Osborn Et Al. (2023) Preprint

PERSONALITY-BASED TRAINING PRACTICES 1
Trainer Perspectives on Personality-Based Group Training:
Learning Objectives, Training Outcomes, and Best Practice Recommendations
Seth A. Osborn, Bradley J. Brummel, and Hayley R. Walton¹
Department of Psychology, The University of Tulsa
¹Now at CodeSignal
© 2023, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and
may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not
copy or cite without authors' permission. The final article will be available, upon
publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/cpb0000251
Author Note
Corresponding author: Seth A. Osborn, Department of Psychology, The University of Tulsa, 800
S. Tucker Dr., Tulsa OK, phone: 9187044002, email: sao0459@utulsa.edu
The authors declare no known conflicts of interest.
Positionality Statement: Two of the authors are certified by Hogan Assessments, but the authors
do not endorse any particular personality assessment or training model in this manuscript.
Abstract
Despite the prevalence of personality-based group training in applied settings, little systematic
research has examined the outcomes of such interventions. Even less research has explored the
specific components of such interventions that might contribute to or detract from group
processes and performance. To organize and spur this line of inquiry, we reviewed the literature
on learning objectives, training outcomes, and best practice recommendations for personality-
based training. We also interviewed 26 trainers who use personality assessments, such as the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, DISC, CliftonStrengths, and Hogan Personality Inventory,
concerning these topics. We organized their responses to each topic into categories, using
thematic content analyses for the learning objectives and training recommendations. Common
learning objectives involve increasing self- and other-awareness, preference for personality
diversity, interpersonal skill, and individual- and unit-level attitudes and performance. Anecdotal
reports generally suggest personality-based training can improve self-awareness and
interpersonal skill, but some reports describe risk of stigmatization and subgroup conflict.
Differing approaches to these trainings appear to vary in their effectiveness. Common best
practice recommendations from trainers include describing personality flexibly, emphasizing the
value of personality diversity, tailoring the training content based on group personality profiles,
ensuring trainees understand that personality testing is for developmental purposes, and treating
personality feedback as confidential. We conclude by summarizing existing guidance for
practitioners and suggesting two future research streams: (1) controlled evaluation of training
outcomes and (2) exploration of the proposed mechanisms of action in personality-based
training.
Keywords: personality, group training, team training, team building, interview
Implications for Consulting Psychology: This article organizes current knowledge and belief on
learning objectives, training outcomes, and training practices for personality-based group
training. It outlines trainer perspectives on best practices for practitioners doing this work, and it
provides background and direction for scholars researching personality-based developmental
interventions. Consulting psychologists can calibrate and compare their current practices with
those reported in this paper for competitive differences or alignment.

Trainer Perspectives on Personality-Based Group Training: Learning Objectives, Training
Outcomes, and Best Practice Recommendations
Personality-based training for groups and teams typically involves trainees completing a
personality inventory and sharing their results with others in their team or organization. This is a
widespread practice used by internal and external consulting psychologists, particularly in
Western countries. Journalists and researchers have estimated that millions of personality tests
are administered annually for individual and group development purposes (Lundgren et al.,
2017). In a sample of 245 team development practitioners, 176 (71.8%) reported incorporating a
psychological assessment into their development activities (Offermann & Spiros, 2001). The
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which was mentioned by 97 of those practitioners, is
reportedly used in some capacity by nearly 90% of Fortune 500 companies (The Myers-Briggs
Company, 2022). In a mostly British sample of 225 human resource professionals, the MBTI
was the most commonly encountered personality test in the workplace (Furnham, 2008). It was
also rated most useful for developmental purposes out of 21 tests, followed by assessments such
as the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation—Behavior, 16 Personality Factor
Questionnaire, and Big Five tests.
Interventions based on these assessments are intended to equip employees with
knowledge and skills to minimize personality clashes with coworkers, which may be especially
beneficial for group- and team-oriented work. Elevated awareness of one’s own and others’
personalities may increase empathy for coworkers, thereby reducing conflict and promoting
cohesion (Payne, 2014). Additionally, drawing attention to differing preferences, strengths, and
weaknesses may improve coordination by revealing personality complementarity (Coe, 1992).

The intuitive appeal of such reasoning may explain the prevalence of personality-based
group trainings, but the empirical literature on this topic is relatively scarce. Most research on
personality testing in the workplace has focused on decision-making applications such as
employee selection (Church et al., 2015; Moyle & Hackston, 2018). Relatively few empirical
studies have examined the outcomes of personality-based developmental interventions for
groups, and fewer still have explored what components of such interventions might contribute to
or detract from group processes and outcomes (Jelley, 2021). A more robust literature evaluating
the outcomes of personality trainings would enable consulting psychologists to make more
informed decisions regarding which assessment to use and how to use it in a given situation.
However, evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention first requires clarifying its intended
purposes. Moreover, enhancing the effectiveness of any intervention first requires establishing its
theorized mechanisms of action (i.e., how it works), as well as the components of the
intervention believed to carry such mechanisms. As such, the purpose of this article is to explore
the learning objectives, outcomes, structure, and components of personality-based interventions
for groups.
Lundgren and colleagues (2017) stated that the early stage of research on personality-
based developmental interventions calls for a bottom-up approach to data gathering, including
qualitative review of scholarly publications, technical reports, promotional materials, and
interview responses. Accordingly, in this paper, we review relevant academic literature,
promotional materials, and trainings materials. Then we report results from interviews with 26
personality trainers regarding their experiences with these topics.
Terminology
For this article, we define personality as relatively stable patterns of cognition, affect, and
behavior, including work-related preferences, tendencies, and working styles (e.g.,
communication style, leadership style). Three of our interviewees disagreed with this definition:
two stated that their assessment (e.g., DISC) is concerned not with personality but with
communication style, and one interviewee questioned whether strengths assessments (e.g.,
CliftonStrengths) measure personality per se. However, for brevity and simplicity we use a broad
definition of personality that encompasses both communication styles and strengths, which
covers the most common types of assessments used in this work in organizations.
Some scholars have distinguished groups and teams (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; cf.
Kozlowski & Bell, 2013). A group is a collection of individuals with shared characteristics, such
as departmental or organizational membership, whereas a team is a collection of individuals
working interdependently toward some shared goal. Although this manuscript concerns groups
generally, much of the literature on group developmental interventions concerns teams
specifically. Formally, team training has been defined as instructional processes designed to
enhance team effectiveness (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997). This definition excludes any
activities for which the sole purpose is fun or networking; however, some of our interviewees
described fun as a primary aim of their trainings. Additionally, although interventions such as
team training, team building, team development, and team coaching have been conceptually
distinguished in the literature (e.g., Jones et al., 2019), most of our interviewees used the terms
interchangeably when speaking colloquially. One exception was a trainer who defined team
building as “an experience where people come together and…connect with one another about
their work style and communication style,” where the tone is upbeat and the emphasis is “a
positive social experience.” In contrast, she described team development as concerning behavior
change, including “look[ing] at the good, bad, and the ugly,” where the goal is “to make
commitments that will either improve our relationships, our functioning, or...hopefully both.”
Finally, some interviewees used the term team when referring to any group of related trainees,
including cross-departmental groups and entire organizations.
Literature Review
We conducted a review of relevant literature, searching databases such as PsycInfo and
Business Source Complete for terms such as “personality,” “team development,” “team
building,” and “team training.” We also used Google Scholar to search the same terms in articles
that cited the articles we reviewed. We included non-peer-reviewed manuscripts (e.g.,
unpublished dissertations, conference papers) and non-work-based samples (e.g., student teams).
We excluded the scholarly debates concerning the psychometric validity of various personality
inventories, because training content may not strictly need to be valid in that sense to function as
an effective developmental tool (Jelley, 2021; Moyle & Hackston, 2018; cf. Kuipers et al., 2009).
Learning Objectives of Personality-Based Trainings
Learning objectives specify what trainees will know or be able to do following
completion of the training. Various learning objectives for personality-based trainings have been
described in scholarly articles and promotional materials for personality assessments. These
include increasing self-awareness and reflection, increasing awareness of and appreciation for
dissimilar others, improving communication and cooperation, fixing specific team dysfunctions,
establishing a common language to describe behavior, and increasing knowledge of personality
in general (Breeding, 1988; Calendrillo, 2009; Lundgren et al., 2017; Maxon, 1985; Rowland,
2010). The most frequently mentioned of these were increasing self- and other-awareness.
In some cases, trainees may not know the purpose of these trainings (Jelley, 2021). One
trainee reported, “It is something [organizational leaders] have invested money in but they never
really told us how to use it…” (Lundgren et al., 2019, p. 364). Moreover, there is no static set of
learning objectives, as many training interventions are customized for clients. Regardless, based
on these reports, a typical purpose of personality training is to increase trainees’ understandings
of their own and others’ personalities, which could inform how they might interact differently.
Outcomes of Personality-Based Trainings
Training outcomes should include the fulfillment of learning objectives but also other
changes in attitudes, behaviors, and organizational outcomes that are downstream of participants’
newly acquired knowledge and skills. We divide the reported outcomes of personality-based
trainings into three categories: advertised or aspirational outcomes, quantitative evidence, and
qualitative evidence.
Advertised or Aspirational Outcomes. This section addresses effects of training that are
advertised in promotional materials or that might be expected under ideal circumstances, but for
which evidence is not directly cited. Beyond fulfilling learning objectives already mentioned,
some have stated that personality-based trainings can enhance work-related attitudes and
performance. For example, some have stated that such workshops can improve relationships,
respect for coworkers, team cohesion, and team motivation (Doré, 2002; Lundgren et al., 2019;
Payne, 2014). The reasoning is that better understanding of differing personalities increases
empathy for others, which eases interpersonal tensions. Some have hypothesized that altered
attitudes following training would in turn improve performance (e.g., Filbeck & Smith, 1997;
Froggatt & Bibby, 2007). Many have stated that understanding others’ work styles can improve
team and organizational performance by enhancing processes such as communication,

