EXPLORING PERSONALITY PREFERENCES IN RELATION TO PSYCHOLOGICAL CAREER RESOURCES

DATE OF PUBLICATION START EXPLORING NOW DEVELOPED
OUT OF THE DEPTHS ONE APPROACH TO EXPLORINGEXPERIENCING
12 THEME10 COLONIALISM AND THE COUNTRYSIDE EXPLORING OFFICIAL ARCHIVES

14 EXPLORING SECONDARY STUDENTS’ USE OF A WEBBASED 20
2 0122013 ALGEBRA ACADEMY EXPLORING STUDENT’S MATHEMATICAL THINKING PROBING
A CELEBRATION OF HYMNODY A FULL DAY EXPLORING THE

Exploring Personality Preferences in Relation to Psychological Career Resources among Managerial Staff in the Western Cape Fast Food Industry


Chris Kotze

Dries Schreuder

Melinde Coetzee

Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology

University of South Africa

___________________________________________

Address correspondence to:

Prof Melinde Coetzee, Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, Pretoria GAUTENG, SOUTH AFRICA, 0003. E-mail: [email protected]



Exploring Personality Preferences in Relation to Psychological Career Resources among Managerial Staff in the Western Cape Fast Food Industry



Abstract

The study explored the relationship between individuals' personality preferences (as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form M) and their psychological career resources (as measured by the Psychological Career Resources Inventory) and whether the personality types differed significantly in terms of their psychological career resources. The participants were a non-probability sample (N = 81; females =74%, blacks =78%) of managerial-level staff from five fast food franchise restaurants in the Western Cape, South Africa. Quantitative statistical procedures were used to explore the association between the participants’ personality preferences and psychological career resources. Findings suggest Introverted and Extraverted personality type preferences to be significantly associated with the participants’ psychological career resources. Major differences were observed for the Introverted Sensing Feeling Perceiving (ISFP), Extraverted Sensing Feeling Judging (ESFJ), Introverted Sensing Feeling Judging (ISFJ), Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging (ESTJ) and Introverted Sensing Thinking Judging (ISTJ) personality types in their relationship to the career preference of variety/creativity, need for career growth/development, their self/other skills and social connectivity.

Keywords: personality preferences, psychological career resources, job variety/creativity, career growth/development, self/other skills, social connectivity



Personality characteristics are important psychosocial meta-capacities which enable individuals to adapt to changing and uncertain career circumstances and to achieve career success within a particular socio-cultural context (Coetzee, 2014; Potgieter, Coetzee, & Masenge, 2012). Jungian theory (Jung, 1990) proposed dichotomous poles which are in opposition to one another and are mutually exclusive. These opposing poles comprise two attitudes (Extraversion and Introversion), two perceiving functions (Sensation and Intuition) and two judging functions (Thinking and Feeling). This typology translated into type preference on four dichotomous scales and eight personality preferences: Extraversion-Introversion (E-I: where one focuses one’s attention and gets energy), Sensing-Intuition (S-N: how one takes up information), Thinking-Feeling (T-F: how one makes decisions) and Judging-Perceiving (J-P: how one deals with the outside world). These personality type preferences are combined into 16 personality types (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 2003): Introverted/Extraverted Sensing Thinking Judging (ISTJ/ESTJ), Introverted/Extraverted Sensing Feeling Judging (ISFJ/ESFJ), Introverted/Extraverted Intuitive Feeling Judging (INFJ/ENFJ), Introverted/Extraverted Intuitive Thinking Judging (INTJ/ENTJ), Introverted/Extraverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiving (INFP/ENFP), Introverted/Extraverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving (INTP/ENTP), Introverted/Extraverted Sensing Thinking Perceiving (ISTP/ESTP) and Introverted/Extraverted Sensing Feeling Perceiving (ISFP/ESFP). The S-N and T-F preferences are also combined to classify individuals according to one of four preferred mental orientations (ST, NT, SF, NF), each with unique preferences for an ideal work environment (Mcaulley, 1990; Myers et al., 2003; Pulver & Kelly, 2008; Schaubhut, Herk, & Thompson, 2009).

