Personality types of civil engineers and their roles in team performance

Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction Ghafoori (ed.) 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-56809-8 Personality types of civil engineers and their roles in team performance K. Gautam & A. Singh Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, USA ABSTRACT: Though the Myer s-brigg s Type Indicator (MBTI) has been a popular tool for studying personality types and traits of personnel in many professions for many decades, its application to construction management and civil engineering has been limited. Most of the few researchers who studied personality types of civil engineers argued that the dominant personality types of engineers were introversion, sensing, thinking and judging (ISTJ). Results of their research were compared and it was seen that ISTJ may not always be the dominant personality type in large engineering groups. This has significance in understanding personnel behavior on projects so as to assign the right people to the right jobs, and ensure improved communication and project success. 1 INTRODUCTION This paper dwells on the personality types of civil engineers and attempts to explore how personality types play roles in cross functional teams. The major objective of this paper is to identify common personality types of civil engineers by synthesizing the findings of various studies. In addition, two major departments of a State Public Agency studied by Johnson & Singh (1998) are analyzed to understand the influence of personality types in a cross-functional set up. Finally, this paper focuses on rationalization of personality types of civil engineers for improved team performance in construction organizations. Several studies have shown that personality traits correlate with the performance of individuals in a team (Carr et al. 2002; Johnson & Singh 1998). Today s civil engineers are a diverse group of people drawn from a broad range of global socio-cultural backgrounds. Their performance in a team pivots around their behavioral styles. Moreover, the chances of successful team work increases as the individuals understand each other. The performance of the organization is further dependant on the capacity of management to capitalize on the personality traits and types of each and every team member (Culp & Smith 2001). Katherine Briggs started research on typology in 1917 and enhanced Carl Jung s theory on personality. Along with her daughter, Isabel Myers, Katherine Briggs developed a tool, popularly known as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), around the time of World War II. The MBTI enabled to distinguish four personality preferences and 16 personality types. MBTI is a popular modern psychological tool, with more than 2,000,000 people undertaking the test each year (Culp & Smith 2001). Federal and other agencies in USA have widely embraced MBTI as a tool for personality measurement in an attempt to improve their management performance (Rutzick 2007). MBTI measures four personality preferences, each subdivided into two personality traits as outlined briefly in the following section. 1. Interaction Preference reveals the personality traits of Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I). 2. Information Gathering Preference is described by personality traits of Sensing (S) or Intuition (N). 3. Decision-Making Preference characterizes what a person relies on in making decisions, either logic i.e., Thinking (T) or emotion, i.e., Feeling (F). 4. Living Preference relates to how people handle issues in their life whether they are Perceptive (P) or dismissive and Judgmental (J). The combinations of information-gathering and decision-making preferences are known as the problem solving style. Likewise, the combinations of interaction and living preferences are defined as the environmental style. The overall combination of the styles gives the personality type. Thus, there are four levels of personality. For example, a person can be of the extroverted, intuitive, thinking, and perceptive (ENTP) type. Combinations of four personality preferences (eight traits) generate 16 unique personality types (Keirsey & Bates 1984; Johnson & Singh 1998; Culp & Smith 2001; and Hirsh & Kise 2006). 2 STUDIES ON PERSONALITY TYPES OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Published research on the use of MBTI, or any other personality tests, has been far and few between for construction and civil engineers, although it is emerging 829

Table 1. Distribution of personality traits of various professions (source: Culp & Smith 2001). Table 2. SPA. Distribution of individual personality types at Introvert Sensors Thinkers Judgers Group (I), % (S), % (T), % (J), % Engineers 62 54 75 67 Life Insurance 26 83 63 71 Agents Basketball 34 97 Not 81 officials available Management 42 33 62 59 Consultants Human-resources 41 38 61 61 personnel Business 55 76 46.7 75 Manager U.S. Population 50 73 40 54 slowly. Research in this area can be more or less narrowed to Carr et al. (2002), O Brien et al. (1998), Johnson & Singh (1998), Rosati (1998), Raymond & Hill (1988), and Varvel et al. (2004). A study carried out by Macdaid et al. (1986) surveyed more than 60,000 individuals of different professions, with engineers among them. Although their study did not specify the engineering disciplines, the results indicated that engineers are generally of the ISTJ type. Rosati (1998), at a Canadian university, found that the majority of the best engineering students who were able to graduate in a minimum time of four years were ISTJ type. Another similar study revealed that ISTJ types were quite prominent among undergraduate engineering students at a US university (O Brien et al. 1998). Varvel et al. (2004) studied 193 senior design engineering students and found that the majority of the graduating