has increased my understanding of team members actions. (3) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has improved communication in my department. (4) The MBTI workshop has increased my overall satisfaction with my work team. (5) The MBTI workshop has made my work team more cohesive. (6) The information presented in the MBTI workshop is relevant to my current position. (7)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

The only item that is relevant to this study is the statement, "The MBTI is an effective tool for team-building in the workplace." This item was used to test the research question, "Is the MBTI an effective tool for team-building?" The facilitator would like the mean rating to be at least a 6.0 (Agree or higher) on the Likert scale in order to conclude that participants viewed the MBTI as

43 an effective tool for team-building in the workplace. This 6.0 rating is completely arbitrary and unfortunately does not have any reliability or validity data to support it. However, this is to be expected since the entire evaluation was created by the researcher and none of the questions have statistically proven reliability or validity. The results of the rest of this scale was presented to the facilitator so that she can have feedback for use in modifying this workshop for future presentations. Internal and External Validity, Reliability, Generalizability, and Limitations The main threats to validity include subject characteristics, mortality, and the fact that the research design is quasi-experimental in nature. Subject characteristics could result from the simple fact that different teams may naturally have higher performance levels for reasons unknown to the researcher. Subject characteristics were limited by holding all procedures standard and using a quasi-experimental design to make general inferences about the results. Mortality is probably the most important threat to the validity of the proposed study. Data collection cannot be completed until 30 days have passed since the MBTI training. It is likely that many external variables could cause fluctuations in team performance before the 30-day waiting period is met. The researcher attempted to control for this loss by ensuring that a sufficient number of participants are in the study (n > 30) before conclusions and interpretations about the results are made. If, after the 30-day data collection period expires, there are fewer than 30 participants, then the researcher will try to extend the amount of time for the study to occur. Because of the possible limited sample size and distinguishing characteristics of the participants, it may be difficult to generalize the results of this study to a larger population. There are many factors that contribute to team performance between different organizations and trying to draw generalized conclusions from the results of a single study may not be possible. However, the researcher understands the conditions placed on the study and will only generalize the results of

44 this study to other healthcare organizations if a significant difference between the two groups is found. A quasi-experimental design has a major threat to internal validity due to the lack of random assignment of participants. It is difficult to rule out the effects of extraneous variables and determine exactly what effect the independent variable has (Kirk, 1982). Description and Justification of the Statistical Techniques The researcher has chosen a quasi-experimental design because there is a significant lack of this type of research being done on personality testing in the workplace. The review of previous literature has found that correlational and causal-comparative studies are very prevalent. However, the researcher believes that actual manipulation of a personality assessment variable is important for understanding what type of impact it has in an organization. Since the same participants are being sampled on a before-and-after basis, the researcher will use an independent samples t-test in order to determine if the scores on the team performance measure were significantly different after the 30-day time frame. Should the proposed plan fail, and if a large enough sample is not obtained even after extending the data collection period, the researcher will try to select a different and preferably larger organization to conduct the study in. There could be a possibility for using a true experimental design by randomly assigning participants in a new organization to either receive the MBTI training or not and measuring the team performance of both groups using the same aforementioned design.

Expected Results and Conclusion The researcher expects that the participants who completed the MBTI training will have significantly higher scores on the team performance scales after the 30 day time period. The researcher would like to stress the importance of replication with a study of this nature. Because

45 of the limited generalizability stated earlier, similar results must be obtained in a variety of organizational settings before a valid conclusion can be drawn. However, the researcher would like to present the results of this study at the next conference for the Society for Human Resource Management if it is found that the MBTI can yields results that can be significantly important in the performance of workplace teams. This is to increase the awareness of the study and possibly offer managers another tool to increase team performance in the workplace. The pursuit of obtaining high levels of team performance has been the focus of researchers since the turn of the century. There are many theories as to what factors play into team performance. However, research has yet to pinpoint a single tool that employers can use to help increase team performance levels in many different environments. There is still much research to be done, but if the results of this study can be replicated and yield similar results, then consistent MBTI use in team-building practices may have a promising future for helping employees and employers alike obtain maximum levels of team performance. Results Storage of Data Quantitative survey data were stored in the Qualtrics survey database within the researchers password-protected account. Hard copies of pre-test data were stored in a locked file cabinet, located in Memorial Hall, room 3345A. Individuals with access to this file cabinet comprised the Learning, Technology, and Leadership Education Departments senior administrative assistant and department chair, as well as the researcher and his research chair. Description of actual sample Pre-test sample The breakdown of the demographic information for the 22 participants who completed the

46 pre-test survey are shown in the tables below:

# Answer Response %

1 2

Male Female

2 20 22

9% 91% 100%

Total Table 5. Gender of pre-test sample.

# Answer

Response

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18-21 22-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 or Over

0 5 2 3 7 4 1 22

0% 23% 9% 14% 32% 18% 5% 100%

Total Table 6. Ages of pre-test sample. Post-test sample

The breakdown of the demographic information for the 11 participants who completed the post-test survey are shown in the tables below:
# Answer Response %

1 2

Male Female

1 10 11

9% 91% 100%

Total Table 7. Gender of post-test sample.

