[ENTPreneurial]

I’ll start by explaining the situation that has prompted me to think about this question.

I work in one-to-one language tutoring to adults in Japan, mostly businesspeople. At the high-end of the market, where I work, it’s a stressful job because if the students are paying a lot of money for a lesson, they are usually under intense the gun to improve their skills, and if you’re taking that money then you’re under pressure to get them to improve. Failure to produce these results means that the student will not renew their contract, which affects you because you’re working on commission. Success hinges on being able to do the following:

1) Learning as much as possible about each new student’s job/industry, in a limited time.

2) Getting to grips with a considerable amount of linguistic theory involving the English and Japanese languages, and how things are translated between the two.

3) Combining the knowledge referred to in #2 with the knowledge gleaned by #1, to illustrate a particular linguistic point with example sentences that your student could imagine themselves saying. This almost always needs to be done “on the spot”, because you can’t predict what questions etc. are going to come up.

I worked for 4 years in a very large company that specialised in this, and the vast majority of people who came in couldn’t keep enough students to survive, with over 95% of new hires quitting within the first few months. I can’t blame them for this because I could see both their earnings and the hours they were putting in, and they would have been better off working in a minimum wage job.

Yet, out of the hundreds of people who tried this job, there were about a dozen who did far, far better, and usually stayed for many years. Usually at any one time they would comprise less than 10% of a branch’s staff, but every month they would account for more than 90% of the contract renewals. The gap was very striking, with not a single person in between them and the rest. So from here on I’ll refer to them as the 90% and the 10%, even though the number would have been considerably lower than 10% due to the high turnover among the 90%.

The 10% came to the job from a wide variety of backgrounds. Off the top of my head I call recall that one had been a lawyer, one had been a car salesman and a few had backgrounds in science or maths. However what they had in common was that they were all either one of two MBTI types (a lot of tutors took the test together, and I was able to type the rest).

Most were ENTP, with a handful of ENFPs (who interestingly enough had all majored in maths at university).

What’s interesting is that, while there were some ENTPs and ENFPs among the 90%, they were a real mixed bag. I found people from every type among them.

When you think about it, it makes sense, because Judging types struggle with on the spot creativity, Sensing types struggle with the abstract linguistic theory, and Introverts will burn out from having to talk to people all day. Also, the trans-contextual thinking associated with Ne is absolutely crucial to the on-the-spot synthesis of ideas required for the job.

So now I’ve started my own business in this area and am thinking about recruiting staff. I keep reading that it’s “unethical” to make hiring decisions based on MBTI type, but I’m wondering why that is. Whilst there are some ENTPs and ENFPs that have failed in the role, the other types fail in the role every single time. So why shouldn’t I try to figure out the type of everyone I interview and weed out everyone except the ENTPs and ENFPs? Apart from it being bad for business, if anything I think it’s unethical not to do so, because if I hire other personality types then they’re just going to waste a few weeks or months of their time earning less than minimum wage, until they finally quit, at which point they’re dejected and bitter. Even within language teaching there are so many other different kinds of jobs that they’d be happier in.

And I can’t imagine that this is the only job which some or most types simply cannot do. I’m ENTP and I’m very grateful that my ISTJ accountant loves what she does, because I know that kind of work would drive me insane. And I don’t think I’m the only one because I’ve never met an ENTP in that job.

 

[Northern Lights]

I dunno about unethical. It's just entrepreneurial nonsense, that's all.

 

[Ziegel]

Nothing unethical. Base your hiring decisions on anything you want, honestly. Try segregating your soon-to-be employees by their skill level though, it's more efficient than doing so by their personality. ESTP here and being an accountant would make me insane as well.
On this ethics subject; it's already "ethical" that you take the risk of setting up your own business, private entrepreneurship is one of the main pillars of a decent society.

 

[Janna]

I hadn't heard anybody saying that it would be unethical to hire somebody based on their personality - MBTI or not, most employers will probably tell you that they're trying to hire people whose personality fits the company.