coordination, conflict management, problem-solving, and decision-making (Berry et al., 2007;
Coe, 1992; Doré, 2002; Myers et al., 1998). As one trainer said, “Recognizing the way
personality traits affect work styles helps [employees] take advantage of each other’s strengths
and understand each other’s weaknesses. The sooner they learn to respect their differences, the
sooner [they] can work together to become a high-functioning team” (Ludeman, 1995, p. 120).
Quantitative Evidence. This section addresses published reports of measured
(numerical) outcomes following personality-based training or feedback. Jelley (2021) conducted
a rapid evidence assessment of the peer-reviewed empirical literature concerning the effects of
personality-based developmental interventions for individuals and groups. Based on 12 identified
studies (seven pertaining to group training), Jelley concluded that the existing research was not
sufficiently rigorous to make definitive conclusions regarding effects of personality-based
interventions. Critiques included small sample sizes; reliance on self-reported performance
outcomes; confounded treatment effects (e.g., due to implementing multiple developmental
interventions simultaneously); and failure to report critical information, such as training and
research procedures, effect sizes, and statistical analyses. Jelley observed that case studies
reported the strongest treatment effects, whereas quasi-experiments reported the smallest.
Several studies have provided evidence that MBTI and DISC trainings can be
components of broader developmental interventions that show desirable outcomes. For example,
training on personality, in conjunction with content on some combination of group norming,
assigning team roles, goal-setting, communication skills, negotiation skills, public speaking, and
multiculturalism, has shown positive effects on knowledge, performance, satisfaction, and
cohesion (Bayley et al., 2007; DiMeglio et al., 2005; Rekar, 2001; Rekar Munro & Laiken, 2003;
Supadi et al., 2019). Jarl (2016) observed a slight increase in student team satisfaction as a result
of composing teams to maximize personality diversity, assigning team roles, and training on
MBTI. Two case studies reported millions of dollars in business revenue believed to be partially
attributable to trainings on personality, lean business processes, and manager empowerment and
support groups (Segovia, 2016; Sugerman, 2009). Conversely, two studies did not reveal
significant improvements in communication, problem-solving, teamwork, or job satisfaction
following trainings on personality, communication models, and stress (Harwood, 1992;
Stefansdottir & Sutherland, 2005). Unfortunately, none of these studies isolated training effects
specific to the personality components.
Several studies did attempt to isolate personality training effects. Three studies (two
featuring MBTI, one featuring Enneagram) showed no significant improvement post-training for
self-reported teamwork, cohesion, or self-awareness, or for observer-reported cohesion or project
quality (Breeding, 1988; Rogers, 2018; Sutton et al., 2015). Sedlock (2005) reported that
respondents generally rated the MBTI Team Report as accurate and useful, indicating “some”
behavior change (“2” on a 0 to 4 scale) after reading the report. Elder and Crook (2012) observed
that following four MBTI trainings, perceived knowledge increased and some behavior change
was reported (e.g., improved goal-setting). Following MBTI training for four family-owned
business management teams, Filbeck and Smith (1997) observed mixed results: mean scores
significantly improved for three of 10 items tapping interpersonal dynamics such as
communication, conflict resolution, and respect for differences. Interestingly, one manager
resigned shortly following the training; the authors speculated that the training might have
highlighted what the manager perceived as irreconcilable differences with the rest of the
management team.
Other evidence is difficult to interpret. Varvel and colleagues (2004) reported that MBTI
training increased self-rated student team effectiveness relative to a control group. However, this
analysis was based on only 61 of the 188 students for whom those data were obtained. Without
more information, it is impossible to know the sub-sample that these results apply to.
Additionally, training effect on observer-rated performance (project grade) was not reported.
Finally, Stockill’s (2014) conference paper has been cited as evidence for the effectiveness of
personality-based trainings. However, the paper only described a communication workshop.
Although personality was measured, it was only mentioned with respect to predicting training
outcomes, which does not necessarily imply its inclusion in the training.
We agree with Jelley (2021) that it is premature to draw strong conclusions regarding the
outcomes of personality-based training interventions based on the current empirical evidence.
Two critical limitations are lack of experimental control to isolate personality training effects and
inadequate sample sizes to reliably detect possible effects. These limitations are unsurprising
given the difficulties of measuring unit-level intervention effects, especially with no single
outcome (Jelley, 2021). We also do not interpret these limitations as evidence that personality-
based trainings fail to produce their intended outcomes. As with many interventions, collection
of broad evidence of effectiveness is expensive, time-consuming, and rarely a high priority for
organizations.
Qualitative Evidence. This section addresses verbal reports of outcomes following
personality-based training, including reactionary training evaluation responses and anecdotal
reports. Although not distinguished in this section, some of the following reports are in response
to developmental interventions that integrate personality feedback with other training content,
such as conflict management, customer service, gender theory, and neurolinguistic programming.
We organize the qualitative evidence into positive, neutral, and negative reactions.
Extensive qualitative evidence has been reported from trainers, trainees, and trainees’
managers attesting to the benefits of personality-based developmental interventions. Generally
favorable remarks on reactionary evaluations were numerous (e.g., “It was fun and informative,”
Calendrillo, 2009, p. 12; “It definitely had a positive effect,” Sutton et al., 2015, p. 620). The
most common anecdotal reports from trainees concern improved understanding of themselves,
others, and team dynamics (Ang, 2002; Clinebell & Stecher, 2003; Garrety et al., 2003; Sutton et
al., 2015). In particular, trainees remarked on increased self-awareness (Sutton et al., 2015) and
empathy and tolerance for others (Evans, 2019). One participant said, “[The training] has given
me a greater insight into how others behave at work—and with that perhaps more compassion
and acceptance that it’s ‘just how they are’” (Sutton et al., 2015, p. 620). Some reported they
value diversity more and better know how to coordinate effectively (Rekar, 2001; Rideout &
Richardson, 1989; Sugerman, 2009). For example, Sugerman (2009) reported an anecdote where
a results-oriented individual realized they needed to behave more personably with a relationship-
oriented coworker.
Beyond enhanced insight, trainers and trainees remarked on improved communication
skills (Berry et al., 2007; Boas, 1996; Calendrillo, 2009) and conflict resolution skills (Ludeman,
1995; McClure & Werther, 1993; Rideout & Richardson, 1989). They also spoke of improved
team attitudes and affective states, such as morale, synergy, team atmosphere, and trust (Doré,
2002; Ludeman, 1995; Rideout & Richardson, 1989; Sutton et al., 2015). Finally, there were
positive reports that would not necessarily be predicted based on common learning objectives,
such as increased learning capacity, proactivity, and creativity, as well as reduced likelihood of
dropping out of college (Doré, 2002; Froggatt & Bibby, 2007; Ludeman, 1995; McClure &
Werther, 1993).
Various neutral reactions were reported. Some claimed that trainees often forget their
personality feedback shortly following the training or never mention it again (Boas, 1996; Coe,
1991, 1992; Lundgren et al., 2019). Some trainees reported that the workshop had no apparent
effect on work behavior or group dynamics (Clinebell & Stecher, 2003; Sutton et al., 2015).
Froggatt and Bibby (2007) did not anecdotally notice performance improvement for an elite
athletic team following personality training.
Finally, negative reactions have been reported. A minority of participants reported
lowered self-reflection and increased negative rumination following an Enneagram training, and
some felt an unpleasant sense of vulnerability (Sutton et al., 2015). Increased self-awareness may
sometimes be uncomfortable; following MBTI training, one participant reflected, “Shit, maybe I
really am a bit more of a dickhead than I thought I was” (Garrety et al., 2003, p. 215).
Participants whose personality characteristics differ sharply from the rest of their group
sometimes feel stigmatized (Lundgren et al., 2019). Additionally, some argue that personality
feedback is used to excuse inappropriate behavior, such as the trainee who remarked, “[They]
say, ‘Hello, I’m an INFP. I don’t deal with detail.’ And you think, ‘Terrific. Now we’ve got a job
to do, and I really don’t care’” (Garrety et al., 2003, p. 229).
Summary. A review of relevant literature on personality-based training outcomes
suggests some alignment between advertised or aspirational outcomes and reports from trainers
and trainees. However, there is currently limited systematic research to corroborate the verbal
reports with empirical data. In some cases, anecdotal reports contradicted psychometric
measurements. For example, Sutton and colleagues (2015) observed that 33% of participants
verbally reported engaging in more self-reflection following training, and far fewer reported the
opposite, yet little or no average difference in measured self-reflection was found. Moreover,
verbal reports reveal that some participants have negative reactions to personality training. This
speaks to the importance of research examining effective training practices in this space, as well
as characteristics of individuals who will benefit most and in what situations. Such knowledge
would better equip consulting psychologists to select the appropriate assessment for a given
situation, as well as design and facilitate the intervention more effectively.
Structure, Components, and Mechanisms of Personality-Based Trainings
Rushmer (1997) emphasized the importance of examining not only outcomes of team
building interventions but also the mechanisms by which desired outcomes are achieved.
According to Church and colleagues (2015), awareness of personality similarities and
dissimilarities is the hypothesized active ingredient that changes team dynamics following
personality training. Although we suspect the mechanisms of such interventions will vary by
assessment and underlying theory, self- and other-awareness might be common components.
Garrety and colleagues (2003) suggested that organizational changes occur when developmental
interventions prompt individuals to engage in self-reflection, which leads to their replacing old
narratives about themselves and their workplace with new narratives (e.g., reframing a
coworker’s frustrating behaviors as dispositional rather than deliberately antagonistic). Learning
about different personalities might foster appreciation for diversity and reveal more adaptive
behaviors to use during work interactions (Jelley, 2021). In sum, two broad potential
mechanisms are that more knowledge about personality could (1) alter attitudes about oneself
and others that were previously based on different information or assumptions and (2) reveal
alternative behaviors to avoid frustrating others and to coordinate more effectively.