47
# Answer Response %

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18-21 22-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 or Over

0 3 1 1 3 2 1 11

0% 27% 9% 9% 27% 18% 9% 100%

Total Table 8. Ages of post-test sample.

It is clear to see that the age and gender breakdown of the pre-test and post-test sample are very similar. Therefore, it can be safe to assume that the results were not caused by any significant differences in age and/or gender from the pre-test to the post-test. Quantitative Data Results In this section, the researcher will provide the results of the study. These results will be organized according to the research questions and hypotheses. Is the MBTI an effective tool for team-building? The first research question (R1) and hypothesis (H1) are as follows: R1: Is the MBTI an effective tool for team-building? H1: Participants will view the MBTI as an effective team-building tool in the workplace. In order for this hypothesis to be proven true, a mean rating of 6.0 (Agree) or higher on the statement, "The MBTI is an effective tool for team-building in the workplace" needed to be achieved. The table below shows the mean Likert Scale ratings for the user-created evaluation statements as well as the standard deviation and total number of responses.

48
The workshop discussion of the MBTI has helped me better understand my own actions within the team. 6.09 0.70 11 The workshop discussion of the MBTI has increased my understanding of team members actions. 5.82 0.75 11 The workshop discussion of the MBTI has improved communicatio n in my department. 4.91 1.51 11 The MBTI workshop has increased my overall satisfaction with my work team. 4.73 1.62 11 The information presented in the MBTI workshop is relevant to my current position. 6.09 0.94 11

Statistic

The MBTI is an effective tool for teambuilding in the workplace.

The MBTI workshop has made my work team more cohesive.

Mean Standard Deviation Total Responses

6.18 0.60 11

5.00 1.48 11

Table 9. Researcher-created evaluation results. It was found that participants averaged a Likert Scale rating of 6.18 on this statement. This indicates that participants found the MBTI to be an effective tool for team-building in the workplace, thus proving the hypothesis true. Does a greater understanding of MBTI typology among team members increase levels of overall team performance? The second research question (R2) and hypothesis (H2) are as follows: R2: Does a greater understanding of MBTI typology among team members increase levels of overall team performance? H2: MBTI training will increase team members perceptions of team performance. In order to determine whether this hypothesis is true, the researcher will calculate the pre-test and post-test average Likert scale ratings of the 9 combined statements on the "Team Performance Scale" and the "Leader-Team Perceptions on Goal Accomplishment Scale." The researcher will then use an independent samples t-test to determine whether the average Likert scale ratings on the post-test statements are significantly different than those on the pre-test. The researcher will test these values at a p-value significance level of 0.05. Conclusions can then be made about each individual statement on each of these scales and an overall conclusion about the relationship between the MBTI workshop and team performance can also be made. The mean, standard deviation, and total number of responses for the pre-test data are shown

49 in the table below:

Statistic

This team is consistentl y a highperforming team.

This team is effective.

This team makes few mistakes.

This team does high quality work.

This team fulfills its mission.

This team accomplish es its objectives.

This team meets the requiremen ts set for it.

This team achieves its goals.

This team serves the purpose it is intended to serve.

Mean

5.91

6.05

5.36

5.86

5.77

5.73

5.77

5.73

5.95

Standard Deviation

0.97

0.72

1.22

1.42

1.11

1.08

1.15

1.39

1.13

Total Responses

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

Table 10. Pre-test results. The mean, standard deviation, and total number of responses for the post-test data are shown in the table below:
This team is consistentl y a highperformin g team. 6.00 1.18 11 This team does high quality work. 5.82 1.25 11 This team accomplis hes its objectives. 6.00 0.89 11 This team meets the requireme nts set for it. 6.18 0.75 11 This team serves the purpose it is intended to serve. 6.36 0.67 11

Statistic

This team is effective. 5.91 1.04 11

This team makes few mistakes. 5.45 1.37 11

This team fulfills its mission. 5.91 1.14 11

This team achieves its goals. 6.09 0.70 11

Mean Standard Deviation Total Responses

Table 11. Post-test results. Listed below are the results of the independent samples t-test that was conducted in order to determine if any statistically significant difference exists between the pre-test Likert Scale ratings and the post-test ratings of the same statement. This type of statistical analysis takes the raw answers on each statement (numbered 1-7, or Strongly Disagree" to Strongly Agree respectively), calculates a mean score and a standard deviation for each, and then measures the likelihood that the differences in the means on the pre-test and post-test were caused by chance

50 and reports this number as a p-value. These p-values are shown in the column entitled, Sig. (2tailed). P-values that are below 0.05 are seen as significant and translate to, there is less than a 5% chance that the differences in these means are due strictly to chance but are rather caused by some other variable which, in this case would have been the MBTI workshop. Also included in this table are the Degrees of Freedom (df) and the Mean Difference. The degrees of freedom is a measure of variability and tells whether equal variances among the two different groups can be assumed, which in this case equal variances are not assumed and the correct p-values are highlighted. The mean difference is simply how numerically distant each mean was on the pretest and post-test. Unfortunately, none of the statements had a significantly different mean Likert Scale rating (p < 0.05) which means that there was no significant change found in the mean Likert Scale ratings to each statement after the 30-day time frame had passed.

