The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has become a popular personality assessment tool in the corporate world. Many managers, looking for a reliable way to build a strong team, turn to it for insights. But is this a strategic hiring hack or a potential liability?

Let's delve into the pros, the significant cons, and the official stance on using the MBTI in the recruitment process.

The (Limited) Potential Benefits of MBTI

While it shouldn't be a selection tool, the MBTI framework can be appealing to managers for a few reasons, most of which are best applied after a person is hired.

• Conversation Starter: It provides a useful, non-threatening framework to discuss work styles, communication needs, and preferred office environments.

• Team Development (Post-Hire): This is its intended use. Once a team is assembled, understanding different preferences (like how an INTJ and an ESFP approach a problem) can improve collaboration and reduce friction.

• Self-Awareness: The assessment can prompt candidates to reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses, which can lead to a more insightful interview discussion.

The Significant Drawbacks and Ethical Risks

Using MBTI for hiring is fraught with problems. The drawbacks are not just minor issues; they are fundamental flaws in its application for recruitment.

• Official Stance: It's a Misuse. The Myers-Briggs Company, the official publisher of the assessment, expressly states the MBTI tool should not be used for hiring or selection. Its purpose is development and self-understanding, not screening.

• No Predictive Power: MBTI measures preference, not ability. An individual with an Introverted preference can be a fantastic salesperson, and an Extrovert can be a brilliant, focused coder. The tool does not predict job performance, success, or skill.

• Risk of Bias and Stereotyping: This is the biggest liability. A manager might (consciously or unconsciously) think, "This is a leadership role, I need an ENTJ," or "This is a detailed job, let's avoid an ENTP." This is stereotyping, not hiring, and it's discriminatory.

• Focuses on Personality, Not Skills: Hiring should answer one main question: can this person do the job? MBTI does not assess a candidate's skills, experience, or competence in the required tasks.

• Legal Concerns: Using a tool that stereotypes and has no proven link to job performance for selection can open a company to significant legal challenges for discriminatory hiring practices.

Effective Alternatives for Hiring

Instead of relying on a personality label, focus on objective, job-relevant assessments.

• Skill-Based Assessments: Give a coder a debugging challenge, an analyst a set of data to interpret, or a marketer a case study to build a campaign brief. This tests for *actual* ability.

• Structured Behavioral Interviewing: Focus on past experiences using the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result). Ask all candidates the same set of job-relevant questions to ensure a fair comparison.

• Work Simulations: Provide a realistic scenario or business problem they would encounter in the role. Ask them to walk you through how they would handle it. This assesses problem-solving and critical thinking in real-time.

The Verdict: Right Tool, Wrong Job

MBTI can be a fantastic tool for team development, conflict resolution, and leadership coaching once a team is already in place. It helps people understand how they work, not how well they work.

However, when used for hiring, it is at best an unreliable distraction and at worst a discriminatory liability. Focus on assessing a candidate's proven skills, experience, and performance-based competencies.

For more on how to use personality insights *correctly* for team growth after hiring, check out The MBTI Advantage book series or the complete MBTI Guide book.