Considering these possible mechanisms, two key questions are “How is personality
training conducted?” and “How should personality training be conducted?” The typical group
personality training involves trainees completing a personality inventory, receiving feedback
about their types or characteristics, and sharing that information with one another. Some trainers
believe that mere presentation of personality information will produce desired changes, whereas
others conduct group exercises and discussions regarding how dissimilar personalities can work
together (Sample, 2004). Many trainers physically group participants by personality type for
these exercises (e.g., Clinebell & Stecher, 2003; Evans, 2019; Garrety et al., 2003). Some
trainers include such activities because they consider mere awareness not only insufficient but
potentially problematic.
Indeed, some scholars have argued that certain kinds of self-awareness may be
detrimental (Jelley, 2021; Sutton et al., 2015). For example, Jelley (2021) cited feedback
intervention theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; DeNisi & Kluger, 2000), which predicts that
feedback oriented toward the self rather than work tasks will worsen performance, as cognitive
resources are redirected from work to managing affect and self-concept. Furthermore, the
workplace diversity literature suggests that perceiving the existence of subgroups creates the
possibility of intergroup biases that can worsen communication and conflict (Shemla et al., 2016;
van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Such concerns speak to the importance of clarifying effective and
ineffective training practices in this work.
To learn about this, we reviewed the literature for guidance regarding effective
personality training. Although scholars have addressed best training practices in general and in
other training domains (e.g., Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Littrell, & Salas, 2005), as well as
guidance for personality-based leader development (e.g., Nelson & Hogan, 2009; Winterberg et
al., in press), we are aware of no concentrated effort to research best practices for personality-
based training for groups and organizations. However, trainers and scholars have advanced
several suggestions. The most common recommendation was to avoid stereotyping or “pigeon-
holing” trainees, framing the personality test as a snapshot in time rather than a definitive
summarization of the person (Berry et al., 2007; Evans, 2019; Sample, 2004). Less commonly
mentioned recommendations included emphasizing that no personality type is good or bad (Coe,
1991; Varvel et al., 2004), treating personality feedback as confidential (Lundgren et al., 2019;
McCaulley, 2000), focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses (Coe, 1992; Moyle & Hackston,
2018), using dimensional rather than typal personality models (Berry et al., 2007; Lundgren et
al., 2017), training early in a team’s formation (Bohlander & McCarthy, 1996; Clinebell &
Stecher, 2003), and relabeling personality tests to avoid potential negative connotations
(Lundgren et al., 2017). Much of this guidance concerns avoiding upsetting or embarrassing
trainees regarding their personality feedback.
Some trainer guidance can be found in training manuals. For example, TypeFinder’s
“Personality Type in the Workplace: Presentation Guide for Trainers” (Truity Psychometrics,
2014) is freely accessible online. In addition to a trainer script, presentation slides, and activity
instructions, the guide provides general-purpose trainer tips (e.g., how to arrange the training
room). It provides one personality-specific recommendation: to emphasize the value of
personality diversity. Hogan’s “Team Report: Facilitator Guide” (Hogan Assessments, n.d.) is
also available online. Similarly, this guide provides a script, slides, handouts, and activity
instructions. Its guidance specific to personality training includes ensuring that personality
assessment and individual feedback occur prior to the workshop, recognizing that personality
diversity can be both beneficial and detrimental, and providing personality feedback
nonjudgmentally. Trainer certification courses in this space also typically include guidance
specific to personality training, but due to the proprietary nature of these training materials such
information is not always publicly available. Additionally, it is difficult to know whether trainers
implement such guidance following certification.
The Present Research
To supplement what has been published regarding personality-based training objectives,
outcomes, and structures and practices, we interviewed 26 trainers of popular personality
assessments (e.g., MBTI, DISC, Hogan Personality Inventory). Whereas we reviewed more
scholarly publications than commercial ones, we interviewed more practitioners than academics.
Our intent was to look for correspondence between the reviewed literature and applied practice,
as well as to identify additional learning objectives, training outcomes, and practice
recommendations not yet reported. Given the reviewed evidence that personality trainings can
vary in their effectiveness, we asked trainers for “best practice” recommendations and cautions
against practices that might have inadvertent negative effects.
We aimed to answer three primary research questions:
RQ1. What are common learning objectives that are used when designing and facilitating
personality-based developmental interventions for groups and teams?
RQ2. How do trainers commonly evaluate the effectiveness of personality-based
developmental interventions for groups and teams?
RQ3. What are common guidelines ("best practices") that trainers recommend for
effective design and delivery of personality-based developmental interventions?
This study is not intended to comprehensively review all personality-based training
models, nor to produce an authoritative set of training guidelines. Rather, its intent is to clarify
aspects of such trainings that must be known to evaluate and enhance their effectiveness, thereby
serving as a springboard for future research and training development. This study’s target
audiences are researchers and consulting psychologists who specialize in personality-based
interventions for groups and teams, as well as organizational leaders and human resources
personnel who partner with trainers to implement these interventions within their organizations.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Eligible participants were trainers of personality assessments marketed for organizational
groups and teams, with experience conducting multiple trainings and feedback sessions. These
criteria excluded trainers who use personality assessments solely for employee selection or team
composition purposes. We identified 33 prospective participants through our personal networks
and online searches for trainers advertising personality-based workshops for groups. Past
interviewees referred 19 additional participants. We invited prospective interviewees via email,
providing the study background and possible interview questions. Of those invited, 50% agreed
to participate, resulting in 26 interviewees.
Our decision for when to stop data collection was based on a combination of seeking
diverse representation of personality models and perceiving saturation in responses to interview
questions. Although there are too many personality models and assessment measures to represent
them all in this study, we sought representation from Jungian models (e.g., MBTI), Big Five
models (e.g., Hogan), four-category models (e.g., DISC, True Colors), strengths-based models
(e.g., CliftonStrengths), and playful models (e.g., U-Zoo). We believe these represent the most
common tests used in personality-based trainings in organizational settings, at least in the United
States. Once these categories were represented, we continued conducting interviews until the
interviewer perceived a high level of data saturation (Saunders et al., 2018), by which we mean
that responses to central interview questions rarely seemed different from previously collected
responses.
The 26 participants had a mean of 12.9 years of experience training personality-based
workshops and had facilitated a median of 93 trainings (see Table 1). Sixteen participants were
external trainers and consultants, eight were in-house trainers for organizations, and two worked
both internally and externally. The most common personality assessments represented were
MBTI (11), DISC (8), CliftonStrengths (7), and Hogan Assessments (6); other models included
Saville and Holdsworth Ltd. (SHL), BEST, and animal- and color-based models (see Table 2 for
more details, including brief descriptions of each model). Eleven interviewees used multiple
assessments. The industries of the trainers’ clienteles included accounting, education, energy,
engineering, healthcare, hospitality, information technology, military, nonprofit, sales,
transportation, and many others. Several trainers specialized in training leadership teams.
We did not gather additional demographic information from interviewees such as age,
race, or gender. Because some individuals consider demographic questions invasive (Hughes et
al., 2016; Lor et al., 2017), it is important to evaluate what is potentially gained from collecting
such data. In this case, our goal was not to demonstrate generalizable statistical effects or make
comparisons between demographic subgroups, but rather to discover what sorts of training
practices exist. Moreover, we are unaware of any theoretical or empirical reason to expect that,
for example, trainers of different ages or races would systematically design group personality
training differently.
Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams or Zoom and lasted approximately 30 to
45 minutes. Given our exploratory approach, we used a semi-structured interview format and
allowed questions to evolve over the course of successive interviews. Interviews were audio-
recorded and later transcribed.
Measurement
We developed interview questions to assess training logistics and structure, learning
objectives, training evaluation, recommended and inadvisable practices, strategies for dealing
with difficult training situations, examples of incidents where trainings went well or poorly, and
organizational applications (see Table 7). As the memorable experiences and organizational
recommendations are less relevant for this article, such responses are only reported when they
include training practice recommendations.
We removed four questions over the course of several interviews because the answers
could be inferred from answers to other questions (e.g., “Approximately how many participants
have you trained?”) or because vague wording resulted in different interpretations by different
interviewees (e.g., “How do people tend to respond to the content?”). Three new questions were
added over the course of the interviews. After multiple interviewees described situations where
trainee subgroups formed based on the personality feedback and began clashing with one
another, we added “How do you handle situations where participants divide into personality-
based subgroups and engage in conflict?” (Q16). After realizing that a training evaluation
question was not comprehensive enough, we replaced it with “What, if any, formal training
outcomes do you measure?” (Q26) and “What, if any, informal effects of training do you observe
in the weeks and months that follow?” (Q27).
Thematic Content Analysis
Whereas some data were objective to interpret and report (e.g., training group size,
training outcomes measured), the learning objectives and training practice recommendations
were more open to subjective interpretation. To organize these responses, we conducted separate
content analyses using the same procedure for both. Two authors reviewed the interview
transcripts and identified 64 learning objectives and 223 training recommendations. One author
reviewed all such instances and created preliminary categories based on perceived response
similarity. This resulted in eight learning objective themes, each containing at least two
responses, and 13 training recommendation themes, each containing at least five responses.
Based on category definitions written by that author, the other two authors independently
reviewed all responses and sorted them into the categories, with the one author serving as
tiebreaker for discrepancies. The purpose of this approach was to provide independent judgment
on the content to include in each category.
Prior to tiebreaking, there was 65.6% agreement (Cohen’s κ = .59) for learning objectives
and 57.0% agreement (κ = .52) for recommendations. To improve the coherence of
categorization, we collapsed pairs of categories that were commonly cross-sorted with one
another, so long as combining them made conceptual sense. For learning objectives, we
collapsed other-awareness (increased understanding and acceptance of others’ personalities)
with individual effectiveness (improved performance, especially improved interactions), and we
collapsed unit effectiveness (improved group performance) with teambuilding (improved group
cohesion and attitudes). Also, because only one item was categorized by both sorters under
strengths focus (focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses), we eliminated that category and
subsumed the item under self-awareness or acceptance. For training recommendations, we
collapsed flexibility (avoiding rigidity when describing and predicting behavior) with self-
determination (avoiding telling participants who they are or should be), and we collapsed
managing resistance (techniques for responding to skeptical trainees) with securing buy-in
(helping trainees embrace their personality feedback). Following these combinations, agreement
for learning objectives was 76.6% (κ = .70) and agreement for recommendations was 65.0% (κ =
.60). These served as the final categorizations for learning objectives and training
recommendations (see Tables 3 and 6). Although the final agreement levels exceed chance, they
suggest some categories may be partially overlapping. There is no theoretical reason to expect
there would not be overlap for this type of categorization, so these agreement levels are provided
for descriptive information, not to test prior expectations about data structures.
Results
Reported Training Characteristics and Procedures
The mean training length was 3.8 hours, and the median training group size was 20 (see
Table 1). The typical training components reported included (1) a personality assessment, (2) an
explanation of the personality model and descriptions of characteristics or types, (3) activities to
illustrate training concepts, and (4) discussion of strategies for working with dissimilar others.
Nearly all interviewees mentioned the first and second components, although sometimes these
were completed prior to the workshop. One trainer described a format where trainees selected
their styles from a list rather than completing an assessment. About 80% of trainers described
learning activities such as having trainees of different personality types plan an event, which
illustrates different preferences and priorities. Fifty percent of trainers described facilitating
discussions regarding how to work with dissimilar others, and 50% mentioned physically
grouping participants by characteristic or type for activities and discussions. Less commonly
mentioned training components included activities to increase participant buy-in for the
personality model, education about why diversity is valuable, discussion of team-level
personality profiles, and team goal-setting activities.