Independent Samples Test

51
t-test for Equality of Means df This team is consistently a high-performing team. This team is effective. This team makes few mistakes. This team does high quality work. This team fulfills its mission. This team accomplishes its objectives. This team meets the requirements set for it. This team achieves its goals. This team serves the purpose it is intended to serve. Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 31 16.959 31 14.947 31 18.120 31 22.642 31 19.683 31 23.801 31 28.556 31 30.966 31 Sig. (2-tailed) .815 .828 .663 .703 .847 .854 .929 .926 .743 .747 .475 .449 .295 .231 .421 .325 .280 Mean Difference -.091 -.091 .136 .136 -.091 -.091 .045 .045 -.136 -.136 -.273 -.273 -.409 -.409 -.364 -.364 -.409

Table 12. Results of Independent Samples T-test. Conclusion Both research questions and associated hypotheses were answered using the aforementioned methods of data collection and analysis. It was found that participants who completed the posttest survey did find the MBTI to be an effective tool for team-building in the workplace. However, it was found that the MBTI did not help improve participants' perceived levels of team performance after the 30-day time frame had passed. These results suggest that more research be done in the area of using the MBTI for team-building and improving performance in specific work teams. The next chapter will discuss the implications of this study, its limitations, a comparison to previous literature, and offer suggestions for future research. Discussion

52 Discussion of Results The results of this study have been discussed in relation to the proposed research questions and hypotheses. However, it is also important to discuss these results in a more generalized way. The major finding here is that the MBTI was not found to increase perceived levels of performance within a work team in a mid-sized healthcare setting. Not only were the results statistically insignificant, they were not even close to any other possible significance levels. The researcher could have had tested for p-value significance at the .10 level which is often done when such a small sample size is used (n = 11). However, even if this was done, none of the changes in means from the pre-test to the post-test would have been significantly different. These results were conflicting with the fact that participants had a mean rating of 6.18 ("Agree") on the Likert Scale for the statement, "The MBTI is an effective tool for team-building in the workplace." Participants clearly viewed the MBTI as an effective tool for "team-building" but this did not translate into higher ratings on the scales measuring "team performance." Therefore, there may be some discords within the relationship between "team-building" and "team performance." It is possible that "team performance" does not fall under the more generalized blanket term of "team-building" that is so often used in the literature about this topic. Based on the results of the researcher-created evaluation, the MBTI may be a more effective tool to help team members increase their understanding of the reasons behind their own actions and the actions of others. This can be shown from the Likert Scale rating of 6.09 ("Agree") to the statement, "The workshop discussion of the MBTI has helped me better understand my own actions within the team" and the Likert Scale rating of 5.82 ("Somewhat Agree") for the statement, "The workshop discussion of the MBTI has increased my understanding of team members actions." It is also important to keep in mind that the results and implications of this study are based on a very small and specific sample size, which will be discussed further in the

53 "Limitations" section of this paper. Comparison to Literature This study is similar to many of the studies that were discussed in earlier sections of this paper. In particular this study aligned with the case example that Bradley and Hebert (1997) discussed. In that case, managers of a small software development company found that MBTI scores were the only factor contributing to differing performance levels of two work teams. Bradley and Hebert (1997) eventually concluded that personality types can be an explanatory variable for team performance and that a diverse personality composition is important for high performing work teams. This research attempted to replicate these conclusions by designing a study similar to the case study that was described in Bradley and Hebert's (1997) research. These similarities were apparent in that there was a small sample size and the MBTI was the variable that was examined to determine its effect on team performance. Unfortunately, the results of this study were insignificant and a similar conclusion was not reached. However, this research also attempted to explain other possible effective uses of the MBTI in "team-building" such as when building team cohesion, improving team communication and work satisfaction, and helping team members understand the reasons behind their and other team members' actions. These variables were all included in the researcher-created evaluation and were based off of research that was included in the Literature Review section of this paper. The results of this evaluation, however, showed that participants generally did not view the MBTI as effective in most of the aforementioned areas. The statement, "The workshop discussion of the MBTI has improved communication in my department" received an average Likert Scale rating of 4.91 ("Slightly Disagree"). The statement, "The MBTI workshop has increased my overall satisfaction with my work team" received an average Likert Scale rating of 4.73 ("Slightly Disagree"). Finally, the statement, "The MBTI workshop has made my work team more cohesive" received an average

