The TYPE MAPPING System

What is TYPE MAPPING?

TYPE MAPPING charts the terrain that increases motivation and transforms performance. It is an integrated system based on one powerful model that shines a light on areas often left unmapped. This involves individuals (their preferences, identity and aspirations), situations (the context, demands and challenges) and a focus on the space in‐between (interaction, behaviour and relationships). The methods involve 5 lenses which allow for enormous flexibility in terms of intervention and development.

The powerful model underpinning TYPE MAPPING is C.G. Jung’s theory of Psychological Types. This theory now provides the mechanism for hundreds of applications that go beyond existing psychometric approaches in two ways.

Firstly, it captures the spirit of Jung’s theory by focusing on how a person continues to grow and develop over their life span (i.e. recognising that one’s Type can change): "Even though assignment to a particular type may in certain cases have lifelong validity, in other very frequent cases it is so dependent on so many external and internal factors that the diagnosis is valid only for certain periods of time. Jung, 1957, p. 347

Secondly it acknowledges the way in which people express themselves in a variety of ways which are dependent on both short‐term and long‐term environmental experiences.

The 5 different lenses are each embodied in a questionnaire as follows:

• Learning style (LSI or Learning Styles Indicator)

• Identity (TDI®‐IS, or Type Dynamics Indicator ‐ IS version)

• Aspirations (TDI®‐WANT, or Type Dynamics Indicator, Want version)

• Roles/behaviours (MTR‐i™., or Management Team Roles‐indicator)

• Contextual demand (ITPQ™, or Ideal Team Profile Questionnaire)

In summary, each of these questionnaires explores different space - the inside with the complexities of identity and aspiration which can make the identification of preference difficult; the outside and the situational demands and pressures that require attention; the in‐between, which is how we adapt to the differing demands of circumstances and our sense of self.

Below is the Type Map which relates the roles and preferences together:

The roles are described using verbs (gerunds) and the preferences use the 4‐letter typology so that there is less confusion between doing and being. Psychological Type Theory links these elements through the concept of dominant and auxiliary functions1.

Each questionnaire can be used on its own for a range of applications. For example, the TYPE MAPPING learning styles (LSI) bear a strong resemblance to Kolb’s learning styles (suggesting, in turn, that what Kolb tapped into was psychologically deep and enduring). There are many applications of learning styles, from building self‐awareness to developing training programs, and it can even be used as a way to identify how best to introduce an individual or a group to a Type program.

Another example is using the MTR‐i™. which can be used to identify multiple roles an acknowledgement that we all need to and are able to stretch outside our type. Since this can be both exhilarating and stressful, identifying the roles we play enables us to explore our ability to adapt far more easily adaptation was one of Jung’s key concerns.

A further example is using the ITPQ™ to identify and understand the organisational culture, or the differing or competing demands and expectations being placed on a team or individual. All of us need to respond to circumstances such as customers, senior management, budgetary restraint and other people but we do not always see clearly what those demands really are.

The real power of the TYPE MAPPING system emerges when these instruments and concepts are used as entry points into a program that relates two or more of the concepts together. For example, the relationship between preference (TDI®‐Is) and role (MTR‐i™) can highlight the stretch that one is currently experiencing in a particular role. Using the TDI®‐Want can help identify whether such stretch is likely to be stressful or exhilarating. Adding in the ITPQ™ examines the fit between oneself and the demands on one’s role.

The TYPE MAPPING System recognises the complexity and richness of Psychological Type Theory and provides an orientation framework to begin to understand the inner and outer landscapes. It provides a matrix out of which each individual, group or organisation can begin to build their own unique and complex story and thereby begin to understand some of the many internal and external factors with which they have to grapple.

Case Study 1 TYPE MAPPING (using the MTR‐i™, ITPQ™ and TDI®‐IS)

This involved a 3‐year‐ old management team (created as a spin‐off from one of the oil giants). The 9 executives, based internationally, met quarterly for 2 to 3 days. They were seen as a high performing team but were looking for ways to develop even further ‐ i.e., they were not seeking to fix any problems or issues within the team, but rather to leverage the best possible team performance.