Reported Learning Objectives
Based on the 64 learning objectives provided by interviewees, five themes were
identified (see Table 3). These are presented in decreasing order of frequency mentioned.
Although some objectives described may extend beyond individual learning to future unit-level
outcomes, we included all responses that interviewees described as learning objectives.
In line with the scholarly literature, the most frequently discussed category of learning
objective was titled self-awareness or acceptance (frequency = 21), which concerned increasing
the participant’s understanding and acceptance of their own personality (e.g., “First of all that
self-awareness. How do I behave, and what do I do?”) The second category was other-awareness
or acceptance (f = 17), which concerned understanding others and using that knowledge to
improve interpersonal interactions (e.g., “Apply the concepts to make your relationships more
effective”). The third category was understanding personality (f = 10), which concerned
increasing understanding of the personality model or personality in general (e.g., “Understand
the CliftonStrengths philosophy”). The fourth category was unit effectiveness or attitudes (f =
10), which concerned improving group performance or cohesion, as well as having an enjoyable
social experience as a group (e.g., “Build culture and engagement”; “Identify areas where the
team can drive effectiveness”). The fifth category was valuing personality diversity (f = 6),
which concerned increasing preference for diverse representations of personality characteristics
or types (e.g., “Realize…there are pros and cons to all [communication styles]”).
The learning objectives identified by interviewees largely aligned with those we
identified in our review of the literature. In summary, common learning objectives of
personality-based group trainings include increasing awareness of one’s own and others’
personalities, increasing respect for differences, strengthening interpersonal connections, and

revealing effective behaviors to enhance performance at the individual and group levels.
Learning about personality is intended to increase empathy toward coworkers, as well as reveal
more effective ways to interact with them based on their preferences and tendencies. As one
interviewee summarized these aims, “The idea is insight into the individuals in the team such
that you can create either understanding or mechanisms for more smooth and effective
performance.”
Reported Training Outcomes
Nineteen interviewees reported evaluating training effectiveness in some fashion (see
Table 4). We divide these reports into five types, presented in decreasing order of frequency
mentioned: anecdotal observations, increased business revenue, immediate reactionary surveys,
follow-up qualitative surveys, and behavior check-ins.
Of 22 anecdotal reports of training effectiveness, 18 were positive, such as trainees
verbally expressing appreciation or later being overheard discussing training concepts. One
trainer said, “I got really lovely emails afterward.” Another said, “That’s when I know that it’s
successful, because they’re still talking about it after the fact.” Three neutral anecdotes were
reported, such as a trainee saying, “Those reports get put on a shelf somewhere, and they don’t
come back out for a long time.” A single negative anecdote was reported, which involved the
upper management of a client organization learning they were nearly all the same personality
type and proceeding to demonstrate preferential treatment toward that type: “The dominant
personality develops a bias, and then that becomes organizational practice, and then those…that
don’t fit neatly in that box…[are perceived to] have poorer performance.”
Additionally, some interviewees described anecdotes of trainees dividing into clashing
personality subgroups, although such accounts were not described as training outcomes. After
hearing these anecdotes, we began asking interviewees if they had observed such dynamics
emerge. Trainers of dimensional personality models (e.g., Hogan Personality Inventory) reported
they did not observe such dynamics and speculated that dimensional models might be less likely
to elicit subgroups perceptions because they have no categorization component. Most trainers of
typal personality models (e.g., MBTI) reported that such dynamics were possible but could be
curtailed by discussion of why all personality types should be valued. One trainer said, “There’s
just this immediate in-group and out-group that happens, that you’ll have to be prepared to
[initially] allow…and then get ready to shift them back to, ‘Actually, we’re all one group of
people. And being different personalities is actually pretty good.’”
Four trainers described repeat business with a given client organization as an indication
of training effectiveness, as clients presumably would only request the training again if they
found it beneficial. One trainer said, “If the team session [for managers] went really
well…usually we’ll see requests for their teams to go through it.” Three trainers mentioned
administering reactionary surveys immediately following training, with items such as “How
valuable do you think it was?” and “How likely are you to recommend this to somebody else?”
One trainer said, “[The reaction] is overwhelmingly positive.” Another said, “I can see from the
comments that it’s meaningful for them.” Two trainers mentioned administering qualitative
surveys or interviews 30 to 60 days following the training, with questions such as “Do you
remember what your Myers-Briggs type is?” and “What impact did [the training] have?” One
trainer said that such feedback was generally positive but likely skewed, as they suspected that
only satisfied customers tended to respond to the questions. Finally, one trainer described
facilitating behavior check-ins for ongoing development activities, where trainees would set
behavioral goals for implementing training concepts at the end of workshops and report their
progress during subsequent workshops. Seven interviewees reported no training evaluation
efforts.
Across evaluation activities, interviewees mostly reported favorable feedback but low
response rates to surveys. Most observations were anecdotal, and as one trainer suggested, it is
possible that satisfied trainees are more likely to respond to evaluation efforts than dissatisfied
trainees. Of the outcomes that were systematically measured, only a small number were
specifically tied to the learning objectives. For example, none described systematically
evaluating changes in trainee self-awareness, preference for personality diversity, or team
processes. When asked why they either did not measure training outcomes or the fulfillment of
the learning objectives specifically, nearly all interviewees stated that clients rarely or never
desire such evaluation data. One trainer said, “Most organizations…do not have me work long-
term with them just because of funding.” Another said, “We’ve never had great buy-in from
organizations to do ongoing stuff.”
In summary, although some interviewees described the potential for adverse outcomes,
nearly all trainers anecdotally observed positive effects following most trainings. Formal
evaluation efforts were rare and tended to be limited in scope and duration due to limited funding
and low interest from client organizations.
Reported Training Recommendations
Based on the 223 training recommendations provided by interviewees, we identified 10
themes specific to personality-based training and one nonspecific theme. See Table 5 for a
concise summary of 13 recommendations (some conflicting) based on these themes. See Table 6
for detailed explanations of the 10 recommendation themes, including definitions, examples, and
frequencies. The 10 themes are presented below in decreasing order of frequency mentioned.
General Training Effectiveness
The most common training practice theme was general training effectiveness (frequency
= 42), which contained recommendations that were not specific to personality-based training
(e.g., “If you can get them talking and asking questions, that’s when you’re gonna have your
greatest impact”; “Not asking closed-ended questions”). Although these recommendations may
be advisable, they appeared applicable to any training context and thus were considered outside
the scope of the present research. This category excluded recommendations that would otherwise
be beneficial in any training context (e.g., avoiding information overload) if interviewees
described them as being specifically relevant in the context of personality training.
Flexibility
The most common personality-specific recommendation category was flexibility (f = 41),
which concerned (1) being flexible when describing personality and predicting behavior and (2)
avoiding telling participants who they are or should be (e.g., “The measure’s a probabilistic
assumption of how people act based upon lots of other people”; “This resource can guide the
conversation…[it is] not the ‘end-all, be-all’”). Some variation of the phrase “Don’t put people in
a box” was mentioned 15 times. These recommendations were intended to prevent scenarios
where trainees either believe the training content describes them too narrowly (e.g., only in
certain situations) or react negatively because they believe that only they have the right to
describe themselves. Although many trainers argued that trainees know themselves better than
the personality assessments do, a minority suggested that many people have less insight into their
own personalities than they believe and thus can learn from the feedback. One trainer said, “I'm
not saying that an assessment is always going to tell you the truth about your personality,
but…when we look at the statistical validity and reliability of these assessments, they're not
zero.”
Securing Buy-In
A related category was securing buy-in (f = 32), which concerned working with trainees
to help them accept their personality feedback and managing skeptical or resistant participants in
the training (e.g., “Don’t be afraid to ask, ‘Do you agree with this finding?’ And then listen to
what they have to say. You lose credibility if you don’t allow them to agree or disagree [with]
their findings”; “There are a few of the [personality] themes that tend to be more discerning, like,
‘Prove it to me’ or ‘I’m not sure” …and that’s fine. You just let people be wherever they are with
it”). These recommendations were advised to manage situations where trainees dislike their
personality feedback or have negative preconceptions about personality trainings based on past
trainings or information from popular media. Whereas flexibility concerned avoiding delivering
the content too forcefully, securing buy-in concerned whether and how to convince trainees to
accept the content if resistance occurs. Strategies included speaking of “communication styles”
rather than “personality” to avoid negative connotations, encouraging trainees to ask family
members if the personality feedback was accurate, and sharing the trainer’s own personality
feedback to model openness. Some trainers recommended privately confronting disruptive or
resistant participants, whereas others suggested embracing skepticism as an illustration of the
training content. For example, skeptical or analytical personality types might be expected to
question the training content.
Valuing Diversity
The third category was valuing diversity (f = 25), which concerned emphasizing the value
of a diverse representation of personalities in teams and organizations (e.g., “Teach that