But now that I googled it, the MBTI organization's stand is that it's unethical to make people take the test as a part of the hiring process, because it should be voluntary, and people have a right to their privacy. (Also, I would guess that they don't like the idea of all those people lying about their personality to get hired, that would mess up their stats.) But again, MBTI or not, every single company that's hired me in the past 20 years has done some sort of a personality test to me as a part of the hiring process. If it's unethical, it's at least very frequent. Also, the company I currently work for did the MBTI test for a bunch of us when we were already working there, AND shared everybody's results publicly.

MBTI supposedly predicts job success quite poorly, which makes sense to me. We don't go around doing only things that we naturally prefer; people have skills and manners and all sorts of motivations to do what's needed in a job.

 

[Suntide]

Because type is actually bullshit. People are beyond a type. And even then, type is about cognition, not about how well you can do your job or how quickly you learn. I work in a lab, not really a typical ESFJ thing, yet I am one of their hardest working, longest lasting, and most accurate emplyees.

Not only is it theoretically unethical because it's baseless discrimination, but you'd be the one losing out in the end by willingly giving up potential employees who could have been great.

 

[Bunniculla]

I think it depends, but overall, think type isn't so important to finding a good potential candidate for a specific job. You can practice something that isn't your preference or specialty until you become so good at it, people would have to look twice to find any abnormalities. Also, what if you're naturally talented but are lazy and won't actually do any work...well that's another "depends" scenario. However, I do see some merit in using type in your hiring decision making process, because certain fields can be widely applied to a variety of skill sets and certain jobs just require something very specific. For example, if the job requires you to talk to people all day and be very enthusiastic at it, I really don't know if you can find a lasting employee in an Introvert. They might eventually quit instead of having long term plans, since it's so draining to them.

 

[katnip]

Eh, I wouldn't say its "unethical" but honestly, people are so much more than their type that it would be ridiculous to assign a job to someone solely based on it.

 

[74893H]

It's unethical because it's pseudoscientific. We have no proof that MBTI types are a real thing, we just base it on happenstance and observation, it just happens to "seem" to fit correctly. Someone can come out with a list of reasons why they think MBTI is nonsense and we'll really have no argument against them. If you choose to hire based on what you think a person's MBTI type is you could be hiring based on fairytale. Not to mention there's no real reliable way of determining a person's type.

It'd be like hiring someone based on their astrology sign. You may hypothetically believe it's a real thing, but the people you chose not to hire sure didn't, and they'll feel pretty wronged if they found out you turned them down because they were born on the wrong date. To anyone who doesn't believe in astrology it's beyond unfair.

 

[Monadnock]

I think the best procedure would be:
-hire who you think is best for the job
-let them hang around for a month or two and then once they're settled in, give them the MBTI Test
-whatever their results are, use their results to motivate them to be the best employee they can or to determine what area of the company they'd be best in, or just how to treat them in general

 

[Ziegel]

To me comparing MBTI to astrology is pointless and impossible. Of course MBTI is pseudoscientific if "it" even tries to be scientific (I beg to differ). But in here, you get "your type" mostly by, I don't know, answering some questions etc. And in astrology, you get "your sign" by comparing your birthday to the chart. So of course MBTI's more accurate, even if someone is lying while being typed - we know his/her projection of himself/herself or whatever. In astrology, we don't know shit.

 

[Anunnaki Spirit]

People have been turned down based on their horoscopes so anything and everything is possible these days.

 

[Northern Lights]

MBTI supposedly predicts job success quite poorly, which makes sense to me. We don't go around doing only things that we naturally prefer; people have skills and manners and all sorts of motivations to do what's needed in a job.

It's also a case of options. Presumably, the idea is to use present facts correlated with future success in the job to predict that success (because obviously, you can't know that outright). But given that you have a broad choice of highly correlated facts -- grades, degrees, working history, recommendations, personal interview -- it just makes no sense to use relatively poorly correlated things like MBTI. You're needlessly not doing as well as you could be.

 

[Daeva]

It matters little whether it's unethical or not. That might be a valid question to ask when you can first establish that hiring based on MBTI results actually works.