The aim of the intervention, therefore, was to achieve optimum team performance, so the focus of the session was on constellating or aligning what the business needs (ITPQ™), how the individuals in the team prefer to behave (TDI®‐Is) and the actual behaviours in which the team are engaged (MTR‐i™.). The questionnaires were completed online in advance, in order to maximise the use of the allotted half‐day to deal with this subject. This provided the opportunity to undertake some preparatory work and present some analyses and hypotheses for discussion at the meeting. The team agreed in a move that turned out to be very important that the ITPQ™ would also be completed as a 360° exercise by the next level down in the organisation. That is, the stratum of senior managers, who occupy a mediatory role between the executive team and the rest of the organisation, gave their views on what the executive team needed to do to be successful.

The session was broken into three parts aimed at

1. Developing an understanding of the basic concepts to which they had been introduced through the questionnaires, reports and supplementary material.

2. Discussion about the overall team style and behaviour (MTR‐i™ summary) and to consider this in the light of current demands (ITPQ™ summary).

3. Individuals describing their own perspective on how they behaved and contributed to the team (TDI® and MTR- i™).

In preference terms the team showed an ENTJ bias (TDI® aggregated type) although overall there was a balance of preferences: 5Es‐4Is; 6Ns‐3Ss; 6Ts‐3Fs; and 7Js‐2Ps. The team roles being used reflect those preferences since the predominant role was conducting (i.e. extraverted Thinking, associated with E‐TJ.s). The next most common roles were Innovating (i.e. introverted iNtuition, associated with IN‐J.s)followed by Exploring (i.e. extraverted iNtuition, associated with EN‐P.s).

Based on MTR‐i. research data, this particular profile of the use of team roles falls classically into an ENTJ team profile.

However, there was a big surprise in the results of the teams ITPQ™ a questionnaire that asks what behaviours the team needs to use to be most successful. The highest scoring ITPQ™ team role was Campaigning (i.e. introverted Feeling, associated with I‐FP.s). Those familiar with Type Dynamics will no doubt spot that this is significant not only because it is different to the Type/Role result but also because Type Theory suggests introverted Feeling could be the biggest stretch for ENTJ types. This would involve them working at a largely unconscious level, which would be difficult for the team to recognise and could trigger deep emotions and complexes.

Exploring this possibility could be appropriate if the team is ready for a significant transformation (i.e. in Jungian terms seeking to transcend typological differences and move towards the .transcendent function.).However, on this occasion and given the time constraints, the intervention involved a straightforward performance management gap analysis, between desired and current behaviours (i.e. between ITPQ™ and MTR‐i™ results).

The team were given some examples of Conducting and Campaigning‐style behaviours, to initiate a discussion that focused on the gap analysis. At first, the ITPQ™ result of Campaigning provoked a reaction of disbelief and there was a risk that they were going to dismiss the results as erroneous. However, the tension of opposites was maintained by introducing the 360° feedback from the stratum of senior managers. These ITPQ™ results also put Campaigning as the most‐needed role, and Conducting as 3rd. The reinforcing impact of this feedback could be seen several times during the session because, at points when some members argued against the need to use Campaigning behaviours, other team members reminded the team that results of their ITPQ™ questionnaire agreed with those of the 360° feedback. The team then had a very productive discussion about team and organisation values and identity, which resulted in an eventual agreement that there was an issue that needed to be addressed. As might be expected of an ENTJ team, they wanted to resolve it by agreeing an action plan that they could pursue after the meeting. This enables them to use their strengths (Conducting) to address a weakness (Campaigning). Again, in Jungian terms, this maintains their ego‐position and it could be argued that greater transformation would be achieved if there was more time to engage more directly with the inferior function. However, given that they were already a successful team, we agreed that to radically change behaviours could jeopardise that success.

The team took away an important message about developing other behaviours and contributions which they would have found hard to recognise without the ITPQ™ feedback and the organisation has continued to go from strength to strength and is acknowledged as an innovative world leader in its niche.