[personality styles] are all equally beautiful and good”; “Drift away from this focus on
‘Everybody fits into four distinct boxes’…what matters is that you honor that people have
different experiences, and you’re inclusive of it’”). These recommendations were advised to
prevent situations where particular personality types or characteristics are stigmatized by other
members of the group. Trainers who gave this recommendation also typically remarked that
teams and organizations with more personality diversity outperform those with less.
Avoiding Information Overload
The fourth category was avoiding information overload (f = 18), which concerned
avoiding delving too deeply into personality theory, psychometrics, the history of psychology, or
the nuances of all possible configurations of personality characteristics (e.g., “A worst practice,
especially in the world of I-O, [is] getting too scientific”; “It can be easy to fall into the trap of
introducing each and every scale or every part of a report output”). It was suggested that if too
much content were covered, trainees would retain little of it. Although avoiding information
overload seems prudent in any training context, some interviewees suggested that personality
trainers were particularly likely to spend too much time explaining technical details.
Ongoing Learning and Application
The fifth category was ongoing learning and application (f = 15), which concerned
whether and how to integrate personality content into trainees’ professional lives (e.g.,
“[Encourage] anything they can do to put the language of Strengths [into organizational
communications]…We get better at language when we use it”; “I keep going back [to train for an
organization] because I do value that they like it. But at some point, I’m not sure that we haven’t
reached the end of our usefulness”). Whereas some trainers recommended avoiding “one-and-
done” trainings and integrating the training content throughout the workplace, others discouraged
taking the training too seriously and suggested that workplace applications were limited. This
distinction also roughly corresponded to a distinction between trainers who described their
personality assessments as scientific instruments and those who described their assessments non-
scientifically (e.g., as “games”).
Tailoring the Content
The sixth category was tailoring the content (f = 14), which concerned integrating
personality concepts into the training design and tailoring the facilitation style based on group
personality characteristics (e.g., “Find out [trainee personalities] and then build scenarios or case
studies specifically around that—anonymously”; “If I have somebody [whose strength is]
Analytical, it’s going to be very important that they can see that tech report”). The purpose is to
model how trainees could alter their own workplace behavior to work more effectively with
others. Trainers also recommended being prepared to adapt the content or format quickly should
challenging group personality profiles emerge (e.g., “How are you going to handle the
facilitation if it’s a small group and everybody is the same [type]?”).
Positive Purpose
The seventh category was positive purpose (f = 13), which concerned (1) assuring
trainees that the purpose of the training was development and not to inform promotion or
termination decisions and (2) discouraging trainees from using the training content for harmful
purposes (e.g., “[Explain that] our objective is to maximize the gifts that are there…This is not
job placement. It’s definitely not punishment”; “Watch out for the participant using the tool…as
an excuse for their misbehavior”).
Sensitivity
The eighth category was sensitivity (f = 13), which concerned being aware that trainees
may consider their personality information sensitive, embarrassing, or private (“Avoid calling
out the actual personality”; “Realize that not everyone is going to want to have their results
posted on the big screen”). Whereas some trainers discouraged mocking or teasing particular
characteristics or styles, one suggested that gentle teasing can help lighten the mood.
Group Size
The ninth category was group size (f = 6), which concerned the ideal group size for
personality-based training (e.g., “Inevitably, the larger the group, the more people that are
scoring really high in their [type], and it clicks on all cylinders”; “The [large group] size [makes]
people a lot less willing to share their own personal examples of this type of stuff”). Some
trainers recommended larger training groups, as this increases the likelihood that all personality
types will be represented; others argued that large groups are unwieldy and prevent open sharing
of experiences.
Strengths versus Weaknesses
The tenth category was strengths versus weaknesses (f = 4), which concerned whether it
is beneficial to focus only on personal strengths or both on strengths and weaknesses (e.g., “Talk
about ‘This is what is right with you. This is not something that’s wrong with you’”; “For true
development, you have to look at the good, the bad, and the ugly”). Although our interviewees
rarely framed this concern as a formal recommendation, many made remarks to the effect that
trainees should not feel bad about their personality feedback. One trainer said, “If somebody
leaves a personality training thinking that their personality is the problem, you’ve done it
wrong.” Others argued that recognizing one’s own weaknesses is essential for developmental
activities. For example, trainers who use the Hogan Development Survey inform trainees of their
interpersonal derailers (ineffective behavior patterns that can emerge under stress or inattention)
so that they can attempt to manage such behaviors when under those conditions.
Summary
In summary, many recommended training practices seemed intended to prevent negative
emotional reactions from trainees (e.g., feeling “pigeon-holed,” stigmatized, undervalued,
embarrassed, or at risk of punishment for their test results). Other recommendations were
intended to enhance learning, such as managing the volume of content covered and designing
custom training experiences based on the training group’s personality profile. Additionally,
trainers disagreed on the issues of whether trainees know themselves better than the test does,
how to respond to resistant trainees, how thoroughly personality feedback should be integrated
throughout the workplace, the ideal training group size, and whether it is appropriate to discuss
personal weaknesses in this context. More examples of each recommendation category are
provided in Table 6.
Discussion
Comprehensive training evaluation requires clarity regarding the training purpose, how
success is measured, and how the intervention is thought to bring about its intended outcomes. In
this manuscript, we organized information from the academic literature and trainer interviews
regarding the learning objectives, outcomes, and procedures and practices commonly used in
personality-based training for groups and teams. The primary purposes were to consolidate
expert knowledge for consulting psychologists to refer to, as well as establish a foundation for
future empirical research on the topic.
Across both sources of information, the most mentioned learning objectives concerned
increased awareness of oneself and others. This knowledge is intended to increase empathy and
preference for diversity, thereby easing interpersonal tensions, as well as reveal more effective
ways of interacting with coworkers. However, there is no single fixed purpose of personality
training; one interviewee said, “I can tell you what [my objectives] are, but that’s not always
what the organization wants…what problem is the organization trying to solve?” Moreover,
although most trainers mentioned the goal of improved performance, a minority described the
primary purpose as having fun (e.g., “Have a positive social experience”). For such trainings,
reactionary evaluation data may be sufficient to assess training effectiveness.
No definitive conclusions regarding training outcomes could be drawn from either the
academic literature or practitioners’ training evaluation efforts, largely due to methodological
constraints driven by limited funding. However, anecdotal evidence from literature and practice
show promise, as well as possible threat. Many trainees have reported that their training
experiences caused them to markedly change how they interact with others in professional and
personal contexts, improving attitudes and effectiveness. But some have reported incidents
where trainings backfired, such as by providing labels that employees used to stigmatize
personality minorities or by highlighting personality subgroups that then engaged in conflict.
Such reports speak to the importance of clarifying training components that contribute to or
detract from desirable group processes and outcomes.
Relatedly, the most common training recommendations revolved around preventing
trainees from reacting negatively to the training content or misusing it in the workplace.
Examples of such recommendations included describing personality characteristics flexibly,
emphasizing the value of diversity, and treating personality feedback as confidential.
Disagreement on other practices (e.g., whether weaknesses should be explored or avoided)

reveals that despite apparent similarity in the overall structure of personality trainings across
interviewees, the nuances of content delivery can vary.
Review of Guidance for Practitioners
Considering the early state of research on personality training for groups, most guidance
for consulting psychologists must be tentative. As there are sometimes discrepancies between
learning objectives and measured training outcomes, internal and external consultants are
advised to clearly specify the objectives of a given personality training and then focus evaluation
efforts on measuring the extent to which those objectives are fulfilled. For example, if an
intervention aims to increase self-awareness and decrease team conflict, then evaluation could
involve measuring individual self-awareness and team-level conflict before and after the
intervention to assess sizes and durations of changes. More granular approaches are possible for
more specific learning objectives (e.g., adapting to a dissimilar coworker’s work style). Different
learning objectives may also be appropriate for groups versus teams. For example, whereas
social integration might be the primary objective for training an entire department on personality,
enhanced coordination might be a more appropriate aim for a highly interdependent team.
Given that one interviewee described ineffective personality training as potentially
“dangerous for [trainees] and for other people,” it seems prudent to exercise caution with any
practices that purportedly produce negative effects. For example, although joking about
individual trainees’ personality characteristics may relieve tension, one trainer warned “[teasing]
will prevent people from wanting to engage in this in a deeper level. They’ll…have a very
negative attitude about it.” Because some trainers stated that openly sharing everyone’s
personality feedback “can shut people down,” it may be advisable to obtain each trainee’s
consent and buy-in beforehand. Additionally, because dividing people into subgroups may create
the possibility of intergroup bias (van Knippenberg et al., 2004), trainers might be advised to
emphasize overall group diversity as opposed to subgroups (Shemla et al., 2016). For example,
trainers might avoid physically grouping trainees by type, or they might conduct activities that
reintegrate trainees into a large group. One interviewee advised reintegrating subgroups with
“team building activities to reset everyone back together,” both in mixed-personality groups and
as a large group.
Because trainees sometimes reportedly enter the training wondering “What are they
gonna do with this [personality] information?” it may be advisable to clearly explain what the
personality feedback will and will not be used for, as well as who will have access to it.
Consultants are also advised to consider how they would handle potential breaches of such
parameters, such as in situations where other departments or entities solicit personality data that
were previously collected under the assurance of confidentiality. Furthermore, as it is not
uncommon for some mix of employees, their supervisors, HR staff, and organizational
leadership to participate in the same developmental intervention simultaneously, there are some
inherent limitations to the degree of confidentiality that can be guaranteed. In such situations, the
consulting psychologist might be advised to draw attention to such dynamics, both in preparatory
conversations with leadership and when gaining trainees' consent prior to gathering their
personality information.
Unanswered Questions in Consulting Applications
Multiple additional considerations for consulting psychologists were raised by a
thoughtful reviewer. One such consideration was that personality assessments are employed in
developmental capacities not only by consulting psychologists, but also by non-psychologists
such as human resource management professionals. This raises questions concerning whether
psychologists and non-psychologists might adopt different approaches to personality-based
developmental interventions, given their differing educational backgrounds and philosophical
orientations. Indeed, the question of whether non-psychologists should even be permitted to
administer personality assessments has been contentiously debated in European countries such as
the Netherlands (Lundgren et al., 2017). Given the potential sensitivity of personality feedback,
as well as the fact that some assessments are intended as rigorous scientific measures of
psychological attributes, some have argued that graduate-level psychological training should be
prerequisite for use of such tools. We suggest that research is needed to clarify the state of this
issue. For example, it would be meaningful to compare how psychologists and non-psychologists
approach personality-based developmental interventions, including test selection, as well as
intervention design, facilitation, and evaluation. This may reveal key distinctions in preferences
and practices, as well as potential competency gaps.
Another issue concerns whether the suitability of personality assessments for
developmental applications should depend on factors such as psychometric characteristics. For
example, it seems plausible that more scientifically rigorous instruments might be superior for
enhancing team processes (e.g., coordination) by providing accurate and nuanced descriptions of
individual preferences and tendencies, whereas more "fun" assessments might better facilitate
enjoyable social experiences. Moreover, to the extent that a given assessment is complicated or
involves less palatable personality feedback (e.g., derailers), it is conceivable that the
intervention will be enjoyed less on average. However, these are open empirical questions that
must be investigated before conclusions can be drawn.
A final consideration is that different personality assessments are commonly used within
the same organization. Although this topic was mentioned too infrequently to constitute a theme
in our content analysis, one trainer did mention using different assessments for different levels of
an organization (DISC primarily for lower organizational tiers, MBTI for coaching middle
managers, and the Hogan Suite for executive coaching). In contrast, another trainer discouraged
the use multiple assessments to avoid confusing trainees. This is likely an issue where practical
resource limitations control which assessment is selected. Assessments that are inexpensive and
simpler to understand may seem more desirable for large numbers of lower-level employees,
whereas more complex and expensive assessments may seem justifiable only for smaller-scale
and higher-stakes applications, such as leadership development. The question of whether using
multiple assessments with the same organization introduces confusion or weakens outcomes
remains open for future investigation.
Future Steps for Researchers
Beyond the suggestions given above, we believe two promising research streams
concerning personality-based training are (1) controlled evaluation of training outcomes and (2)
exploration of the proposed mechanisms of action, by which we mean the specific training
components that fulfill the learning objectives to bring about training outcomes. With respect to
training evaluation, a critical need is research that isolates the effects of personality training from
other developmental interventions (e.g., team norming and goal-setting activities). This work
would benefit from specificity regarding learning objectives and intended outcomes. For
example, what specific types of self-awareness or team processes are meant to be altered by the
training? There could be various branches of such research, including comparisons of outcomes
for different personality assessments (e.g., typal versus dimensional) and different kinds of
trainees or situations (e.g., differing job types or team task types). Such research must be
sufficiently statistically powered to detect realistic effect sizes, which may be modest, especially
for distal outcomes such as long-term team performance. To acquire sufficient sample sizes,
scholars may need to partner with trainers and organizations who are doing this development
work.
Research is also needed to explore the mechanisms of action of personality training. For
example, it would be beneficial to learn whether personality feedback must be valid to facilitate
progress toward developmental goals (Kuipers et al., 2009). Empirical research should also
address the specific effects of heightened awareness of one’s own and others’ personalities
(Jelley, 2021), including whether such awareness naturally produces desirable changes (Sample,
2004) or might cause unintended side effects such as worsened self-concept under certain
conditions. If particular kinds of awareness (e.g., negative rumination) are detrimental, then
training practices should be identified to mitigate such effects and emphasize other forms of
awareness. If personality awareness alone is insufficient to produce desirable outcomes, then
complementary training components should be identified and substantiated with empirical
evidence. Broadly, research clarifying how various training components bring about their
intended outcomes could reveal concrete ways to incrementally improve training, such as by
identifying essential and superfluous training components. For example, does learning about a
coworker’s personality increase empathy toward them, and does this elicit different patterns of
interactions? If so, then would employees be advised to publicly post their personality
characteristics on badges, email signatures, and Zoom profiles? Such research might also help
resolve disagreements among trainers, such as by revealing the benefits and detriments of
discussing personality weaknesses (or failing to discuss them). Toward that end, empirical
research substantiating the recommendations we gathered from literature and interviews would
be of immense value to consulting psychologists.