students were ISTJ type. Raymond & Hill (1988) found that engineers, in general had predominant traits of I-S-T-J, but that certain disciplines, such as mining, even had E-S-F-P. He did not survey civil engineers. Culp & Smith (2001) surveyed engineers employed by consulting engineering firms in USA, and also found that they were predominantly of the ISTJ type. Table 1 shows the comparative distribution of personality traits of engineers against other selected professions as well as against the general US population. The table has some interesting data that serves to explain the behavior of members of different professions. Civil Engineers at SPA Engineers (Johnson & Singh (1998) surveyed by Cub & Construction Design Total Smith (2001) Type % % % % ENFJ 12% 0% 8% 2% ENFP 4% 17% 8% 4% ENTJ 0% 0% 0% 7% ENTP 0% 0% 0% 5% ESFJ 8% 8% 8% 4% ESFP 8% 0% 5% 1% ESTJ 4% 8% 5% 8% ESTP 4% 0% 3% 5% INFJ 8% 0% 5% 2% INFP 0% 8% 3% 5% INTJ 0% 0% 0% 14% INTP 0% 8% 3% 6% ISFJ 4% 25% 11% 5% ISFP 20% 25% 22% 2% ISTJ 16% 0% 11% 23% ISTP 12% 0% 8% 6% Figure 1. Overall personality traits of civil engineers at SPA. 3 RESULTS OF THE SPA STUDIES Johnson & Singh (1998) surveyed 65 civil engineers at State Public Agency (SPA) in Hawaii. Among them 43 were in the construction department and 22 in Figure 2. at SPA. Overall personality types of civil engineers 830

the design department. Forty-eight out of 65 civil engineers (74% of population) returned the survey, composed of 31 construction engineers (72% of construction population) and 17 design engineers (77% of design population). The results of personality types are summarized in Table 2. The overall distribution of personality traits and personality types of all civil engineers at SPA are illustrated respectively in Figure 1 and Figure 2. 4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Design engineers Design engineers had predominant traits of introversion (I), sensing (S), feeling (F) and judging (J). As shown in Table 2, 66 % of the design engineers were introverted, 66% sensors, 83% feelers, and 41% were judgers. Thinking was the weakest trait, and only 16% of the design engineers demonstrated such a style. It could be reasoned that feeling is required to imagine original designs, which is why design engineers are naturally high in it. Introversion is necessary to think quietly, while sensing helps to collect factual design data rather than relying on intuition. Finally, being judgmental helps put a stop to design perceptions since at the end of the day, standards and codes have to be fulfilled, and imaginations must come to a stop so that a certain design can be produced within a stipulated time. As a group, design engineers displayed I-S-F-J traits. However, ISFJ and ISFP were the two main personality types among the design engineers. Seven personality types were observed in the design department. Among them, 50% of the design engineers were either of the ISFJ or ISFP type, both types being equally predominant (25% each). The second largest personality type was ENFP at 17%. The remaining minorities were ESFJ, ESTJ, INFP, and INTP, all distributed at 8% each. Out of 16 possible personality types, 9 types ENFJ, ENTJ, ENTP, ESFP, ESTP, INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, and ISTP were missing, which is not astounding given the small population and sample size. These personalities carry important qualities such as originality, interest in discovering causes and effects, ability to solve problems on the spot, and tactfulness in people interactions found missing among the design engineers. However, the distribution of personality types provides useful insights into the organization. The absence of ISTP types indicates that there are no mechanically oriented personalities interested in finding causes and effects, an important aspect in engineering design teams. The absence of ESTP indicates the lack of individuals good at solving problems. Similarly, the lack of ENFJ and INFJ types indicate the lack of individuals who strive for originality, defend their design principles, and deal with others tactfully. 4.2 Construction engineers Similar to design engineers, introversion (I), sensing (S), feeling (F) and judging (J) was the predominant trait among construction engineers. As shown in Table 2, 60% of the construction engineers were introverted, 76% were sensors, 52% judgers and 64% feelers. Intuition was the weakest trait, with only 24% of the construction engineers demonstrating such a preference. It can be reasoned that construction engineers are strong on sensing because they need to see construction in place before they can exercise project controls. They are largely introverted because that is part of the overall engineering personality, in general, as nurtured during their education. Their tendency towards feeling might come from their necessity to understand the many different people they meet on the job. As a group, like the design engineers, construction engineers displayed I-S-F-J traits. Construction engineers exhibited only one predominant personality type, ISFP, with 20% being this type. ISTJ was the second largest personality type with 16%. ENFJ and ISTP were the third largest at 12%. Among 16 possible personality types, only ENTJ, ENTP, INFP, INTJ, and INTP were not found among construction engineers, but again, this can be attributed to the small sample size. Among the construction engineers, personalities with scientific and idealistic pursuits were missing. This might explain why construction engineers tend to be practical and realistic rather than theoretical. The lack of personalities such as INTJ and INTP indicates that there are not enough thinkers and visionaries in the department with sufficient theoretical and scientific pursuits for thorough and logical followup. Similarly, the lack of INFP personalities means that enthusiasts and loyalists are missing, which is why the workplace could be a dull place, and which could also lead to a situation of individualistic activities focused on selfish behavior instead of enhancing institutional credibility. Both of these observations were confirmed through qualitative surveys from an earlier study (Singh 1997). 4.3 Similarities between the design and construction engineers Despite their differences, design and construction engineers demonstrated remarkable similarities in their personality preferences. From Table 3, correlation of the mean value of bipolar scores of preferences between design and construction engineers was r b = 0.96, which is significant; the correlation on 831

