The perfect antidote to this is found in going deeper into personality than our four-letter type codes. In my last post I mentioned the MBTI(R) Step II(TM) tool, which provides useful individualized type results. Perhaps you saw this, found it intriguing and made a mental note to Google Step II(TM) and learn more about it. Wait! I'll join you to take a closer look at this awesome assessment. So let's Step II(TM) it!
Myers, Isabel Briggs, Mary H. McCaulley, Naomi L. Quenk and Allen L. Hammer. MBTI(R) Manual, Third Edition.
Mountain View, California: CPP, 2009.
Quenk, Naomi L., and Jean M. Kummerow. MBTI(R) Step II(TM) User's Guide. Mountain View, California: CPP, 2011.
First, let's look at a bit of history. Though the Step II(TM) assessment was not developed until the 1980s after the death of Isabel Briggs Myers, creator of the tool now known as Step I(TM), which gives us our four-letter type codes, the idea apparently did originate with her. According to the MBTI(R) Step II(TM) User's Guide, "From the beginning of her work on personality type, Isabel Briggs Myers (1897-1980) planned to individualize the sixteen type descriptions so that individuals of the same type could see not only what they shared with others of their type but also how they differed from them (p.7)."
The Step II(TM), as well as another tool developed in the 1980s and known as the Step III(TM), were both meant to measure individual differences within type. After all, not all those who prefer Introversion or Extraversion, etc., are alike, are they? Have you ever met someone whose type code was identical to yours and been amazed at how different the two of you were? The Step II(TM), formerly called the Expanded Analysis Report, or EAR, focuses on type dynamics. Step III(TM), formerly the Type Differentiation Indicator, or TDI, focuses on type development. Together these assessments hold the keys to some of these individual differences. Both the Step II(TM) and III(TM) have separate manuals, although they are also discussed in the MBTI(R) Manual. The Step II(TM) manual was written in 2001 and the Step III(TM) in 2009.
The Step III(TM) is an advanced assessment, in which certification is reserved for people working in certain professions one-on-one with clients as counselors, life coaches, etc. Since my work doesn't fit within these guidelines, I'm not eligible to become certified in Step III(TM), nor am I qualified to discuss it in depth. But I do want to mention it here for those who might be interested either in taking the assessment or, if qualified, in becoming certified to use it as a practitioner.
Certification in the Step I(TM) and II(TM) tools, however, can be obtained by anyone interested, and both can be achieved at the same time, since Step I(TM) is actually contained within Step II(TM). The Step II(TM), otherwise known as Form Q, consists of 144 items. These items are comprised of Form M, the 93-item current version (used since 1998) of the MBTI instrument, plus 51 additional items.
The Step II(TM)'s theory seems to be a natural outgrowth of that of the Step I(TM). Step II(TM)'s underlying theory says that each of the preference dichotomies, such as Introversion and Extraversion, can be further subdivided into a number (five, to be exact) of facets or subscales. Each four-letter type has a different way of expressing itself in each person who possesses it, thanks to the five facets, or subscales, found in each dichotomy. However, the facets do not make up the whole of any dichotomy, which are too complex to be completely defined by a facet or even several. In this case 1+1+1+1= a total of way more than 4!
To me the beauty of the Step II(TM) tool is that it puts to death criticisms that the MBTI instrument simply pigeonholes us into one of 16 type codes. Yes, all of us will come out as a certain type code which, it is important to recall, we will then verify and accept as our own, rather than it just being a label slapped on by whoever administers the Indicator to us. The Step II(TM) provides even more insurance against pigeonholing as well as stereotyping since it shows us a great variety in how these codes may be expressed by different individuals. The very helpful Step II(TM) User's Guide put it this way on p. 3, in discussing Steps I(TM) and II(TM). "The two levels of type, used together, form a powerful way of exploring personality and making practical use of the resulting information to benefit clients." Nope, no pigeonholing or stereotyping here!
The User's Guide points out, on p. 7, some important similarities between type as described in the Step I(TM) and II(TM) instruments. For both assessments, type involves opposite categories, not traits which may be found in varying amounts. "Both assessments describe the qualitatively opposite categories as opposite preferences, not as skills or abilities that might be inferred from trait measures, which describe 'how much' of a characteristic one has." Also in both assessments opposite preferences or facet poles are never described as an absence of the other pole, but in a positive or neutral way. Both assessments are "...inappropriate to use as a measure of skill or as a predictor of success...(p. 73)."