Psychological Career Resources

Coetzee (2014) posits that individuals’ psychological career resources empower them to be pro-active agents in the construction and sustainment of their careers and employability. Five facets of psychological career resources have been identifies: career preferences, career values, career enablers, career drivers and career harmonizers. Career preferences comprise the need for careers that provide one with either stability and room to develop one’s expertise, or managerial and upward mobility opportunities, or job tasks that require the use of one’s creativity and a wide variety of one’s skills, knowledge and abilities, or room for autonomous and independent functioning. Career values are those values-based motives that support one’s career preferences and which include either a predominant need for positions that lean towards authority and influence or opportunities for further growth and development. Career enablers comprise essential transferable skills such as practical and creative skills and self-management and interpersonal relation skills in planning and managing one’s career. Career drivers comprise the intrinsic motivations for career actions, namely having a career purpose, clear career direction and a willingness to venture round and about in one’s career. Career harmonizers relate to individuals’ sense of career well-being. The career harmonizers are important self-evaluations regarding one’s self-esteem, ability to adapt to changing and stressful circumstances, emotional literacy and the ability to connect with others and to establish and maintain mutually supportive relationships in the pursuit of one’s career (Coetzee, 2008; 2014).

Psychological career resources are positively associated with individuals’ subjective and career-related well-being (Coetzee & Bergh, 2009), their career satisfaction (Coetzee & Bergh, 2009) and their work engagement and commitment (Ferreira, 2012; Tladinyane, 2012). Extraverted types are more sociable than introverted types; they also demonstrate higher levels of confidence than introverted types in interacting and communicating with others in culturally diverse environments (Potgieter, 2012). Potgieter (2012) further found that intuitive types are more proactive than sensing types in terms of their future role orientation. Thinking and judging types were found to be more confident than the feeling and perceiving types about their career self-management skills. Schaubhut et al. (2009) found extraversion and intuition to be positively related to sociability, self-acceptance, independence, personal autonomy, achievement and empathy. Extraversion was also positively related to collaborating with others and feelings of competency and resilience, while introversion was positively associated with avoidance behavior and being reserved and shy. Thinking was positively related to independence, while sensing and judging were related to self-control. Feeling was positively related to empathy, expressed control and affection.

Study context. The shortage of managerial skills in the South African context has led to a renewed focus on the psychological factors that influence their career development and retention (Comaroff, 2012; Kruger, 2013). Fast food restaurants are regarded as a harsh environment that may require a certain personality type and various psychosocial career meta-capacities to be intact in order to survive the demands of this fast-moving low-paid industry (Kotze, 2014). Several career scholars (Coetzee, 2008; 2014; Converse, Pathak, DePaul-Haddock, Gotlib, & Merbedone, 2012; Ferreira, 2012; Potgieter, 2012; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) have pointed out the importance of personality characteristics and career meta-capacities in navigating the career in an environment in which career paths are blurred, uncertain and stressful.



Goals of the Study

The present study explored the relationship between individuals’ personality preferences and their psychological career resources and whether the personality types differed significantly in terms of their psychological career resources. Research suggests that personality preferences may be related to individuals’ career management (Kotze, 2014; Myers et al., 2003; Potgieter et al., 2012; Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003; Schaubhut et al., 2009). However, there is a dearth of research on how personality preferences relate to individuals’ psychological career resources.

The present study therefore aimed at answering the following research questions:

Method

Participants

The participants were a non-probability sample (N = 81) of managerial-level staff from five fast food franchise restaurants in the Western Cape, South Africa. The sample comprised predominantly females (74%) and black people (78%: 53% colored; 25% African) in the establishment phase of their careers (26-40 years of age – 63%). The majority of the participants had more than two years of experience in the fast food industry (82%).

Measuring instruments

Participants completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form M (MBTI: Myers & Myers, 1998) and the Psychological Career Resources Inventory (PCRI: Coetzee, 2008). A total of 180 managerial staff was invited to participate and only 81 voluntarily participated (response rate = 45%).

The MBTI, Form M is a self-reporting forced-choice questionnaire consisting of 93 items. For each item, respondents have two responses to choose from. The MBTI classifies an individual into one of the 16 personality types (Myers et al., 2003). Myers et al. (2003) report internal consistency reliabilities of .80 for the MBTI, Form M and high test-retest reliability. Van Zyl and Taylor (2012) also report high levels of internal consistency reliability for the MBTI, Form M in the South African context, with coefficients ranging between .88 and .92. Van Zyl and Taylor (2012) found the MBTI, Form M to be unbiased toward gender and ethnicity and to have construct validity.