54 Likert Scale rating of 5.00 ("Neither Agree nor Disagree"). Limitations There were several very important limitations to this study. First is the small sample size and low response rate on the post-test survey. The pre-test survey had 22 participants and only 11 responded to the post-test, which equates to a response rate of 50%. Analyzing data with sample sizes smaller than 15 participants is often seen as ineffective and significant conclusions cannot be drawn. Cohen (1992) suggests that a sample size of at least 26 be obtained to find a significant mean difference at the p-value level of 0.05 which is what this study used. Of the 22 participants on the pre-test and 11 participants on the post-test, 91% were female. This alone does not allow the results to be generalized very well to the male population. Another limitation was the short time frame in which the data was actually collected. Participants were only able to respond to the post-test for 7 days. This was due to scheduling conflicts at the location where the study took place and unfortunately an extension to this window was not possible. It is possible that a larger response rate could have been collected had participants been given a larger time frame to complete the post-test. Related to this is the fact that the researcher only allowed a 30-day time frame to pass between the pre-test and post-test. It is possible that this was not a large enough amount of time for the team members to adapt their behaviors to the knowledge that the MBTI workshop brought them. It may have been better to allow 60 or even 90 days to pass before participants were asked to complete the post-test. However, the researcher chose a 30-day time frame to reduce the influence that external variables may have had on the results. Possibly the most important limitation is the unknown effect that external variables had on the results of this study. It was almost impossible for the researcher to account for natural and abnormal changes in the workplace that could have occurred in the 30 days between the pre-test

55 and post-test. The team could have had to work in different environments or with other employees during this time frame. They could have had experienced changes in management or other organizational structure changes during this time. Any number of unaccounted for factors could cause levels of team performance to remain stable and not fluctuate in any way. Implications for practice Although this particular study did not find a significant relationship between the MBTI and team performance, this research can still offer some implications for practitioners in the field of Human Resources. The study did find that participants viewed the MBTI as an effective tool for team-building and although this may not include team performance, it could very well include other "components" of team-building that have been previously discussed. For example, this study did find that participants found the MBTI to be useful in understanding the reasons behind their own and other team members' actions. Therefore, a practitioner could use this tool when dealing with conflict among work teams. Recommendations for future research The researcher would like to offer several suggestions for future research about this topic. First, it would be important to include larger and more diverse work teams than what was present in this study. Work teams comprised of at least 30 participants would ensure statistically reliable results (Cohen, 1992). It would also be important to include a more diverse age and gender composition and possibly look at ethnic differences as well. This would allow the results to be generalized to a larger portion of the population. Secondly, the results of a future study would be more valid if more outside variables could be controlled for. For example, ensuring that the team composition and work flow remains the same throughout the experimental time frame or confirming that major organizational changes will not occur during this period. Neither of these variables were accounted for in the current study and it is unknown if these or a number of other

56 possible variables had any effect on the results. In a similar fashion, it could also be relevant to conduct this study in a variety of workplace settings to rule out any possible effects of this work environment in particular. Finally, it is important for future researchers to allow a longer period of time for data collection to occur. 7 days is much too small of a window to allow participants to respond to any tests or surveys. At least 30 days would be much more acceptable and should hopefully create larger sample sizes and higher response rates. Lessons Learned The researcher has learned about the delicacies that are involved throughout the design, implementation, and data analysis process when conducting an actual research study. The researcher encountered scheduling conflicts, low response rates, and problems when trying to find an appropriate program to analyze the data. However, the researcher most importantly learned that perseverance is key to the completion of a project of this magnitude.

References

57

Abraham Sagie (1996): Effects of Leader's Communication Style and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Attitudes, Human Performance, 9:1, 51-64

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321-341. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635276 Annelies E.M. van Vianen & Carsten K.W. De Dreu (2001): Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10:2, 97-120 Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575-582. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/63/3/575.pdf Basadur, M., Head, M. (2001). Team Performance and Satisfaction: A Link to Cognitive Style Within a Process Framework, Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(4), pp.227-248. Berney, L. (2010). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Enhance Workplace Communication. Society of Actuaries. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.imageoftheactuary.org/Home/CareerDevelopmentTools/CareerDevelopment/Usingth eMyersBriggsTypeIndicatortoEnhance/tabid/379/Default.aspx Bradley, J. H., & Hebert, F. J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 16(5), 337-353. Retrieved from

58 https://sharepoint.louisville.edu/sites/sphis/tlr/Shared Documents/Personality Type Team Performance.pdf Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/112/1/155.pdf CPP, Inc., Initials. (n.d.). Mbti profile form m. Retrieved from https://www.cpp.com/en/mbtiproducts.aspx?pc=11 Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity for psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. Culp, G., & Smith, A. (2001). UNDERSTANDING PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE TO IMPROVE PROJECT TEAM PERFORMANCE. Journal Of Management In Engineering, 17(1), 24. Dattner, B. (2004, June 07). The Uses and Misuses of Personality Tests. Dattner Consulting. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://www.dattnerconsulting.com/HR Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2003). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177193. Retrieved from http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/BUSN8061/Dionne et al - Transformational Leadership and TeamPerformance.pdf\ Eisenbraun, G. A. (2006, February/March). The pros and cons of personality testing in the workplace. BNet. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OJX/is_4_30/ai_n25001715/ Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? the complex effects

