At Bridgewater Associates, the worldâs largest hedge fund, every new employee takes the Myers-Briggs personality test, among others. The results are shared with everyone else at the firm, on a âbaseball cardâ documenting each personâs strengths, weaknesses, and dispositions.


At Bridgewater Associates, the worldâs largest hedge fund, every new employee takes the Myers-Briggs personality test, among others. The results are shared with everyone else at the firm, on a âbaseball cardâ documenting each personâs strengths, weaknesses, and dispositions.
When I was getting to know my colleagues during the year I worked there, we would exchange Myers-Briggs acronyms before almost anything elseâa replacement for typical office small-talk. It was strange, and thrilling.
Join 500,000+ readers who start their day with Quartz.
By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
I was proud to be an âENTJâ (the Myers-Briggs acronym for Extraversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Judgment). At their best, ENTJs are bold, unemotional, and outspokenâtraits that helped me navigate Bridgewaterâs culture of radical transparency and critical feedback. ENTJs also can be arrogant, but they do get stuff done.
But telling people I was an ENTJ, or learning that my desk mate was my foil (an âISFPâ: Introvert, Sensing, Feeling, Perception), meant little. What mattered was the conversation that followed.
Just after stating our acronym, weâd usually begin qualifying it. âIâm an extrovert, but I actually prefer to spend a lot of time alone.â âIâm âThinkingâ over âFeeling,â but I actually get pretty offended by critiques.â âI like seeing the forest, not the trees, as a âP,â but Iâm worried my boss thinks Iâm spacey.â âMy results show I can be aggressive, but Iâm actually really frightened of conflict.â
If you listen, youâll hear people sharing the same kinds of knee-jerk self-reflections when asked about their zodiac sign, their Harry Potter House, or any other inventory sorting us into fixed âtypes.â Thereâs a good reason people do this. None of us fits neatly into boxes, and no personality test can fully capture the complexities of our character. That doesnât mean the assessments, even the silly ones, arenât valuable.
What the skeptics miss is that the test itself isnât whatâs valuable.
Inventories like Myers-Briggs, zodiac signs, and the Enneagram personality assessment act like Rorschach tests, forcing us to reconcile the gaps between what the test results tell us, and what we know to be true about ourselves. This process is an invaluable resource for managers, as it illuminates nuances about an employeeâs personality and dispositions that otherwise can take months (or years) to learn.
Self-reflections prompted by personality tests form a guide to each employeeâs approach to the world. This knowledge is key for optimizing employee satisfaction and productivityâwhich really should be happening at the individual level. As Jason Fried, CEO of the software engineering firm Basecamp, articulated in a recent New York Times interview, âThereâs really no such thing as a group of people. Thereâs a physical group of people, but everyoneâs an individual, and youâve got to pay attention to what drives each person.â
When people read their assessment results, theyâre typically getting a paragraph describing one, or a few, elements of their personality. âSo introverts are reading an amalgam of what the population of introverts tend to say,â explains Jean Greaves, CEO of the coaching firm TalentSmart, âand when it generally rings true, they accept the result, and say something like âWow that really nailed me! How did it do that?'â This is amusing for people in the business of developing assessments, she says, because if you answer questions about yourself, of course the results will ring true.
âWhat people donât realize is that the assessment itself isnât the endgameâitâs really the launching point of the more important aspect of why you assess people, which is the conversations you have afterwards,â Greaves says. âMy work as an executive coach is to read through the personality results of a client and determine which nailed them right on, which didnât, and discard the results that were off. Then Iâm looking for an end productâan action plan or development plan.â
Managers at all levels should do the same with their direct reports. Hereâs how to get started.
Every test reveals different elements of our personality. If your company doesnât already use a test, start with one of the most reputable, like Myers-Briggs or Workplace Personality Inventory. First and foremost, clarify that personality test results will not be used for selection purposes, and that no one is defined by their âtype.â âNo one personality is best fit for one profession or job,â says Greaves, âand assuming an employeeâs behavior can be explained or predicted based on their type hinders their ability to grow and evolve.â
Once results are in, for the highest return on the investment, each employee should take a half hour or so to write a reflection on their results, asking themselves questions like: Which results jive best and worst with your self image, and why? What are some previous professional experiences in which youâve demonstrated these personality traits, or their opposites? Which results are you most proud of, and which, if any, are you embarrassed by? If you could edit any of these descriptions to better match your personality, what would you change, and why?
Managers should then review these reflections, and schedule a time to chat about them with their report one-on-one. Understanding that no personality test result is good or bad, right or wrong, this conversation should be driven by one question only, says Greaves: How can we put these new insights into practice so as to achieve your goals?
At Bridgewater, my colleagues and I knew we werenât defined by our Myers-Briggs test resultsânor did we want to be. There were people within our âtypeâ that we admired, and those we disliked; stereotypes we aligned with, and those we resented.
Reflecting together on the accuracies and inconsistencies we perceived between our test results and our own self-image revealed our insecurities about our jobs, insights about which communication tactics we liked and disliked, and our professional strengthsâall of this before we knew one anotherâs neighborhoods, alma maters, or relationship statuses. Itâs good to know those things, too, of course. But the information gleaned in these discussions offered a different kind of intelligence on the people in our work environment, intelligence thatâs typically tough to gain otherwise.