The PCRI (Coetzee, 2008) is a 64-item multi-factorial measure which assesses individuals’ repertoire of psychological career resources on five subscales, comprising 15 constructs in total: 17 items measuring the career preferences of stability/expertise, managerial, variety/creativity and independence/autonomy; 8 items measuring the career values of growth/development and authority/influence; 8 items measuring the career enablers of practical/creative skills and self/other skills; 8 items measuring the career drivers of career purpose, career directedness and career venturing; and 21 items measuring the career harmonizers of self-esteem, behavioral adaptability, emotional literacy and social connectivity (Coetzee, 2008; 2014). Responses are measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = Never; 6 = Always). The Psychological Career Resources Inventory (PCRI) is well-researched in the South African context with proven construct and discriminant validity and acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability (Coetzee, 2014). In terms of the present study, the Cronbach alpha coefficients (internal consistency reliability) ranged between .40 and .78, which is regarded as acceptable for broad group-based research according to the guidelines of Terre Blanche and Durrheim (2002).

Procedure

Ethical clearance to conduct the study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the research institution. Permission to conduct the survey was obtained from the relevant fast food restaurant. The purpose of the survey was explained to all the participants and the participants were requested to sign a letter of consent that the results could be used for research purposes only. Anonymity and confidentiality were also guaranteed and honored.

Data Analysis

Descriptive, correlational and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated in order to assess the relationship between the eight MBTI ordinal personality type preferences (E - I, S - N, T - F, J - P) and the 15 PCRI subscale variables as continuous scores. The correlation command in SPSS syntax produced the appropriate statistics between a dichotomous variable (the MBTI personality type preferences) and a scale variable (the PCRI variables). ANOVAs were performed to test for significant mean differences between the various MBTI personality types in terms of the PCRI variables. The cut-off value for interpreting the significance of the results was set at p ≤ .05 (95% confidence interval) in order to counter for the probability of a type I error.

Results

Personality type preferences and psychological career resources profile

Table 1 reports the frequencies of the personality type preferences that manifested in the sample. As can be seen from Table 1, the dominant personality type preferences for the sample were Extraversion (E = 51%); Sensing (S = 84%); Feeling (F = 69%) and Judging (J = 79%). In terms of the 16 personality types, Table 1 further shows that 27% of the participants were ESFJs and 20% ISFJs. There were no INFP and INTP personality types in the sample. The majority of the participants were associated with the Sensing-Feeling (SF) mental orientation (62%).

<insert Table 1 approximately here>

Correlations between the personality types and psychological career resources

Table 2 shows that the Introverted and Extraverted personality preferences were significantly associated with the psychological career resources variables. The career preference of independence/autonomy correlated significantly and positively with the Introverted personality preference (r = .34; p ≤ .01; medium practical effect) and negatively with the Extraverted personality preference (r = -.34; p ≤ .01; medium practical effect). In terms of the career values, authority/influence correlated significantly and positively with the Introverted personality preference (r = .22; p ≤ .05; small practical effect) and negatively with the Extraverted personality preference (r = -.22; p ≤ .05; small practical effect).

<insert Table 2 approximately here>

The career enabler self/other skills correlated significantly and negatively with the Introverted personality preference (r = -.32; p ≤ .01; medium practical effect) and positively with the Extraverted personality preference (r = .32; p ≤ .01; medium practical effect). The career driver career directedness correlated significantly and negatively with the Introverted personality preference (r = -.33; p ≤ .01; medium practical effect) and positively with the Extraverted personality preference (r = .33; p ≤ .01; medium practical effect).

Table 2 shows that the four career harmonizers correlated significantly and negatively with the Introverted personality preference (r ≥ -.23 ≤ -.50; p ≤ .05; small to large practical effect) and positively with the Extraverted personality preference (r ≥ .23 ≤ .50; p ≤ .05; small to large practical effect).

The career driver career purpose correlated significantly and negatively with the Thinking personality preference (r = -.22; p ≤ .05; small practical effect) and positively with the Feeling personality preference (r = .22; p ≤ .05; small practical effect).