Case Study 2 TYPE MAPPING (TDI® IS‐WANT version)

Jung regarded the fitting of clients into a type classification as "nothing but a childish parlour game" (Jung,1934, p. xiv). In fact, Jung saw Type as part of a psyche in transition and actively encouraged people to move through and beyond Type, to explore the greater Self. His primary concern was the process of “individuation [which] mean becoming an ’individual’ [embracing] our innermost, last and incomparable uniqueness [or] ’self‐realization’" (Jung, 1953, p. 173). The TDI®, acknowledging that people evolve complex stories concerning their sense of identity, was developed to expand people’s exploration of themselves and to help them transcend whatever Type has become their habit or identity. By inviting them to express their aspiration (who I want to be) as well as their current sense of identity (the way it is) it opens up a dialogue that reveals some of the dynamic tensions that inevitably embed themselves in our psyche as we grow up and develop. It does this by recognising that preference has many sides:

• We behave in ways that help us feel comfortable given the world we inhabit on a day-to-day basis (i.e. Preference based on the reality circumstance)

• We build a story of who we are based on the many experiences we had whilst growing up and this story includes pressures and messages from important influences in our lives (i.e. preference based on historical pressures to behave and to become)

• We experience elements of ourselves which have not yet been expressed or valued and sometimes yearn to expand and become something more (i.e. preference based on some kind of ideal image)

This was demonstrated particularly powerfully by an MBTI® instrument user who always reported INTJ. In fact, answering just the TDI®.Is. version she still reported INTJ. However, when she completed the TDI® ‘Is‐Want’ version the reported type split into ENTJ and INTP. Her initial reaction was disbelief. She said there is no way I want to be an INTP like my husband! He is hopeless. However, after several hours of emotional exploration during which she said. I now know when I became an INTJ! I was eight and my mother rejected me. I vowed I would never be humiliated like that again and have been fiercely independent ever since. Her INTJ identity had served her well but was, in fact a form of protection. The desire to let go and just become hopeless like her husband held both appeal and fear. Understanding her reported ENTJ was also complex. She felt a clear preference for introversion but her need to avoid dependency had externalised itself in the way she took charge in many aspects of her outer life. This was a most powerful session with many insights which would have been very hard to achieve if she had simply reported her usual INTJ.

The research with TDI® demonstrates that more than 70% of people report a difference between their Is and their Want types which suggests that it has the potential to challenge an individual’s potentially stereotypic view of themselves. Based on Jung’s approach to type illustrated by the quote at the beginning of this article and other places that describe the dynamic, changing nature of type ‐ we believe he would have found this approach much more in line with his view of how the psyche evolves as part of the process of individuation.

These two cases may help people understand how TYPE MAPPING can be regarded as a matrix from which one can obtain unique insights into issues that might otherwise remain hidden. It helps develop flexibility in both the practitioner and the participants. It provides alternative entry points to address the most immediate issues. And at its heart it remains true to Jung’s concept of transcendence. No‐one is restricted by their type. We can all transcend and go beyond and extend our range and style it is just that the journey can be very difficult at times.

For more information about Empowering Organisational Growth with Team Focus Psychometric Tools, Click Here or Contact Us.

References

Briggs Myers, I & Briggs Myers, P.B (1980), Gifts Differing, (Palo Alto: Davies‐Black Publishing, 1995)Jung, C.G. (1934), Psychological Types (Collected Works 6), (London: Routledge, 1991)(1953), Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (Collected Works 7), (Princeton: Bollingen Paperbacks)Jung, C.G. (1957), Letter to Ernst Hanhart in C.G. Jung Letters, Volume 2: 1951‐1961, ed. Adler, G.,(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976)

The following are trademarks or registered trademarks of Roy Childs and/or Steve Myers in the United Kingdom, United States and other countries: LSI, Learning Styles Indicator, TDI®, Type Dynamics Indicator, TDI®‐IS, Type Dynamics Indicator ‐ IS, TDI®‐WANT, Type Dynamics Indicator‐WANT, MTR‐i™,Management Team Roles‐indicator, ITPQ™, Ideal Team Profile Questionnaire. MBTI® is a registered trademark of the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.