Let's Stop Pretending MBTI Helps—Even When We Know It's Wrong
By Matt Richter
(This article reflects MBTI but equally applies to the other Type-based and related categorical profiling models.)
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) has long been the darling (sorry, I am in the UK now watching Black Adder reruns) of corporate training rooms, onboarding sessions, and offsite retreats. And by now, even its most loyal users will concede that MBTI lacks scientific support. It has poor test-retest reliability, dubious construct validity, and no demonstrable predictive power. But still, some L&D professionals defend it with a shrug and a smile: "We know it's not valid—but it gets people talking." That defense has become the MBTI's last refuge. And it needs to go.
The idea that MBTI "fosters dialogue" or "builds self-awareness" only holds if the dialogue it sparks is meaningful and the self-awareness it builds is accurate. But MBTI does neither. It categorizes people into binary types—introvert or extravert, thinker or feeler—as if complex human behavior maps neatly into boxes. It's comforting, sure. It's simple. But simplicity isn't a virtue when it misrepresents the very thing it claims to clarify: how people think, act, and interact.
Dialogue based on false premises isn't dialogue. It's a fiction masquerading as insight. When teams discuss their MBTI results, they're not reflecting on actual patterns of behavior—they're reacting to flattering, often ambiguous language. "I'm an INFJ, so I'm deeply empathetic." That may feel true, but it tells us nothing more than a horoscope would. It reinforces essentialist thinking: "You're a P, so you must be disorganized." "She's an E, so of course she dominates meetings." This isn't empathy—it's typological stereotyping.
Self-awareness built on MBTI is equally fragile. Real self-awareness requires understanding how one's behavior affects others across various contexts rather than clinging to static labels. MBTI's categories encourage identity traps—people begin to explain away challenges ("I can't help it, I'm a T") instead of confronting and growing from them. Worse, theMBTI can obscure deeper sources of conflict—such as power dynamics, communication breakdowns, or organizational dysfunction—by reducing them to "type differences."
And what about team cohesion? The idea that MBTI "helps people understand differences" is alluring, but it collapses under scrutiny. Type-based training doesn't cultivate empathy—it creates cognitive shortcuts. It lets people feel they've"understood" their colleagues without actually engaging with them as whole, complex individuals. The result? Superficial harmony, not genuine collaboration.
The deeper issue is that using MBTI, even when you know it's flawed, sends a message. It tells participants that in our leadership development and team-building efforts, truth matters less than feeling good. That's not harmless. It erodes credibility, reinforces pseudoscientific thinking, and sidelines more effective tools—ones based on decades of psychological research, such as the Five-Factor Model, strengths-based behavioral assessments, or structured team diagnostics.
We don't need MBTI to have meaningful conversations. We need to define the actual objectives we want to achieve, choose the models and tools that will facilitate that journey, ensure those tools and models reflect evidence-informed frameworks, and remain committed to intellectual honesty. We need to stop! We need to stop using mediocre or outright wrong information because it is fun, easy to grasp, and what we have always used. It's time to raise the bar... raise the standards. Dialogue, self-awareness, and team cohesion deserve better than a typology that’s been repeatedly debunked.
The science is clear; the defense is weak. It’s time to move on.
SELECT REFERENCES:
Boyle, G. J. (1995). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric limitations. Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 71–74.
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210