59 of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 62-76. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/94/1/62.pdf Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601616. Gorla, N., & Lam, Y. W. (2004). Who should work with whom? building effective software project teams. Communications of the ACM, 47(6), Retrieved from http://www.cs.siue.edu/~wwhite/CS321/CourseNotes/EthicsReadings/WhoShouldWorkWithWho m.pdf Grandy, T. G., Westerman, G. H., Ocanto, R. A., & Erskine, C. G. (1996). Predicting dentists' career choices using the Myers-Briggs type indicator. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 127, 253-258. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.jada-plus.com/content/127/2/253.full.pdf Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (1998). Introduction to Type in Organizations. (3rd ed.). Hogan, T. P. (2007). Psychological Testing. (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Judge, T., Bono, J., & Locke, E. (2000). Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237-249. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge,%20Bono,%20&%20Locke%20JAP%202000.pdf Kalleberg, A. (1977). Work Values and Job Rewards: A Theory of Job Satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42(1), Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117735? seq=3

60 Knight, D., Durham, C. C., & Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 326-338. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069459 Lawler III., & Porter. (1967). The Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7(1), 20-28. Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468Liebowitz, S. J., & De Meuse, K. P. (1981). An empirical analysis of team-building research. Group organization management, 6(3), 357-378. doi: 10.1177/105960118100600311 Maslow, A. (1954). Motvation and personality. New York, New York: Harper and Row. Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing: understanding personality type. (1st ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP Inc.. Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1985). A guide to the development and use of the myers-briggs type indicator. CPP. Myers-Briggs, I. (n.d.). C.g. jung's theory. Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbtipersonality-type/mbti-basics/c-g-jungs-theory.asp Offerman, L. R., & Spiros, R. K. (2001). The science and practice of team development: Improving the link. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 376-392. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069462 Petty, M., McGee, G., & Cavender, J. (1984). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Individual Job Satisfaction and Individual Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 9(4), Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258493?seq=4

61 Shaffer, D. J., & Schmidt, R. A. (1999). Personality Testing in Employment. FindLaw. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Dec/22/130153.html Spector, P. (1985). Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6). Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/ajcp85-jss.pdf Spector, P. (1994). Job satisfaction survey. Retrieved from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pspector/scales/jsspag.html Thomas, A., Buboltz, W., & Winkelspecht, C. (2004). JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND PERSONALITY AS PREDICTORS OE JOB SATISEACTION. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 205-219. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=6250d7eb-4271-48c0-9a25-72cf37dd6fec%40sessionmgr11&vid=2&hid=20 Varvel, T., Adams, S., Pridie, S., & Ruiz Ulloa, B. (2004). Team Effectiveness and Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(4), 141-146. Retrieved June 5, 2011, from http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?143685

Appendices Appendix A - IRB Approval Form

62
James Madison University Human Research Review Request
FOR IRB USE ONLY: Exempt: Protocol Number: Expedit IRBed: Full Received: Board: 1st Review: 2nd Review: 3rd Review: Reviewer: Reviewer:

Responsible Researcher(s): Jared Burkholder E-mail address: burkhojl@dukes.jmu.edu Telephone: 434-238-8765 Department: Adult Education/Human Resources Development Address (MSC): Please select: Faculty Administrator/Staff Member Undergraduate Student Graduate Student

(If Applicable): Research Advisor: Jane Thall E-mail address: thalljb@jmu.edu Telephone: (540) 568-5531 Department: Learning, Technology, and Leadership Address (MSC): 6913

Project Title: The Myers-Briggs Type Inventory and Team Performance Project Dates (Cannot exceed 1 year minus one day): From: 01/01/13 To: 05/10/13 MM/DD/YY MM/DD/YY Minimum Number of Participants: 15 Maximum Number of Participants: 50

External Funding: Yes: No: If yes, Sponsor: Investigator: Please respond to the questions below. The IRB will utilize your responses to evaluate your protocol submission. 1. YES NO Does the James Madison University Institutional Review Board define the project as research?
The James Madison University IRB defines "research" as a "systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. All research involving human participants conducted by James Madison University faculty, staff, and students is subject to IRB review.

2.

YES

NO Are the human participants in your study living individuals?

Individuals whose physiologic or behavioral characteristics and responses are the object of study in a research project. Under the federal regulations, human subjects are defined as: living individual(s) about whom an investigator conducting research obtains: (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual; or (2) identifiable private information.

63
3. YES NO Will you obtain data through intervention or interaction with these individuals?

Intervention includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered (e.g., measurement of heart rate or venipuncture) and manipulations of the participant or the participant's environment that are performed for research purposes. Interaction includes communication or interpersonal contact between the investigator and participant (e.g., surveying or interviewing).

4. YES individuals?

NO Will you obtain identifiable private information about these

"Private information" includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, or information provided for specific purposes which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (e.g., a medical record or student record). "Identifiable" means that the identity of the participant may be ascertained by the investigator or associated with the information (e.g., by name, code number, pattern of answers, etc.).