There are obviously too many facets to be described in one blog post, so I will simply list them here. For those who are interested in delving into them, I highly recommend the MBTI(R) Step II(TM) User's Guide as a relatively brief (118 pages), well - written, readable, and even at times funny description of the facets and uses of the Step II(TM) tool. It is the book which made the Step II(TM) tool come alive for me, and showed me how exciting and important it is.
When a client takes the assessment, his or her results, on an eleven-point scale with zero as the mid-point, are interpreted as being in-preference, out-of-preference, or in the midzone. For example, one of the facets for Extraversion-Introversion, as mentioned above, is Initiating-Receiving. A client with a preference for Extraversion is in-preference if his or her score falls on the Extraverted side which is Initiating, while a client with a preference for Introversion is in-preference if his or her score falls on the Introverted side which is Receiving. A score within the midzone indicates no clear preference but rather behaviors that are often situational.
There could be a number of reasons why scores fall out-of-preference or in the midzone. Sometimes social expectations and behaviors we've learned in order to cope with them have something to do with it. When I was in MBTI Certification Training in Austin in 2012, our trainer told us that he has a preference for Introversion but had scored out-of-preference on one of the Extraversion-Introversion facets. The reason for this was his family's belief that wanting time alone is not normal or healthy but a signal of illness, and he had adopted some Extraverted behaviors in order to deal with these family expectations.
Although this is interesting, probably some of you are wondering what exactly can be done with the information gained from using the Step II(TM) tool. What applications can be made with it? Lots, in fact too many for one blog post! A description of my 18-page Step II(TM) Interpretive Report will serve as a brief example of how these results can be used.
After some introductory materials, the report gives my type along with the clarity of each of my preferences. Then it dives into my facet results. All of mine, with the exception of two in the midzone, came out in-preference. Interestingly, I came out in the midzone in the Extraversion-Introversion facet of Enthusiastic (Lively, energetic, seek spotlight) - Quiet (Calm, enjoy solitude, seek background). It's true that I can go either way. I need balance in this area of life. It's also true that those who see the enthusiastic side of this facet in me are sometimes fooled into thinking my true preference is for Extraversion! The report even says "Are seen quite differently by the people who regularly see your enthusiastic side and the people who regularly see your quiet side." How true that is!
In my book review last month, I took the author of an otherwise decent book to task for assuming Extraverts like parties and Introverts stay home. My own experience with the Step II(TM) tool provides a perfect example of why this is not a valid assumption. That guy or gal who seemed to be loving the party last night may be someone with a preference for Introversion who scored out-of-preference on the Enthusiastic-Quiet facet. Or, like me, she may have scored in the midzone and was enjoying showing off her enthusiastic side!
The other midzone in my results is in the Systematic (Orderly, structured, dislike diversions) - Casual (Relaxed, easygoing, welcome diversions) facet of the Judging-Perceiving preference. I find it interesting that just a few days ago I became frustrated at a meeting of a new group which I perceived as being too structured and organized. I thought my reaction was an odd one considering my preference for Judging, but looking back at my Step II(TM) report it makes perfect sense!
The rest of my report serves up a delicious looking feast of information about the various applications of the Step II(TM) tool. Among the topics discussed are Applying Step II(TM) Results to Communicating; to Making Decisions; to Managing Change; and to Managing Conflict. There is material on How the Parts of Your Personality Work Together; Integrating Step I(TM) and Step II(TM) Information; and Using Type to Gain Understanding. The report concludes with an Overview of Your Results and an Interpreter's Summary.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the wealth of insights to be gained through the use of the Step II(TM) instrument. The MBTI(R) Manual contains a beautiful example on p. 322 of how knowledge of her facets helped one woman land her dream job. As the Manual says, "This level of understanding is very helpful in the career search and decision-making process. It suggests possible strategies and behaviors that are likely to come more easily to the client and those that are more difficult."
I hope this whets all of our appetites to learn our Step II(TM) results and use them to enhance our lives and those of others as well. After reading about the facets, I think it's quite clear that the MBTI tool does not allow for pigeonholing or stereotyping. In my opinion, only a superficial, uninformed view of the Indicator, such as we saw in last month's post about a biography of Carl Jung, would lead one to conclude that everyone with the same preference or type code exhibits the same behaviors.
Are you ready to move away from the flatlands of superficial MBTI familiarity? Are you eager to begin climbing the steeper hills that lead to beautiful views, free of pigeonholes and stereotypes, of what can be done with deeper MBTI insights and knowledge? Me, too!
Let's go! Step II(TM) it!