Personality Type Influences on Psychological Career Resources

Findings from tests of mean difference comparisons are reported here (see Table 3). As shown in Table 3,the ESTJ personality type obtained significantly higher mean scores on the career preference variety/creativity (mean = 3.71; SD = .40; p ≤ .05) and the career enabler self/other skills (mean = 4.81; SD = .15; p ≤ .01) than the ISFP, ESFJ, ISFJ and ISTJ types. The ISFJ and ESFJ types scored the lowest on the need for variety/creativity.

The ISTJ personality type obtained significantly higher mean scores on the career value growth/development (mean = 3.00; SD = .00; p ≤ .05) than the ISFP, ESFJ, ISFJ and ESTJ types. The ISFP personality type obtained the lowest scores on growth/development (mean = 2.60; SD = .42) and self/other skills (mean = 4.19; SD = .61)

The ESFJ personality type obtained significantly higher mean scores on the career harmonizer social connectivity (mean = 4.67; SD = .32; p ≤ .01) than the ISFP, ESFJ, ISFJ and ESTJ types. The ISTJ personality type obtained the lowest scores on social connectivity (mean = 3.63; SD = .61).

In terms of the preferred mental orientations, The Intuitive-Feeling (NF) preference obtained significantly higher mean scores on the career driver career purpose (mean = 3.72; SD = .44; p ≤ .05) than the Sensing-Feeling (SF), Sensing-Thinking (ST), and Intuitive-Thinking (NT) preferences. The Intuitive-Thinking (NT) preference obtained the lowest scores on career purpose (mean = 3.21; SD = .52).

<insert Table 3 approximately here>

Discussion

Overall, the results suggest that the Introverted and Extraverted personality type preferences are significantly associated with the psychological career resources. High scores on a need for autonomous functioning and freedom from external interruptions as a career preference (autonomy/independence) and a need for authority and influence as a career value were positively related to Introversion and negatively to Extraversion. These findings are in line with research on personality type which shows that introverted types prefer work that permits some solitude and time for concentration while extraverted types prefer work that allows interaction with a succession of people or that has activities outside the office or away from the desk (Myers et al., 2003). Research by Coetzee (2008; 2014) further indicates a strong positive association between the need for autonomy/independence and authority/influence. Schaubhut et al. (2009) found extraversion to be positively associated with the need for independence, achievement via independence and capacity for status, which are contrary to the findings of the present study.

High scores on the career enabler self-management and interpersonal relations skills and the career driver career directedness were negatively related to Introversion and positively to Extraversion. These findings seem to corroborate research on the extraverted and introverted personality types. The extraverted attitude is associated with characteristics such as ease of communication and sociability while the introverted attitude is associated with an enjoyment of solitude and privacy and a detachment from the outer world (Myers et al. 2003). Schaubhut et al. (2009) also found extraversion to be associated with a high need for satisfying interpersonal needs, collaborating with others, having feelings of competence, demonstrating self-control, being amicable and having a need to work with people. Introverted types appear to be more sensitive toward their own and others’ behavior toward them. They also tend to have a high desire for privacy and avoiding others, and appear to be more reluctant to commit to a permanent course of action than extraverted types (Schaubhut et al., 2009). Rothmann and Coetzer (2003) also found that extraverted types tend to demonstrate higher levels of career self-management than introverted types.

High scores on the career harmonizers (self-esteem, behavioral adaptability, emotional literacy and social connectivity) were negatively related to Introversion and positively to Extraversion. Coetzee (2014) views the four career harmonizers as important psychological attributes in promoting career well-being and resilience. The findings seem to corroborate previous research on introversion and extraversion. Schaubhut et al. (2009) found extraversion to be positively associated with overall well-being, resilience, self-acceptance, empathy and sociability. Introversion seems to be positively associated with a tendency to shelter personal feelings and being reserved and thoughtful.

High scores on the career driver career purpose were positively related to the Feeling preference and negatively to the Thinking preference. Career purpose refers to having a sense of calling and a higher purpose of being of service to the broader society (Coetzee, 2014). The findings of the present study are in agreement with personality type research showing that Feeling types prefer work that provides service to people (Myers et al. 2003). Research further suggests that Thinking types are more competitive and achievement-oriented than Feeling types. They tend to prefer work that allows them to function in a leadership role, take action and think quickly (Schaubhut et al., 2009).