But it doesn't. Why? Because MBTI is not a measure of skill, it is a measure of cognition and "personality." Someone having the 'right personality' doesn't mean they are skilled. And someone having the 'wrong personality,' well.. that's what job interviews are for. An MBTI test shouldn't surprise you.

~~~

Also, I would be VERY skeptical of those test results. People adjust their answers to company climate to 'score better,' and the description of "on the spot" juggling linguistic theory with personal information of the client is just begging for people who are successful at this to test at ENxP, because this is often how the type is described: a genius with quick 'on the spot' information. Truth is, extroverts of pretty much any type might be very capable at this, and some introverts as well. They will still test as ENxP's, especially when the test comes from the company, but you'd be testing skill, not cognition. Company atmosphere-based bias is real.

Overall, I say you're better off working with the Big 5 for this. A combination of High Extroversion, High Openness, High Conscientiousness, and Low Neuroticism (to handle the stress well) will do wonders. I believe High Conscientiousness is important, as the job seems to require quite the diligent character, something that the ENxP profiles in the MBTI lack. If anything, with the combination of High Conscientiousness and Low Neuroticism, you're often looking at ExxJ profiles.

 

[Janna]

I say you're better off working with the Big 5 for this.

If the premise is that it's unethical for the potential employer to dive into the applicants' private personality, it makes no difference whether it's Big 5, MBTI or ennagram.

Of those three, I myself would be much more inclined to lie when taking a Big 5 test when applying for a job. Big 5 is clearly attempting to find what the "good" attributes of my personality are and what the "bad" ones would be. I simply wouldn't confess to the bad ones. This is why I prefer MBTI and enneagram: there are no good and bad answers, those models recognize that there are problems and virtues that correlate with each type.

 

[Daeva]

If the premise is that it's unethical for the potential employer to dive into the applicants' private personality, it makes no difference whether it's Big 5, MBTI or ennagram.

Of those three, I myself would be much more inclined to lie when taking a Big 5 test when applying for a job. Big 5 is clearly attempting to find what the "good" attributes of my personality are and what the "bad" ones would be. I simply wouldn't confess to the bad ones. This is why I prefer MBTI and enneagram: there are no good and bad answers, those models recognize that there are problems and virtues that correlate with each type.

I wasn't operating under that premise, though. The OP asked if it was ethical - at all - based on his specifics and I answered that it is irrelevant if you can't first establish whether it works. Now, one could argue that it could be unethical no matter if it works or not, but personally I find it unethical to employ tactics that aren't proven to work - especially when gambling with other people's resources (including time as a resource).

Lying on personality tests happens all the time, consciously or not, which is why I find the 'good use' of them to be.. pretty much nonexistent. But I say if you absolutely must use one, then go for the one where you can have a measure of 'success' in scoring a certain way. Cheating or lying in interviews or on tests will never end though. It's why, at the end of the day, it is in-person interviews and trials that make or break the candidate.

 

[Janna]

Yeah, I know you weren't operating under that premise, neither am I really. If I could, I would love to give potential recruits the MBTI test. Not because I thought it guarantees anything, but because I believe that it would help me to ask them the right kind of questions in the next interview.

I see how using MBTI as a tool in a hiring process can be considered unethical, but also using Big Five or any other way of trying to get into the applicant's personality is just as unethical. Also, it's true that applicants often lie about their personalities in job interviews, whether or not a formal test is involved. If testing in itself is a bit iffy from an ethical point of view, lying in those tests is probably no worse.

What I simply meant was that while most recruitment processes after a certain level contain a personality assessment of some kind, I would personally be more inclined to be honest in an MBTI test, where the questions don't seem to have "right" or "wrong" answers, than I would be in a Big 5 test, where you can easily see if you're putting yourself in a "healthy" or "troubled" box.

 

[Suntide]

Yeah, I don't think there's too many people out there who don't answer employment or pre-employment 'personality assessments' with the answers that the employers want to hear. I highly doubt an MBTI test, or any personality test really, would yield 100% honest and accurate results under those circumstances. It's just not the same as taking it at home for fun out of personal interest, where there's nothing to lose.

 

[Im FiNe]

Here's a link to the Myers and Briggs Foundation page that covers ethics within a workplace environment.
https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti...idelines-for-hiring-an-outside-consultant.htm