Table 3. Distribution of environmental and problem solving styles of the civil engineers at SPA (source: Johnson & Singh 1998). Construction Design Preference Style Engineers Engineers Total Environmental n n n EJ 7 2 9 EP 4 2 6 IJ 9 5 14 IP 9 5 14 Problem Solving ST 10 1 11 SF 10 8 18 NT 1 1 2 NF 6 3 9 environmental style was particularly high at r e = 0.91 (Johnson & Singh 1998). 4.4 Differences between the design and construction engineers Statistical analyses indicated that the personality types of design and construction engineers are dissimilar. The main difference was in their problem solving style. The correlation of decision-making preference between them was low at r d = 0.64. See data in Table 3. Only 19% of designers were thinkers compared to nearly double (36%) of the same among construction engineers. From Table 2, the correlation coefficient of overall personality types between the two groups indicated that their correlation is low at r t = 0.47. Hence, as a group, there are differences between the construction and design engineers. This means that effort is required to make them work in teams together. 4.5 Civil engineers at SPA Though, as a whole, SPA engineers displayed I-S-F- J traits, the predominant personality type was ISFP, with nearly every fifth engineer falling under this type. Sensing was most predominant in the organization as a whole, with more than 70% of the civil engineers possessing such a trait. This indicates that they rely mainly on real data and facts, which is an asset when high quality products are desired, either it be for producing detailed drawings by design engineers or converting those details into reality by construction engineers. Over 60% of the SPA engineers were introverted, preferring to focus their energies on the internal world of ideas and experience. On the decision-making preference, feeling was clearly dominant over thinking. Intuition (N) and Thinking (T), were the weakest preferences among SPA s civil engineers. Of the 16 possible personality types, only three types, ENTJ, ENTP and INTJ, were missing among the civil engineers at SPA as a whole. Since the NT s are largely missing, SPA lacks visionary personalities among engineers. Owing to the lack of ENTJ s, they don t have engineers good at reasoning. The absence of INTJ s implies they are without people with a scientific bent of mind. The lack of ENTP types implies that there are not adequate personalities who are capable of solving new and challenging problems. It is interesting to note that SPA being a public agency lacks confident executives of the ENTJ type who could be good at public speaking. That said, it must be remembered the sample size is small, which may lead to unsymmetric observations. 4.6 Comparison with a study on consulting engineers Though the Johnson & Singh (1998) study yielded ISFJ as an overall personality style, literature review revealed that, by and large, engineers are predominantly of the introverted, sensory, feeling, and judging (ISTJ) type (Culp & Smith 2001; O Brian et al. 1998; Rosati 1998; Varvel, et al. 2004). So, the study on consulting engineers carried out by Culp & Smith (2001) was compared with the results at SPA s civil engineers. Correlation and proportion tests were performed assuming that personality preferences and personality types follow the normal distribution of probability in populations. Using data from Table 1, the proportion test indicates that the claim (H 0 : p 1 = p 2 ) that the civil engineers predominant personality traits include introversion (I) or judging (J) should not be rejected at a level of significance (α) up to 23%. However, the tests showed that the null hypothesis (H 0 :p 1 = p 2 ) should be rejected for the personality traits for the categories of sensing (S) and thinking (T) for α less than 2.44%. Furthermore, and using the data in the last two columns of Table 2, tests indicated that the proportion of each type was equal at α = 5% except for ENFJ, ESFP, ISFP and INTJ. These differences occur predominantly around the trait F. Correlation tests indicated that personality traits and types of the engineers between these two studies are poorly correlated. The correlation coefficient on personality traits was nearly zero at r p = 0.03, indicating that they don t match. Next, the correlation on personality types also showed a poor matching at r t = 0.09. This means that there can be variances in results in different geographical locations of different sizes. The studies carried out by O Brien (1998), Rosati (1998), and Varvel et al. (2004) on engineering students revealed that the first half of the personality type was 832