Differences in terms of psychological career resources strengths were only detected between the ESTJ, ISTJ, ISFP, ESFJ and ISFJ personality types. The ESTJ personality type had a significantly higher need than the other four personality types for a career that allows one to work on a variety of different tasks which require the use and development of one’s skills, abilities and knowledge in innovative and creative ways. The ESFJ and ISFJ types showed the lowest need for variety and creativity in their career. Personality type research found the ESTJ type to be highly achievement-oriented and to place a high value on demonstrating competence and efficiency in achieving results. On the other hand, ESFJ and ISFJ types are more service-oriented and place high value on meeting the needs and wants of others (Myers et al., 2003) which may explain the difference in orientation to variety/creativity as a career preference.

The ISTJ personality type had a significantly higher need for career growth and development than the other four personality types. The ISFP type had the lowest need for growth and development opportunities. Personality type research found ISTJ types to value competence and ISFP types to value work that contributes to their own and others’ well-being or happiness (Myers et al., 2003), which may explain the difference in orientation toward the need for further growth and development.

The ISFP type also showed the lowest level of confidence in their self-management and interpersonal relationship skills while the ESTJ type had significantly higher confidence in their self-management and interpersonal skills than the other personality types. The difference in orientation towards self/other skills between these two personality types may partly be attributed to the introversion-extraversion attitude. Being introverted, ISFP types tend to be quiet, sensitive, reserved and to avoid conflict with others, while ESTJ types enjoy interacting and working with others. ISFP types also tend to minimize their own skills and accomplishments because of their preference to be in a supportive rather than a leadership role. ESTJ types, on the other hand, tend to have a natural dominant leadership style which often contributes to their confidence in their abilities (Myers et al., 2003).

The ESFJ type showed the highest level (and the ISTJ type the lowest level) of confidence in their ability to connect with others, and establish and maintain mutually satisfying and supporting relations in the pursuit of career goals (social connectivity). This difference in orientation may be attributed to the ESFJ type’s sociability and collaborative style in interacting with others and the ISTJ type’s introverted attitude towards the external environment (Myers et al., 2003).

The Intuitive-Feeling (NF) types showed a significantly stronger sense (and the Intuitive-Thinking/NT types a significantly lower sense) of career calling and higher purpose of being in service to the broader society than the other personality types. This difference in orientation may be attributed to the NF type’s service-orientation and their preference for work that involves unfolding new possibilities for people. On the other hand, the NT types are drawn to work that involves solving mentally challenging problems in their field of interest (Myers et al., 2003).

Implications for Career Management in the Fast Food Industry

Understanding the personality type preferences of their managerial staff and how these relate to their psychological career resources is important for supporting them in terms of their general career wellbeing in the highly stressful work environment of the fast food industry (Kotze, 2014). The findings showed that the ESFJ and ISFJ personality types were predominant in the sample of participants. These types are naturally drawn to a service-oriented environment (Myers et al., 2003). However, the findings of the present study showed important differences between the introverted and extraverted attitudes and the psychological career resources that employers and practitioners should be aware of.

The negative associations between the career harmonizers and the introverted types suggest that these types might be less prone to demonstrating the psychosocial career meta-capacities they need to successfully manage their career well-being in the high-stress, service-oriented work environment of the fast food restaurant context. Similarly, the differences in orientations toward the psychological career resources of self/other skills and social connectivity of the ISFP and ISTJ types in contrast with the ESFJ and ESTJ types should also be noted, as these psychological career resources are important in the service-driven work environment. The ISFP and ISTJ types might need support in developing these psychological career resources.

In the light of the dearth of recent research on the MBTI in the career context, the results of the study contribute valuable new insights that may provide information for career development interventions aimed at enhancing the career well-being of managerial staff in the fast food industry. Helping managerial staff understand how the introverted and extraverted attitude and their personality preferences influence their demonstration of the psychological career resources is imperative for their career well-being in the high-stress fast food service environment.