5.

YES

NO Does the study present more than minimal risk to the participants?

"Minimal risk" means that the risks of harm or discomfort anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, considering probability and magnitude, than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. Note that the concept of risk goes beyond physical risk and includes psychological, emotional, or behavioral risk as well as risks to employability, economic well-being, social standing, and risks of civil and criminal liability.

CERTIFICATIONS:
For James Madison University to obtain a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) with the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, all research staff working with human participants must sign this form and receive training in ethical guidelines and regulations. "Research staff" is defined as persons who have direct and substantive involvement in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research and includes students fulfilling these roles as well as their faculty advisors. The Office of Sponsored Programs maintains a roster of all researchers who have completed training within the past three years.

Test module at OSP website http://www.jmu.edu/sponsprog/irb/irbtraining.html

Name of Researcher(s)

Training Completion Date

Jared Burkholder Jane Thall

09/19/10 02/07/12

For additional training interests visit the National Institutes of Health Web Tutorial at: http://cme.nci.nih.gov/
By signing below, the Responsible Researcher(s), and the Faculty Advisor (if applicable), certifies that he/she is familiar with the ethical guidelines and regulations regarding the protection of human research participants from research risks. In addition, he/she agrees to abide by all sponsor and university policies and procedures in conducting the research. He/she further certifies that he/she has completed training regarding human participant research ethics within the last three years.

Jared Burkholder______________________________11/27/12_______ Principal Investigator Signature Date _________________________________________ Principal Investigator Signature _________________________________________ Principal Investigator Signature ________________ Date ________________ Date

64
_________________________________________ Principal Investigator Signature _________________________________________ Faculty Advisor Signature ________________ Date ________________ Date

Submit an electronic version of your ENTIRE protocol to jmu_grants@jmu.edu. Provide a SIGNED hard copy of the Research Review Request Form to: Office of Sponsored Programs, MSC 5728, James Madison Administrative Complex, Bldg #6, Suite 26

Purpose and Objectives What is the purpose of the study? Include any hypotheses or research questions. (Limit to one page) There is a sufficient lack of research concerning whether the MBTI can, like many other personality tests, be used in the process of team-building and improving perceived team performance. Since the use of personality assessment as a team-building practice is becoming a popular trend, it is important to know if such instruments can provide useful information about whether training work groups on the MBTI correlates with a significantly higher perceived rating of team performance. The researcher would like to answer the following questions: Is the MBTI an effective tool for team-building? Does a greater understanding of team member personality type increase levels of overall team performance? The researcher has the following hypotheses in regards to this study: The team that underwent MBTI training will have higher levels of perceived team performance Participants will view the MBTI as an effective team-building tool in the workplace Procedures/Research Design/Methodology/Timeframe Describe your participants. From where and how will potential participants be identified (e.g. class list, JMU bulk email request, etc.)? The researcher will use a convenience sample pulled from a medium-sized healthcare organization located in central Virginia. The sample will be drawn from a database of participants who attended an MBTI training workshop in order to help build teamwork within their respective work teams. There may be a variety of job roles involved in this sample so it will be difficult to specify the exact nature of the sample. However, it can be estimated that most, if not all, positions at this organization require at least a high school education. Some positions may require up to a Doctoral degree for qualification. Again, these requirements will vary from position to position but it can be assumed that participants chosen will be at least 18 years of age.

65
How will subjects be recruited once they are identified (e.g., mail, phone, classroom presentation)? Include copies of recruitment letters, flyers, or advertisements. The sample will be drawn from a database of participants who attended an MBTI training workshop in order to help build teamwork within their respective work teams. Describe the design and methodology, including all statistics, IN DETAIL. What exactly will be done to the subjects? (Emphasize possible risks and protection of subjects.) The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a relationship between the use of the MBTI for team-building practices and later team performance. The researcher plans to use a quasi-experimental design in order to measure team performance levels in the group who were exposed to MBTI training as a team-building practice at least 30 days earlier. A quasiexperimental design was chosen because the work teams who were to receive the MBTI training were pre-selected beforehand. Therefore, random selection of participants is not possible. An 18 item survey will be created using Qualtrics and this survey will be distributed to all participants immediately before the MBTI training and to the same work teams after at least a 30-day time frame has passed since the training was given. Participants will be given 30 days to respond to the survey with a reminder e-mail sent to them on each Wednesday during this time period. The researcher will use empirically tested team performance measures as well as items specifically created for this study. Evaluative questions will be created by the researcher and will use a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Team performance data will be quantitative in nature and will be measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Inaccurate) to 7 (Very Accurate). Since the same participants are being sampled on a before-and-after basis, the researcher will use a dependent samples t-test in order to determine if the scores on the team performance measure were significantly different after the 30 day time frame. Average before and after scores on each item will be compared and these scores will in no way be linked to any identifiable information. Will data be collected from or about any of the following populations? Minors (under 18 years of age); Specify Age: Prisoners Pregnant Women Fetuses Cognitively impaired persons Other protected or potentially vulnerable population X Not Applicable Where will research be conducted? (Be specific; if research is being conducted off of JMUs campus a site letter of permission will be needed.) Rockingham Memorial Hospital, which is a medium-sized healthcare organization located in central Virginia. For the purposes of this study, the research location will be kept confidential.