predominantly I-S, as found in this study (Table 2). This similarity can probably be explained by the professional orientation of engineers and engineering students, since their work largely demands the I-S orientation. However, O Brien (1998), Rosati (1998), and Varvel et al. (2004) found the second half of the personality type to be T-J, versus the F-P found in the study. We can perhaps explain this difference as being due to cultural reasons, since the population mix in the mainland and Canada is different to that in Hawaii. Hence, it may be quite appropriate to comment that the first half of personality types is profession-dependent, while the second half is culture-dependent, though this could be another item for further study. 5 SIGNIFICANCE OF WORK AND FINDINGS The outcome of this short case study is that it should no longer be assumed that the dominant personality type for construction and design engineers is ISTJ. It is clear from the outcomes of the Johnson & Singh (1998) study that around 20% of engineers are actually of the ISFP type in contrast to other studies that found ISTJ to be the predominant type. This is important knowledge for Human Resource professionals who need to ensure that they recruit the right people into the right jobs, with the right personalities that go with those jobs. Ideally, organizations may attempt to distribute equally all personality types in their spider graphs, so that all personalities are well balanced in the organization, such that the maximum benefits of each type can be cultivated. However, such a situation is rarely achievable. Moreover, by understanding the personality traits of individuals, we can now better anticipate their communication needs, which is a major key to improved project performance and success. Indeed, without understanding the behavior of individuals on projects, it becomes difficult to manage them, motivate them, or fulfill fundamental project objectives to ensure project success. Traditionally, civil engineers are traditionally expected to be technically competent and their individual personality types are not considered as important as their technical expertise. Since engineering education is highly standardized and the decision making is usually influenced by measurements and numbers, subjective notions of personality were considered to be greatly irrelevant or a great mystery for civil engineers (Fleetham & Griesmer 2006). However, this study has demonstrated that organizational behavior elements, such as engineering decision making preferences, is highly influenced by the composition of professionals personality types. For a balanced performance, it will be ideal to expect that all types of personalities and traits are present in any large organization. 6 CONCLUSIONS A lot can be learned of an organization and its people by studying the personality traits and types of its employees. The case study at SPA and comparison with other studies came up with the following conclusions: The MBTI survey indicated that the predominant personality traits of civil engineers at SPA were introversion (I), sensing (S), feeling (F) and judging (J). However, the predominant personality type in SPA was ISFP, i.e., introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving. Nearly every fifth engineer is of the ISFP type. Design and construction engineers share similar personality traits; they correlate well on the environmental style. The main difference between the design and construction engineers was the decision-making preference, where the percentage of construction engineers using the thinking style was nearly double the design engineers. The SPA s design department lacks engineers who are tactful, interested in discovering causes and effects, or good at solving problems on the spot. The results of SPAS personality type were at odds with other studies. Proportion tests indicated that while introversion (I) and judging (J) are predominant personality traits among civil engineers, there may be differences in and sensing (S) and thinking (T). When carefully applied, MBTI personality tests may assist in construction and engineering management to achieve team effectiveness, and overall organizational productivity. REFERENCES Carr, P.G., Garza, J.M. and Vorster, M.C. (2002) Relationship between personality traits and performance for engineering and architectural professionals providing design services. J. of Management in Engineering, 18(1), Oct. 2002. Culp, G. and Smith, A. (2001) Understanding psychological type to improve project team performance. J. of Management in Engineering, 17(1), Jan. 2001. Fleetham, C. and Griesmer S.K., (2006) Leveraging personality for business success. J. of Leadership and Management in Engineering 6(4) pp. 143 174. Hill, R.E. and Summers, T.L. (1988) Project Teams and Human Group, in David Cleland and William King (eds.) Project Management Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY. Hirsh, S.K. and Kise J.A.G. (2006) Work it Out Using Personality Type to improve team Performance. Davis-Black Publishing, Mountain View, CA. 833

Johnson, H.M. and Singh A. (1998) Personality of civil engineers. J. of Management in Engineering, 14(4), 45 56. Keirsey, D. and Bates, M. (1984) Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types, Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, Del Mar, CA. Macdaid, G.P., McCaulley, M.H. and Kainz, R.I. (1986) Atlas of type tables. Gainesville: Center for Application of Psychological Type. Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L. and Hammer, A. L. (1998) MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, 3rd ed. O Brien, T.P., Bernold, L.E. and Akroyd, D. (1998) Myers- Briggs Type Indicator and academic achievement in engineering education. International J. of Engineering Education, 14(5), 311 315. Rosati, P. (1998) Academic progress of Canadian engineering students in terms of MBTI personality type. International J. of Engineering Education, 14(5), 322 327. Rutzick, K. (2007) Personality Test, Government Executive, 39(9), 22 23. Singh, A. (1997), Analysis of General Management Questionnaire at Oahu District, HDOT, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, May 1997, 54 pp. Varvel, T., Adams, S.G., Pridie, S.J. and Ulloa, B. (2004) Team effectiveness and individual Myers-Briggs personality dimensions. J. of Management in Engineering, 20(4), Oct. 2004. 834