Limitations and Recommendations

The present study was limited to a relatively small group of predominantly female and black managerial staff in the fast food restaurant industry in the Western Cape, South Africa. The findings cannot be generalized to other staff levels, occupational, race and gender groups and industries. Given the cross-sectional nature of the research design, the associations between the personality types and psychological career resources have been interpreted in an exploratory manner rather than established. Moreover, the potential risk of a common method bias should be considered because of the self-report methodology that was used. The findings need to be replicated with broader samples across various economic sectors and occupational, race and gender groups before more extensive conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between the MBTI personality types and the PCRI constructs. Future longitudinal research also needs to consider how people’s psychological career resources change over time as the career self-concept evolves.

Conclusion

The study showed that the extraverted and introverted personality preferences of managerial staff in the fast food industry significantly affect their psychological career resources. Moreover, the personality preferences of the ISFP, ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ and ISTJ types significantly influence the psychological career resources of these personality types. The findings suggest that managers and career practitioners should take note of the observed differences between these personality types in career management interventions for staff in the Western Cape fast food industry.

References

Coetzee, M. (2008). Psychological career resources and subjective work experiences of working adults: A South African survey. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 34(2), 32–41.

Coetzee, M. (2014). A psychological career resources framework for contemporary career development. In M. Coetzee (ed.), Psycho-social career meta-capacities: dynamics of contemporary career development (pp. 87-122). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer International.

Coetzee, M. & Bergh, Z.C. (2009). Psychological career resources and subjective work experiences of working adults: An exploratory study. Southern African Business Review, 13(2), 1–31.

Comaroff, Y. (2012). Capacity for complexity, intelligence and personality. (Unpublished master’s research report.) University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Converse, P.D., Pathak, J., DePaul-Haddock, A.M., Gotlib, T., & Merbedone, M. (2012). Controlling your environment and yourself: Implications for career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 148–159.

Ferreira, N. (2012), Constructing a psychological career profile for staff retention. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Ferreira, N. (2014). Career meta-competencies in the retention of employees. In M. Coetzee (ed.), Psycho-social career meta-capacities: dynamics of contemporary career development (pp. 175-202). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer International.

Jung, C. (1990). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kotze, C. (2014). The relationship between personality types and psychological career resources of managers in the fast food industry in the Western Cape. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Kruger, E.H. (2013). Assessing the accuracy of the growth in theoretical capability as predicted by Career Path Appreciation (CPA) 1 vs CPA 2. (Unpublished master’s dissertation.) University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

McCaulley, M.H. (1990). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in counseling. In C.E. Watkins & V.L. Campbell (Eds.), Testing in counseling practice (pp. 91-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Myers, I., McCaulley, M., Quenk, N., & Hammer, A. (2003). MBTI Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, P.B. & Myers, K.D. (1998). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form M. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Potgieter, I.L. (2012). The development of a career meta-competency model for sustained employability. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Potgieter, I.L., Coetzee, M., & Masenge, A. (2012). Exploring employees` personality attributes in relation to their employability attributes in the business management field. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(4), 583-596.

Pulver, C.A. & Kelly, K.R. (2008). Incremental validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in predicting academic major selection of undecided university students. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(4), 441-455.

Rothmann, S. & Coetzer, E.P. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job performance. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29 (1), 68–74.

Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661–673.

Schaubhut, N.A., Herk, N.A., & Thompson, R.C. (2009). MBTI Form M manual supplement. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Terre Blanche, M., & Durrheim, K. (2002). Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Tladinyane, R.T. (2012). Psychological career resources, work engagement and organizational commitment: a psychological profile for staff retention. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Van Zyl, C.J.J. & Taylor, N. (2012). Evaluating the MBTI Form M in a South African context. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(1), 1-15.









Table 1

Frequencies: MBTI Personality Types and Preferences

MBTI Personality Types

Frequency

Percentage

ISTJ

9

11%

ESTJ

7

9%

ISFJ

16

20%

ESFJ

22

27%

INFJ

2

3%

ENFJ

1

1%

INTJ

5

6%

ENTJ

1

1%

INFP

0

0%

ENFP

3

4%

ISTP

1

1%

ESTP

1

1%

INTP

0

0%

ENTP

1

1%

ISFP

7

9%

ESFP

5

6%

Personality Preferences



Introvert (I)

40

49%

Extravert (E)

41

51%

Sensing (S)

68

84%

Intuition (N)