Constraints on Generality
Our purpose in this manuscript was not necessarily to identify generalizable frequencies
or universal guidelines for training, but rather to identify the array of practices that can occur in
the space. As such, we ceased conducting interviews based on perceived data saturation, as
opposed to using any rule intended to enhance generalizability. Future quantitative research
might explore which training practices are most common, which training recommendations are
most strongly endorsed by personality trainers, or which practices are most controversial.
Additionally, caution is warranted with respect to generalizing about the experiences of
trainers and trainees. First, our sample was entirely American, with 46% being recruited from
our professional networks in the Midwest. Training design and facilitation might look quite
different in other countries, even when the same personality assessments are involved. Second,
these accounts come entirely from trainers themselves, which neglects an equally important
perspective: that of the trainees. Based on foundations provided in this study, research is needed
that evaluates, for example, the extent to which trainees and their supervisors (1) are aware of the
learning objectives, (2) perceive that the learning objectives are achieved, (3) perceive that
longer-term training outcomes ensue, (4) perceive that the identified best practices actually occur
during trainings, and (5) express the same concerns that trainers identify, such as pertaining to
sensitivity and confidentiality of personality feedback.
Conclusion
Despite the ubiquity of personality-based group training, research on this topic is in its
infancy. As one interviewee stated, “It’s kind of an up-and-coming thing that [organizations] are
starting to take pretty seriously, and yet there aren’t a lot of things that bind us with this best
practice or that are guiding us.” We hope this organization of literature and practice on learning
objectives, training outcomes, and best practice recommendations will provide preliminary
guidance for trainers, as well as spark the research needed to develop robust training practices for
this work.
References
Ang, M. (2002). Advanced communication skills: Conflict management and persuasion.
Academic Medicine, 77(11), 1166. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200211000-00034
Bayley, J. E., Wallace, L. M., Spurgeon, P., Barwell, F., & Mazelan, P. (2007). Teamworking in
healthcare: Longitudinal evaluation of a teambuilding intervention. Learning in Health
and Social Care, 6(4), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2007.00164.x
Berry, P., Wood, C., & Thornton, B. (2007). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool to
facilitate learning outcomes for team building in the classroom. College Teaching
Methods and Style Journal, 3(4), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v3i4.5582
Boas, C. M. (1996). Formal learning and research as part of a systems approach to team
development. [Unpublished master's thesis] University of Wollongong.
Bohlander, G. W., & McCarthy, K. (1996). How to get the most from team training. National
Productivity Review, 15(4), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.4040150405
Breeding, B. E. (1988). Positive synergy in the design, development and implementation of
successful management information systems: Individual differences revisited
[Unpublished dissertation]. University of Houston.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2008). A study of best practices in training transfer and
proposed model of transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 107–128.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1230
Calendrillo, R. (2009). Team building for a healthy work environment. Nursing Management,
40(12), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000365463.94098.69
Church, A. H., Rotolo, C. T., Margulies, A., Del Giudice, M. J., Ginther, N. M., Levine, R.,
Novakoske, J., & Tuller, M. D. (2015). The role of personality in organization

development: A multi-level framework for applying personality to individual, team, and
organizational change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 23, 91–
166. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620150000023003
Clinebell, S., & Stecher, M. (2003). Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator and the five factor personality traits. Journal of Management
Education, 27(3), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903027003006
Coe, C. K. (1991). The MBTI: A tool for understanding and improving public management.
State & Local Government Review, 23(1), 37–46.
Coe, C. K. (1992). The MBTI: Potential uses and misuses in personnel administration. Public
Personnel Management, 21(4), 511–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609202100407
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be
improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129–139.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909845
DiMeglio, K., Padula, C., Piatek, C., Korber, S., Barrett, A., Ducharme, M., Lucas, S., Piermont,
N., Joyal, E., DeNicola, V., & Corry, K. (2005). Group cohesion and nurse satisfaction:
Examination of a team-building approach. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(3),
110–120.
Doré, S. (2002). Use of personality type as a means of team building [Conference paper]. 2002
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition,
Montreal, Canada. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--10372
Elder, E. C., & Crook, P. (2012). Affairs support staff: Revising the academic affairs operating
manual. Tennessee State University Division of Academic Affairs Operating Manual FY
2018–2019.
Evans, G. E. (2019). The use of individual differences assessments in three group training
modalities. Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 15(1), 78–86.
Filbeck, G. & Smith, L. L. (1997). Team building and conflict management: Strategies for family
businesses. Family Business Review, 10(4), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
6248.1997.00339.x
Froggatt, T. J., & Bibby, N. J. (2007). An application of a psychometric personality type
inventory to improve team development and performance [Conference paper]. Australian
and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Furnham, A. (2008). HR professionals' beliefs about, and knowledge of, assessment techniques
and psychometric tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(3), 300–
305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00436.x
Garrety, K., Badham, R., Morrigan, V., Rifkin, W., & Zanko, M. (2003). The use of personality
typing in organizational change: Discourse, emotions, and the reflexive subject. Human
Relations, 56(2), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056002892
Harwood, S. G. (1992). Teambuilding and the process of change [Unpublished dissertation]. The
Union Institute.
Hughes, J. L., Camden, A. A., & Yangchen, T. (2016). Rethinking and updating demographic
questions: Guidance to improve descriptions of research samples. Psi Chi Journal of
Psychological Research, 21(3), 138–151.
Hogan Assessments (n.d.). Team report facilitator guide: Strategies to help teams achieve full
potential. http://www.hoganteamreport.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/10/2016/12/Team_Report_Facilitator_Guide_12.16.pdf
Jarl, B. R. (2016). The use of personality type to improve team collaboration within design
studios. [Unpublished master's thesis] Western Michigan University.
Jelley, R. B. (2021). Using personality feedback for work-related development and performance
improvement: A rapid evidence assessment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,
53(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000230
Jones, R. J., Napiersky, U., & Lyubovnikova, J. (2019). Conceptualizing the distinctiveness of
team coaching. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(2), 62–78.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2018-0326
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/1993/03/the-discipline-of-teams-2
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. In N. W.
Schmitt, S. Highhouse, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 412–469). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M. J., Tolkacheva, N. V., & de Witte, M. C. (2009). The influence of
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profiles on team development processes: An empirical
study in the manufacturing industry. Small Group Research, 40(4), 436–464.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409333938
Littrell, L. N., & Salas, E. (2005). A review of cross-cultural training: Best practices, guidelines,
and research needs. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 305–334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278348
Lor, M., Bowers, B. J., Krupp, A., & Jacobson, N. (2017). Tailored explanation: A strategy to
minimize nonresponse in demographic items among low-income racial and ethnic
minorities. Survey Practice, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2017-0015
Ludeman, K. (1995). Motorola's HR learns the value of teams firsthand. Personnel Journal,
74(6), 117–123.
Lundgren, H., Kroon, B., & Poell, R. F. (2017). Personality testing and workplace training:
Exploring stakeholders, products and purpose in Western Europe. European Journal of
Training and Development, 41(3), 198–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-03-2016-0015
Lundgren, H., Kroon, B., & Poell, R. F. (2019). Pigeonholing or learning instrument? Test
takers' reactions to personality testing in management development. European Journal of
Training and Development, 43(3/4), 354–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-09-2018-
0091
Maxon, J. (1985). Personality type and personal development. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 17(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb003997
McCaulley, M. H. (2000). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A bridge between counseling and
consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(2), 117–132.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.52.2.117
McClure, L., & Werther, Jr., W. B. (1993). Personality variables in management development
interventions. Journal of Management Development, 12(3), 39–47.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719310025056
Moyle, P., & Hackston, J. (2018). Personality assessment for employee development: Ivory
tower or real world? Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(5), 507–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1481078
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide
to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Nelson, E., & Hogan, R. (2009). Coaching on the dark side. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 4(1), 9–21.
Offerman, L. R., & Spiros, R. K. (2001). The science and practice of team development:
Improving the link. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 376–392.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069462
Payne, L. (2014, December). Personality profiling tools. Training & Development, 41(6), 7–9.
Rekar, C. D. (2001). A team development model based on Myers Briggs personality types and
action research to improve team performance and participant satisfaction. [Unpublished
master's thesis]. University of Toronto.
Rekar Munro, C., & Laiken, M. E. (2003). Developing and sustaining high performance teams:
Managing difference through an action research approach. OD Practitioner, 35(4), 62–
67.
Rideout, C. A., & Richardson, S. A. (1989). A teambuilding model: Appreciating differences
using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with developmental theory. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 67(9), 529–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6676.1989.tb02139.x
Rogers, M. P. (2018). Teambuilding workshop to improve nursing teamwork and decrease
patient falls. [Unpublished doctoral project] Grand Canyon University.
Rowland, H. (2010, February). Taking the team seriously. Training Journal, 70–73.
Rushmer, R. (1997). What happens to the team during teambuilding? Examining the change
process that helps to build a team. Journal of Management Development, 16(5), 316–327.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719710174507
Sample, J. (2004). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and OD: Implications for practice from
research. Organizational Development Journal, 22(1), 67–75.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1997). Methods, tools, and strategies for team training. In M.
A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace:
Applications of psychological research. American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10260-010
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., &
Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and
operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52, 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-
017-0574-8
Sedlock, J. R. (2005). An exploratory study of the validity of the MBTI team report. Journal of
Psychological Type, 65(1), 1–8.
Segovia, M. (2016). JDSU uses personality typology during management empowerment camps.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(1), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-07-2015-
0048
Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A review of perceived diversity in
teams: Does how members perceive their team’s composition affect team processes and
outcomes? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(S1), S89–S106.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1957
Stefansdottir, S. I., & Sutherland, V. J. (2005). Preference awareness education as stress
management training for academic staff. Stress and Health, 21, 311–323.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1071
Stockill, R. (2014). Measuring the impact of training and development workshops: An action
orientated approach [Conference paper]. British Psychological Society Division of
Occupational Psychology Annual Conference, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Sugerman, J. (2009). Using the DiSC model to improve communication effectiveness. Industrial
and Commercial Training, 41(3), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850910950952
Supadi, Listyasari, W. D., Zulaikha, S., Soraya, E., Fathurrohman, & Yundianto, D. (2019).
Enhancing teachers' personality and social competence: MBTI approach [Conference
paper]. 2019 Asian Conference on Education, Tokyo, Japan.
Sutton, A., Williams, H., & Allinson, C. (2015). A longitudinal, mixed method evaluation of
self-awareness training in the workplace. European Journal of Training and
Development, 39(7), 610–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-04-2015-0031
The Myers-Briggs Company. (2021). Results that engage and inspire.
https://www.themyersbriggs.com/en-US/Products-and-Services/Myers-Briggs
Truity Psychometrics. (2014). Personality type in the workplace: Presentation guide for trainers.
TypeFinder. https://www.typefinder.com/sites/default/files/PTinWPresGuide.pdf
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and
group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

