Someone else already mentioned the "Big Five" that are more generally used in actual psychology today. I have found that StrengthsFinder and its simplified successors StandOut are very useful frameworks to begin the conversation in a team about how its various members think.
The scales like MBTI, Enneagram, Hermann Miller Brain Dominance Index, and the like all come from someone 1) taking a psychological model, 2) deciding on what a few people should be in that model, 3) making up a bunch of questions and seeing which ones correspond to their assignments, and 4) giving the test again later and throwing out the questions that aren't stable. MBTI is based on Jungian archetypes. Enneagram is sort of based on a pattern popularized by a character named Gurdjieff. Miller's Brain Dominance Index is...let's say that Hermann Miller read a couple of pop science articles about brain hemispheres and took it from there.
Some of these can be useful tools. Thre are still skilled therapists that work with Jungian archetypes as one their tools, and some of them use an MBTI evaluation as part of that process. Likewise Enneagram. But these are more focuses for a huge amount of practical ability and knowledge than they are things that are treated as standing on their own.
And I appear to have migrated from INTJ to just on the cusp between INTJ and INFJ.
Very thorough breakdown. Is there a good approach to introducing this to a team setting? Either as a supervisor or a subordinate?
TMBC (The Marcus Buckingham Company) would love to take your money and help you introduce StandOut to your workplace. :)
I think the approach has to depend on the workplace and how training has been approached. Is this a place where people keep their mouths shut and roll their eyes? Where training is sitting in a beige room while someone drones at you for half a day? If so, you're going to have a hard time getting buy in for any additional training. If the company already has a healthy training culture, then it's largely figuring out how stuff gets put on the docket and then doing so.
I have observed that in engineering teams, there is a tendency to use a classification to pigeonhole people. At Splunk, the Hermann Miller Brain Dominance Index become almost a culty thing among a subset of engineering in their San Francisco office: "Oh, he's a green. He won't do that well. Give it to him. He's a blue." If you can prepare the idea that this is a ritual for structured communication and not a scientific classification among your more senior ICs, they will likely suppress that tendency.
This is fantastic. Here there's a push for there to be a training culture but the leadership has yet to really define any strong approach/philosophy. And that's a great point about not treating like an absolute classification of employees.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.