66
Will deception be used? If yes, provide the rationale for the deception: No What is the time frame of the study? (List the dates you plan on collecting data. This cannot be more than a year, and you cannot start conducting research until you get IRB approval.) 01/01/13 - 05/10/13 Data Analysis What methodology will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of the data (i.e., how and where data will be stored/secured, how data will be analyzed, who will have access to data, and what will happen to data after the study is completed?) All survey responses will be collected via Qualtrics. The identity of the subjects will remain anonymous by using the web survey and by not asking any information that will reveal their identity. All data will be kept in a secure location accessible only by the researcher and the research adviser. All data collected to include survey materials, actual surveys, cover letters, consent forms, and researcher notes will be stored electronically in a password protected word document file, in the password protected Qualtrics database or in a locked file cabinet in the JMU COE LTLE department under the auspices of the department chair. Reporting Procedures Who is the audience to be reached in the report of the study? Practitioners and those interested in the human resources development field may be interested in the results of this study. How will you present the results of the research? (If submitting as exempt, research cannot be published or publicly presented outside of the classroom.) Results will be presented to a chair of three professors in the Adult Education/Human Resources Development Master's program and also to the liaison at Rockingham Memorial Hospital. How will feedback be provided to subjects? The liaison at Rockingham Memorial Hospital will present the results to those participants who are interested via e-mail contact. Experience of the Researcher (and advisor, if student): What is the prior relevant experience of the researcher, advisor, and/or consultants? As a graduate student in the College of Education in the Adult Education/Human Resource Development program, I have completed coursework in Research Methods (Quantitative and Qualitative), Performance Analysis, Adult Learning, Educational Technology, Foundations of Human Resource Development. Dr. Jane Thalls Research Experience: Ed.D., The George Washington University, May 2005 M.S. Applied Behavioral Science, The Johns Hopkins University, May 1999

67
B.A., Spanish, May 1975 JMU Course Taught by Dr. Jane Thall: JMU, COE, AHRD 600 Performance Analysis and Needs Assessment in AHRD Fall 2006, Fall 2007, Fall 2008 JMU, COE, AHRD 640 Program Evaluation and Measurement in AHRD Spring 2007, Spring 2008 JMU, COE, AHRD 630 Research Methods, Fall 2008, Fall 2009 JMU, COE, AHRD 520 Foundations in AHRD, Fall 2008 JMU, COE, HRD 480 Foundations in HRD, Fall 2008, Fall 2009 JMU, COE, AHRD 610 Consulting in AHRD, 2009, 2010, 2011 JMU, COE, AHRD 570 Diversity and Ethics in AHRD, Spring 2012 JMU, COE, AHRD 680 Reading & Research, Fall 2011 JMU, COE, AHRD 700 Thesis, Fall 2011 JMU, COE, AHRD 690 Special Studies in AHRD, Spring 2011, Fall 2011 Dr. Jane Thall has also served on the doctoral dissertation committee as an examiner for Dr. Cheryl Church and Dr. Heidi Graham for the degree of Ed.D., The George Washington University, July 2007 and August 2010. Dr. Thall will help guide me through this research.

68
*Please insert page break here and then Insert Consent form or Cover letter here! Identification of Investigator & Purpose of Study You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Jared Burkholder, a graduate student from James Madison University. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact that the MBTI workshop has on team performance. This study will contribute to the researchers completion of his thesis to obtain a masters degree. Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in this study. Research Procedures This study consists of an online survey that will be administered to individual participants through email. You will be asked to provide answers to a series of questions related to your perceived level of team performance at least 30 days after attending the MBTI workshop. Time Required Participation in this study is composed of two parts and each part will require 10 minutes of your time. Risks The investigator does not perceive more than minimal risks from your involvement in this study. Benefits By participating in this study, there are no direct benefits for you as a participant, however, findings from this study will serve to improve existing team-building and team performance improvement practices. Confidentiality The results of this research will be presented at James Madison University during a thesis defense with four James Madison University professors present. While individual responses are anonymously obtained and recorded online through the Qualtrics software, data is kept in the strictest confidence. No identifiable information will be collected from the participants and no identifiable responses will be presented in the final form of this study. All data will be stored in a secure location in a locked file cabinet in Memorial Hall accessible only to the Learning, Technology, and Leadership Education department chairperson. The researcher retains the right to use and publish non-identifiable data. At the end of this study all records will be shredded. Final aggregate results will be made available to participants upon request. Participation & Withdrawal Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate. Should you choose to participate, you can withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. However, once your responses have been submitted and anonymously recorded, you will not be able to withdraw from the study. Questions about the Study