13

16%

Thinking (T)

25

31%

Feeling (F)

56

69%

Judging (J)

64

79%

Perceiving (P)

17

21%

Preferred Mental Orientations



Sensing-Feeling (SF)

50

62%

Sensing-Thinking (ST)

18

22%

Intuitive-Feeling (NF)

6

7%

Intuitive-Thinking (NT)

7

9%

Note: MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator



Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach Alpha Coefficients for the PCRI and Significant Correlations between the MBTI Personality Preferences and the Psychological Career Resources

M (SD)

α

Introversion

Extraversion

Sensing

Intuition

Thinking

Feeling

Judging

Perceiving

Stability/

expertise (CP)

4.55

(.56)

.66

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Managerial (CP)

3.19

(.69)

.69

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Variety/

creativity (CP)

3.30

(.61)

.67

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Independence/

Autonomy (CP)

2.62

(.85)

.72

.34

**

-.34

**

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Growth/

Development (CV)

2.78

(.31)

.50

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Authority/

Influence (CV)

2.26

(.57)

.66

.22

*

-.22

*

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Practical/

Creative Skills (CE)

3.17

(.62)

.74

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Self/

Other Skills (CE)

4.51

(.51)

.63

-.32

**

.32

**

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Career

Purpose (CD)

3.60

(.40)

.40

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

-.22

*

.22

*

n/s

n/s

Career

Directedness (CD)

3.10

(.63)

.62

-.33

**

.33

**

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Career

Venturing (CD)

2.28

(.64)

.78

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Self-esteem

(CH)

4.33

(.68)

.69

-.31

**

.31

**

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Behavioral

Adaptability

(CH)

4.94

(.75)

.62

-.23

*

.23

*

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Emotional

Literacy

(CH)

3.64

(.95)

.76

-.38

**

.38

**

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Social

Connectivity

(CH)

4.24

(.68)

.77

-.50

**

.50

**

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

n/s

Notes: N = 81. PCRI = Psychological Career Resources Inventory. CP = Career Preferences. CV = Career Values. CE = Career Enablers. CD = Career Drivers. CH = Career Harmonizers. SD = Standard Deviation. α: Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. n/s = not significant. ***p ≤ .001 – statistically significant. **p ≤ .01 – statistically significant. *p ≤ .05 – statistically significant.







Table 3

Significant ANOVA Results: Significant Mean Differences between the MBTI Personality Preferences and the Psychological Career Resources


Variables

MBTI Types

N

Mean

SD

F

p

Variety/Creativity (CP)

ISFP

7

3.40

.62

2.64

.04*


ESFJ

22

3.36

.62




ISFJ

16

2.99

.55




ESTJ

7

3.71

.40




ISTJ

9

3.50

.36



Growth/Development

(CV)

ISFP

7

2.60

.42

2.64

.04*


ESFJ

22

2.85

.26




ISFJ

16

2.68

.33




ESTJ

7

2.90

.25




ISTJ

9

3.00

.00



Self/Other Skills

(CE)

ISFP

7

4.19

.61

3.55

.01**


ESFJ

22

4.77

.45




ISFJ

16

4.32

.57




ESTJ

7

4.81

.15




ISTJ

9

4.46

.46



Social Connectivity

(CH)

ISFP

7

4.19

.48

7.47

.01*


ESFJ

22

4.67

.32




ISFJ

16

3.92

.79




ESTJ

7

4.48

1.77




ISTJ

9

3.63

.61



Career Purpose

(CD)

SF

50

3.65

.36

2.85

.04*


ST

18

3.57

.38




NF

6

3.72

.44




NT

7

3.21

.52



Note: Total N = 81. MBTI = Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. CP = Career Preferences. CV = Career Values. CE = Career Enablers. CD = Career Drivers. CH = Career Harmonizers. SD = Standard Deviation. α: Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. n/s = not significant. **p ≤ .01 – statistically significant. *p ≤ .05 – statistically significant.



ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR EXPLORING KEY ISSUES AFFECTING WOMEN IN
AM I RACIST EXPLORING UNCONSCIOUS BIASES AND PREJUDICES AMONG
ANNEX C – CONSULTATION RESPONSE EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN


Tags: career resources, = career, preferences, resources, relation, psychological, personality, career, exploring