A study of managerial derailment characteristics and personality preferences

Abstract

Purpose

This research has the purpose of examining whether personality preferences and type from the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) are related to managerial derailment.

Design/methodology/approach

This study is within the context of field research, using 6,124 managers undergoing leadership development processes. Survey methodology was used to assess a manager's self‐ratings of MBTI type and preference, and observer ratings (peer, boss, direct report) of managerial derailment characteristics.

Findings

Different MBTI preferences of managers are likely to display derailment characteristics as judged by observer perspectives. In an exploratory manner, the MBTI preferences and types are also examined in accordance with different managerial derailment clusters.

Research limitations/implications

The MBTI's conceptual foundation and psychometrics may be viewed as a limitation, and other personality theories like “The Big Five” could be used. Limitations of the study also include the fact that managers going through a leadership development process may be different to managers in general, and derailment characteristics do not necessarily mean actual managerial derailment.

Practical implications

Regardless of MBTI type or preference, managers can decrease their chances of managerial derailment through examining job fit, increasing self‐awareness, and through other mechanisms mentioned in the paper.

Originality/value

This study is unique, since MBTI preferences and types could signal whether managers display derailment characteristics to their co‐workers. Additionally, this paper gives insight into how managers can prevent derailment, regardless of their MBTI type and preference, thereby having special value for managers and those who study managerial development.

Citation

Gentry, W.A., Mondore, S.P. and Cox, B.D. (2007), "A study of managerial derailment characteristics and personality preferences", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 857-873. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710819348