69
If you have questions or concerns during the time of your participation in this study or after its completion or you would like to receive a copy of the final aggregate results of this study, please contact: Jared Burkholder Adult Education/Human Resources Education James Madison University burkhojl@gmail.com Dr. Jane Thall Learning, Technology, and Leadership James Madison University thalljb@jmu.edu Telephone: (540) 568-5531 Questions about Your Rights as a Research Subject Dr. David Cockley Chair, Institutional Review Board James Madison University (540) 568-2834 cocklede@jmu.edu Giving of Consent I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about this study. I have read this consent and I understand what is being requested of me as a participant in this study. I certify that I am at least 18 years of age. By clicking on the link below and completing and submitting this anonymous survey, I am consenting to participate in this research. https://s.qualtrics.com/SE/? SID=SV_agyyv7oKXgtNrPT&Preview=Survey&BrandID=jmu Jared Burkholder DATE

70
*Please insert page break here and then Insert Survey/interview questions! Please also insert an active web link (url) if research is being conducted electronically online (such as using Qualtrics).

Team Performance Survey Q3 You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by JaredBurkholder, a graduate student from James Madison University. The purpose ofthis study is to investigate the impact that the MBTI workshop has on teamperformance. This study will contribute to the researchers completion of histhesis to obtain a masters degree. Please make sure that you have read the attached consent form and ask anyquestions you may have before agreeing to take part in this study. The first set of questions will ask for simple demographic information. The next set of questions will ask about your reactions to the MBTI workshop. The final set of questions will ask about your perceived levels of team performance. Q9 This set of questions will ask about simple demographic information. Q6 Gender Male (1) Female (2) Q7 Age 18-21 (1) 22-25 (2) 26-30 (3) 31-40 (4) 41-50 (5) 51-60 (6) 61 or Over (7) Q4 This set of questions will evaluate your reactions to the MBTI workshop. Q1 Please indicate your response to each statement below.

71
Strongly Disagree (1)
The MBTI is an effective tool for teambuilding in the workplace. (1) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has helped me better understand my own actions within the team. (2) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has increased my understandin g of team members actions. (3) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has improved communicati on in my department. (4) The MBTI workshop has increased my overall satisfaction with my work team. (5) The MBTI workshop has made my work team more cohesive. (6)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

Somewhat Agree (5)

Agree (6)

Strongly Agree (7)

72
The information presented in the MBTI workshop is relevant to my current position. (7)

Q5 This set of questions will ask about your perceptions of your team's performance. Q2 Please indicate your response to each statement below pertaining to your team's performance.
Very Inaccurate (1)
This team is consistently a highperforming team. (1) This team is effective. (2) This team makes few mistakes. (3) This team does high quality work. (4) This team fulfills its mission. (5) This team accomplishe s its objectives. (6) This team meets the requirements set for it. (7) This team achieves its goals. (8) This team serves the purpose it is intended to serve. (9)

Inaccurate (2)

Somewhat Inaccurate (3)

Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate (4)

Somewhat Accurate (5)

Accurate (6)

Very Accurate (7)

73

*Please insert page break here and Insert Site Letter of Permission if you are conducting research off of JMUs campus!

Site Coordinator Letter of Permission

Institutional Review Board James Madison University MSC 5728 JMAC-6, Suite 26 Harrisonburg, VA 22807 Dear Institutional Review Board, I hereby agree to allow Jared Burkholder, from James Madison University to conduct his research at Rockingham Memorial Hospital. I understand that the purpose of the study is to determine whether the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlates with higher levels of perceived team performance. By signing this letter of permission, I am agreeing to the following: JMU researcher(s) have permission to be on Rockingham Memorial Hospital's premise. JMU researcher(s) have access to the data collected to perform the data analysis both for presentation to Jane Thall and/or for publication purposes. Sincerely,

74 Appendix B - Researcher-Created Evaluation

Strongly Disagree (1)

The MBTI is an effective tool for teambuilding in the workplace. (1) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has helped me better understand my own actions within the team. (2) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has increased my understandin g of team members actions. (3) The workshop discussion of the MBTI has improved communicat ion in my department. (4) The MBTI workshop has increased my overall satisfaction with my work team. (5) The MBTI workshop has made my work team more cohesive. (6) The information presented in the MBTI workshop is relevant to my current position. (7)

Disagree (2)

Somewhat Disagree (3)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

75
Somewhat Agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7)

76

Appendix C - Pre-test and Post-test Questions

77
Very Inaccurate (1)
This team is consistently a highperforming team. (1) This team is effective. (2) This team makes few mistakes. (3) This team does high quality work. (4) This team fulfills its mission. (5) This team accomplishe s its objectives. (6) This team meets the requirements set for it. (7) This team achieves its goals. (8) This team serves the purpose it is intended to serve. (9)

Inaccurate (2)

Somewhat Inaccurate (3)

Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate (4)

Somewhat Accurate (5)

Accurate (6)

Very Accurate (7)