Varvel, T., Adams, S. G., Pridie, S. J., & Ulloa Ruiz, B. C. (2004). Team effectiveness and
individual Myers-Briggs personality dimensions. Journal of Management in Engineering,
20(4), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:4(141)
Waite, R., & McKinney, N. S. (2018). Personality typology: Understanding your preferences and
striving for team effectiveness. ABNF Journal, 29(1), 8–16.
Winterberg, C. A., Osborn, S. A., & Brummel, B. J. (in press). Sympathy for the devil:
Understanding and coaching dark and destructive leaders. In P. Harms (Ed.), Dark and
destructive leadership. Information Age Publishing.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Trainers and Trainings
Trainer Number of Trainings Training Training

Experience (years) Conducted Length (hours) Group Size
Mean 12.9 419.2 3.8 58.7
Median 10.0 93.0 3.5 20.0
Standard Deviation 7.1 1002.8 2.4 105.3
Range 2 – 30 4 – 5000+ 1 – 12 3 – 1000
Note: Statistics for Training Group Size reflect typical group size, except the range, which spans
the smallest group size any trainer mentioned ever having trained to the largest.
Table 2
Personality Assessments Used by Trainer Sample
Number of
Assessment Brief Description Trainers
Myers-Briggs Sorts individuals among 16 types based on Jungian psychology, which are configurations of
Type Indicator four dichotomies of preferences: introversion–extraversion (internal vs. external orientation),
11
(MBTI) intuiting–sensing (abstract vs. concrete), thinking–feeling (logical vs. emotional), and judging–
perceiving (planful vs. spontaneous).
DISC or DiSC Sorts individuals among four types: D (dominant, results-oriented), I (relational, lively), S
(reliable, cooperative), and C (conscientious, analytical). 8
CliftonStrengths Describes individuals in a strengths-focused way by rank-ordering their themes, which are 34
characteristics in four domains: Executing (e.g., Achiever, Consistency), Influencing (e.g.,
Self-Assurance, Activator), Relationship Building (e.g., Empathy, Harmony), and Strategic 7
Thinking (Analytical, Learner).
Hogan The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) describes individuals along seven dimensions of
Assessments normal personality based on the Big Five (e.g., sociability, interpersonal sensitivity). The
Hogan Development Survey (HDS) describes individuals along 11 dimensions of derailers 6
(e.g., mischievous, imaginative). The Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI)
describes individuals along 10 dimensions of values and interests (e.g., affiliation, security).
U-Zoo Playfully sorts individuals among four animals (types), similar to DISC: Directing Lion
(dominant), Interacting Porpoise (relational), Steady Koala (reliable), and Cautious Eagle 4
(analytical).
BEST Sorts individuals among four types, similar to DISC: Bold (dominant), Expressive
(influencing), Technical (analytical), and Sympathetic (reliable). 1
Colors No description available. 1
Insight Sorts individuals among four colors (types) based on Jungian psychology: Fiery Red
Personality (dominant), Sunshine Yellow (sociable, enthusiastic), Earth Green (caring, patient), and Cool 1
Profile Blue (cautious, precise).
Primary Colors Sorts individuals among six colors (types), based on the artist's color wheel: red (dominant),
orange (thrill-seeking, visionary), yellow (cooperative), green (purposive, tolerant), blue 1
(detail-oriented), and purple (procedural).
Professional Sorts individuals among four traits, similar to DISC: Dominance, Extroversion (relational),
Dynametric Pace (desires stability), and Conformity (conscientiousness). 1
Program (PDP)
PSI Personality Sorts individuals among 16 types based on Jungian psychology, which are the same 16 types
Type Profile used in the MBTI (see above). 1
Saville & Describes individuals' working preferences, including strengths and areas requiring
Holdsworth Ltd. development. 1
(SHL)
True Colors Sorts individuals among four colors (types): gold (conscientious), blue (relational), orange
1
(thrill-seeking, active), and green (analytical).
Note: Eleven interviewees trained more than one personality assessment. Because there are multiple versions of some assessments, the
above descriptions should be considered sample descriptions.
Table 3
Learning Objective Themes
Theme Description Example Frequency

Self-awareness and/or Increasing the trainee’s understanding and “Gain self-awareness of your own personality type, 21
acceptance acceptance of their own personality. personal communication needs, and things that may
frustrate you about others.”
“Give people a reason to embrace themselves.”
Other-awareness and/or Increasing the trainee's understanding and “Learn to meet people where they’re at.” 17
acceptance acceptance of others' personalities; improving “Become more effective in work and life
interpersonal interactions. interactions.”
Understanding personality Increasing the trainee’s understanding of “Understand that people…have natural tendencies 10
personality in general or the personality model for responding to situations...”
in particular. “Learn what motivates each temperament.”
Unit effectiveness and/or Improving functioning or cohesion at the group, “Understand that people’s personality characteristics 10
attitudes team, or organization level; creating an can be harnessed for team outcomes.”
enjoyable social experience. “Have a positive social experience that is also useful
and relevant to work.”
Valuing personality Increasing the extent to which the trainee values “Recognize we’re not all wired the same, and that’s 6
diversity personality diversity in general (not specific to a good thing.”
particular individuals' characteristics). “Number one: there’s no bad personality style when
it comes to communication. We're just all different.”
Note: Cohen’s κ = .70.

Table 4
Training Outcome Themes
Theme Description Example Frequency

Anecdotal observations Trainees verbally express appreciation, later Trainer: “They usually walk away saying that they 22
describe training applications, or are later learned something about themselves.”
overheard discussing training concepts. Trainer: “No one’s ever told me that they hated it!”
Trainee: “I’ve completely changed how I run my
team meetings.”
Increased business revenue Client organization requests more or repeated Trainer: “If the company keeps calling me back to 4
training on the topic. do more…”
Trainee: “It was amazing. Can you come back?”
Immediate reactionary Surveys soliciting reactions and suggestions Survey comment: “The DISC stuff was really 3
surveys immediately post-training. helpful.”
Follow-up qualitative Surveys/interviews assessing recall and impact Trainer: “Oftentimes we are meeting with teams that 2
surveys 30 to 60 days post-training. got a lot of value out of [training]…so we’re only
hearing the positives.”
Behavior check-ins Trainees make behavioral commitments at the Trainer: “At the end of this we’re going to have two 1
end of training sessions and report back during commitments. And those commitments are gonna
future training sessions. have defined actions, defined objectives, and
defined timelines.”
No evaluation Trainer does not collect any training evaluation Trainer: “We do not track team or group 7
data. developmental outcomes.”
Trainer: “I don’t know…you’d have to ask the
participants.”
Note: Training outcomes were reported by 19 interviewees. Some interviewees provided multiple anecdotal observations.
Table 5
Training Recommendations Themes (Concise)
Recommendations
1. Be flexible when describing personality and predicting behavior. Frame any predictions as probabilistic and contextual.
2. Avoid telling trainees who they are or who they should be. Only the trainee is entitled to define themselves. *
3. Emphasize that there are no good or bad personality traits, styles, or poles of personality dimensions.
4. Avoid delving too deeply into personality theory, psychometrics, the history of psychology, or the nuances of all possible configurations
of personality characteristics.
5. Avoid "one-and-done" trainings. Apply the training concepts to all aspects of the workplace. (Contrast with #6.)
6. Do not take personality training too seriously, and do not overextend its applications in the workplace. (Contrast with #5.)
7. Integrate personality concepts into training design and tailor the facilitation style based on the training group's personalities.
8. Ensure that trainees understand the positive intent of the assessment and training. Reassure trainees that the purpose is not to inform
promotion or termination decisions.
9. Treat assessment results as confidential and avoid teasing personality characteristics or styles. Recognize that trainees may consider their
personality information sensitive, embarrassing, or private. **
10. Arrange for larger training group sizes to maximize representation of diverse traits and styles. (Contrast with #11.)
11. Avoid larger training group sizes to create a more personal environment where trainees feel comfortable sharing. (Contrast with #10.)
12. Frame all personality feedback in positive terms and focus on strengths only. (Contrast with #13.)
13. Be willing to look at "the good, the bad, and the ugly" so that individuals and teams can recognize areas for improvement. (Contrast with
#12.)
Notes. See Table 6 for detailed explanations of recommendations, example statements, and frequencies. *A minority of trainers
disagreed with this recommendation. **A minority of trainers suggested that joking about certain personalities may lighten the mood.
Table 6
Training Recommendations Themes (Detailed)
Theme Description Examples Frequency

Flexibility (1) Be flexible when describing personality and “You gotta watch out for pigeon-holing people, 41
predicting behavior. Predictions are probabilistic; where it’s like, ‘Oh, if you’re this style, then you’re
personality expression is contextual; people are always going to be this way.’”
multifaceted. (2) Avoid telling trainees who they are “It’s not for me to come in and tell them who they are
or who they should be; only the trainee is entitled to based on this tool…This is a journey of discovery,
define themselves. * and that is gonna be different for everybody.”
Securing Buy-In Work with trainees to help them accept and embrace “[Have] robust conversations with individuals ahead 32
their personality feedback. Explore skeptical trainees’ of time and [ensure] they’re really bought in.”
reservations. “Allow those voices [of disagreement or resistance]
to come out and let them express what they are
uncomfortable with.”
Valuing Diversity Emphasize the value of personality diversity. There “There’s no one style or position here on this model 25
are no good or bad traits, styles, or poles of that’s better than another. There are strengths right
personality dimensions. Personality diversity is where you are and there are weaknesses.”
beautiful and makes groups more effective. “There’s people that…almost start this competition
with the rest…You have to shift them back to
‘Actually, we’re all one group of people. And being
different personalities is actually pretty good.’”
Avoiding Recognize that trainees are busy people and have “It can be easy to fall into the trap of introducing each 18
information limited cognitive resources. Avoid delving too deeply and every scale or every part of a report output.”
overload into personality theory, psychometrics, the history of “I try to discourage [full day trainings] ’cause to me a
psychology, or the nuances of all possible full day of type is just a lot of type. I mean, they’re
configurations of personality characteristics. kind of sick of it. I’m kind of sick of it by the end of
the day. It’s just too much.”
Ongoing Recommendations regarding ongoing integration of “Tell organizations, ‘If you don’t have time to bring 15
Learning and training content into trainees’ professional lives. Some type into your meetings, it’s not going to stick.’ As
Application suggest avoiding “one-and-done” trainings, whereas much as you can, make it kind of a regular thing.”
others discourage taking personality training too “You see [personality type] in people’s email
seriously and suggest workplace applications are signatures. I’m like, ‘How is this useful? Am I
limited. supposed to email you differently?’ It just doesn’t
make sense to me...it extends far past its usefulness.”
Tailoring the Integrate personality concepts into training design and “When I design trainings, I make sure I’ve included 14
Content tailor the facilitation style based on group personality all the [MBTI] letters in my training.”
characteristics. Model how to interact differently with “You have to kind of modify your facilitation style
people based on knowledge of their personalities. based on [trainee personalities]. If you have a group
of introverts...I’m not gonna ask close-ended
questions. *chuckles* And if I have a group that’s
really extraverted, I know I’m gonna have to manage
my time a little bit better with them.”
Positive Purpose Ensure that trainees understand the positive intent of “Make sure that they understand we’re going into this 13
the assessment and training, including goodwill from with positive intent. The purpose is to really help
organizational leadership. Reassure trainees that the them understand who they are…they fear the
purpose is not to inform promotion or termination information will be used against them.”
decisions. Personality information should not be “Do not weaponize the information. The information
“weaponized.” is not to use to bludgeon someone with.”
Sensitivity Recognize that some trainees may consider their “A big part of it really just goes to consent. If 13
personality information sensitive, embarrassing, or someone says, ‘I’m not comfortable having my team
private. Treat assessment results as confidential. see this,’ you should really second-guess saying,
Avoid mocking or teasing particular characteristics or ‘We’re going to do it anyway.’”
styles. ** “People use [personality information] to tease people
or make fun of people…[which] will prevent people
from wanting to engage in this in a deeper level.”
Group Size Recommendations regarding ideal group size. Some “Inevitably, the larger the group, the more people that 6
trainers argue that larger groups are superior, as they are scoring really high in their [type], and it clicks on
increase representation of different personality all cylinders.”
characteristics, whereas others argue that larger “When the group is too large, there isn’t opportunity
groups are unwieldy. for interaction and engagement, which is necessary
for training revolving around interpersonal features.”
Strengths versus Recommendations regarding whether it is beneficial “For true development, you have to look at the good, 4
weaknesses to focus on both strengths and weaknesses of the bad, and the ugly.”
particular personality types/characteristics, or whether “Use [the model] to capitalize on your strengths. Not
all personality characteristics should be framed in a really looking at those weaknesses…”
positive light.
General Training Recommendations that are not specific to personality- “It’s helpful to be funny and engaging as a 42
Effectiveness based training. These are often popular adult learning facilitator.”
principles. This category excludes general training “Plan lots of activities, lots of interaction.”
principles that are contextualized to personality.
Notes: Cohen’s κ = .60; *Although many trainers argued that participants know themselves better than the personality assessment
does, a minority disagreed (e.g., by referring to evidence of test validity); **Although many trainers discouraged joking about
particular personality characteristics or types, a minority suggested that joking about people’s personalities may help lighten the mood.
Table 7
Interview Questions
Experience and Logistics

Q1: “What kind of personality training services do you provide?”
Q2: "What are your main reasons for using this personality model over another?” *
Q3: “How long have you trained on the topic of personality?”
Q4: “Approximately how many trainings have you conducted?”
Q5: “Approximately how many participants have you trained?” R
Q6: “How long is the typical training?”
Q7: “What size group do you typically train?”
Q8: “What are the characteristics of the groups you train?”
Q9: “Do you more commonly train teams or employees from across an organization?” R
Q10: “What is the general structure of the training?”
Q11: “What are your key learning objectives for a typical training session?”
Best Practices
Q12: “What are some personality training ‘best practices’ that you use in your work?”
Q13: “What are some ‘rookie mistakes’ that newer personality trainers often make in their trainings or feedback
sessions?”
Q14: “How do people tend to respond to the content?” R
Q15: “How do you handle situations where participants are uninterested or respond negatively?”
Q16: "How do you handle situations where participants divide into personality-based subgroups and engage in
conflict?" A
Memorable Experiences
Q17: “Please tell me about a time that a personality training or feedback session went extremely well.” *
Q18: “What happened during the training that made you realize it was proceeding successfully?” *
Q19: “What did you do that contributed to this being such a successful experience?” *
Q20: “What other things contributed to this being so successful?” *
Q21: “Please tell me about a time that a personality training or feedback session went poorly.” *
Q22: “What happened during the training that made you realize it was going poorly?” *
Q23: “What else contributed to this incident turning out this way?” *
Q24: “What would you do differently if you found yourself in that situation again?” *
Training Content Implementation and Outcomes

Q25: “What are some of the effects of the training that you observe in the weeks and months that follow?” R
Q26: “What, if any, formal training outcomes do you measure?” A
Q27: “What, if any, informal effects of training do you observe in the weeks and months that follow?” (if
applicable) A
Q28: “Do people tend to use the information from the personality training? How?”
Q29: “What factors lead to employees and organizations successfully applying the training content to their
work?” *
Q30: “What are the common mistakes that employees and organizations make when trying to apply the training
content to their work?” *
Notes: * Responses to these questions are not reported because they are outside the scope of this
article; A These questions were added partway through data collection based on previous
interview responses; R These questions were removed partway through data collection due to
redundancy or vagueness.

Osborn Et Al. (2023) Preprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Osborn Et Al. (2023) Preprint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osborn Et Al. (2023) Preprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSONALITY-BASED TRAINING PRACTICES 1

Trainer Perspectives on Personality-Based Group Training:

Learning Objectives, Training Outcomes, and Best Practice Recommendations

Seth A. Osborn, Bradley J. Brummel, and Hayley R. Walton¹

Department of Psychology, The University of Tulsa

publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/cpb0000251

S. Tucker Dr., Tulsa OK, phone: 9187044002, email: sao0459@utulsa.edu

The authors declare no known conflicts of interest.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, DISC, CliftonStrengths, and Hogan Personality Inventory,

reports generally suggest personality-based training can improve self-awareness and

personality feedback as confidential. We conclude by summarizing existing guidance for

outcomes and (2) exploration of the proposed mechanisms of action in personality-based

Keywords: personality, group training, team training, team building, interview

provides background and direction for scholars researching personality-based developmental

those reported in this paper for competitive differences or alignment.

Trainer Perspectives on Personality-Based Group Training: Learning Objectives, Training

Outcomes, and Best Practice Recommendations

widespread practice used by internal and external consulting psychologists, particularly in

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which was mentioned by 97 of those practitioners, is

as the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation—Behavior, 16 Personality Factor

Questionnaire, and Big Five tests.

Interventions based on these assessments are intended to equip employees with

weaknesses may improve coordination by revealing personality complementarity (Coe, 1992).

personality testing in the workplace has focused on decision-making applications such as

studies have examined the outcomes of personality-based developmental interventions for

the learning objectives, outcomes, structure, and components of personality-based interventions

qualitative review of scholarly publications, technical reports, promotional materials, and

interview responses. Accordingly, in this paper, we review relevant academic literature,

personality trainers regarding their experiences with these topics.

behavior, including work-related preferences, tendencies, and working styles (e.g.,

as departmental or organizational membership, whereas a team is a collection of individuals

generally, much of the literature on group developmental interventions concerns teams

including cross-departmental groups and entire organizations.

We conducted a review of relevant literature, searching databases such as PsycInfo and

that cited the articles we reviewed. We included non-peer-reviewed manuscripts (e.g.,

Learning Objectives of Personality-Based Trainings

Learning objectives specify what trainees will know or be able to do following

establishing a common language to describe behavior, and increasing knowledge of personality

on these reports, a typical purpose of personality training is to increase trainees’ understandings

Outcomes of Personality-Based Trainings

team and organizational performance by enhancing processes such as communication,

coordination, conflict management, problem-solving, and decision-making (Berry et al., 2007;

Quantitative Evidence. This section addresses published reports of measured

(numerical) outcomes following personality-based training or feedback. Jelley (2021) conducted

personality-based developmental interventions for individuals and groups. Based on 12 identified

sufficiently rigorous to make definitive conclusions regarding effects of personality-based

interventions. Critiques included small sample sizes; reliance on self-reported performance

outcomes; confounded treatment effects (e.g., due to implementing multiple developmental

training on personality, in conjunction with content on some combination of group norming,

multiculturalism, has shown positive effects on knowledge, performance, satisfaction, and

significant improvements in communication, problem-solving, teamwork, or job satisfaction

following trainings on personality, communication models, and stress (Harwood, 1992;

specific to the personality components.

self-reported teamwork, cohesion, or self-awareness, or for observer-reported cohesion or project

significantly improved for three of 10 items tapping interpersonal dynamics such as

personality-based trainings. However, the paper only described a communication workshop.

outcomes of personality-based training interventions based on the current empirical evidence.

Qualitative Evidence. This section addresses verbal reports of outcomes following