Author's note: This interactive, paper (links to the source documents are embedded into the paper) was written as an assignment for a class in Tests and Measurements. I encourage you to read this while logged onto the web so you may examine the source documentation at will.

This instrument, as well as the MBTI have their theoretical origins in Carl Jung's work on personality type. The MTR-i is an interesting instrument that measures how Jungian function-attitudes are currently being used, rather than underlying personality type (as measured by the MBTI); and yet it is advertised to be 100% compatible with the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI) (http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mb-intro/mb-intro.htm). The underlying hypothesis for the test is that although our basic personality type (as indicated in the MBTI) doesn't change, how we apply the dominate traits within our personality type change with the situation and our life experience. The MBTI indicates which Jungian function-attitudes are preferred. (Everyone uses all the Jungian-functions, no matter what their preferences.) The MTR-i indicates which Jungian function-attitudes are primarily being used at present. (Irrespective of which function-attitudes are currently being used, one’s underlying preference may be different.) (MBTI = preferences, MTR-i = contribution to the team). In a very practical sense, understanding this application has practical value for personal growth, along with leadership development and management training. S P Myers, who is quick to point out that he is NOT related to Isabel Briggs Myers who is one of the developers of the MBTI, developed this instrument.

This is a very new test that was published and released October of this year. I received notification of the conclusion of the first phase of the MTR-i project on 19 October 2000. This project has taken four years of intensive development, including analysis of submissions from over 20,000 people by the development team. As I looked at the validity of the test, I was also interested in the extensive use of the Internet in its development and how the demographics impacted on the study.

Since the MTR-i is such a new instrument, I went directly to the developer, S P Myers for additional information that he graciously provided. He does not know of any articles of research papers that have been written on the MTR-i at this time. The only independent research carried out so far has been done by Dr. Leanne Harris of Herts University (UK) (http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/pub/L_Harris/publicat.htm) Her research has been incorporated into the User's Manual for the MTR-i. The only correlation's that have been done to date are between the MTR-i and people's own declaration of MBTI type. They haven't yet correlated the MTR-i with other instruments. The development team has done a "factor analysis" (a rigorous statistical test) which revealed eight factors, one for each team role.

The eight Team Roles are described by the MTR-i. These roles describe the creative contribution to the team in the present situation. I specifically asked S P Myers about the use of this test in the hiring process and in leadership development / management training. He stated that the test is inappropriate for the hiring process since it is dependent on the management / team situation. It can be used for leadership development as part of a case study scenario.
 

The eight roles as described in full by the MTR-i are:

Sculptors bring things to fruition by getting things done, and getting them done now! They try to have an immediate impact on things, injecting a sense of urgency, and aiming to achieve clear goals and tangible results. They achieve their goals by making use of their experience, and utilizing tools or processes, which they have proven, can be relied upon. They are very action-oriented, and often spur others into action as well.

Curators bring clarity to the inner world of information, ideas and understanding. They listen, ask questions and absorb information, so that in their mind's eye they can achieve as clear a picture or understanding as is possible. They focus on ideas that are based on clear, sound thinking. They expand their knowledge and collection of experiences, and also look to the future by envisaging clear goals and clear pathways to achievement of those goals.

Explorers promote exploration of new and better ways of doing things, to uncover hidden potential in people, things or situations. They break new ground, and are often looking one step beyond the current situation to pursue unexplored avenues. Explorers often challenge the status quo and experiment with the introduction of change, to see if the situation can be improved or new potential uncovered.

Innovators use their imagination to create new and different ideas and perspectives. They observe the world around them, and then consider what they have observed from a number of different perspectives. Innovators often produce radical solutions to problems, develop long term vision and dream up new ideas and insights - demonstrating an apparent understanding of what cannot be clearly known.

Conductors introduce organization and a logical structure into the way things are done. They organize and systematize the world around them, establishing appropriate plans, identifying and implementing the correct procedures, and then endeavoring to make sure they are followed. They try to ensure that roles and responsibilities are properly defined and that appropriate resources or skills are available to undertake the work assigned.

Scientists provide explanations of how and why things happen. They bring structure and organization into the inner world of ideas and understanding. They analyze things, formulating hypotheses and explanations of how they function, and gather evidence to assess how true those explanations are. They produce mental models that replicate how a particular aspect of the world works, and they try to understand the full complexity of any situation.

Coaches try to create harmony in the world around them, by building rapport with people, creating a positive team atmosphere, looking after people's welfare, motivating people and/or providing a service to the satisfaction of others. They value people's contributions, seek to develop the role that others play, and invest a lot of effort in building positive relationships. They try to overcome differences of opinion and find ways in which the team can agree.

Crusaders give importance to particular thoughts, ideas, or beliefs. They are value driven, and in a team discussion they often bring a sense of priority that is derived from their strong convictions. They seize upon and emphasize ideas or thoughts that have the greatest import, bringing them to the fore and stressing their significance. They assess the inherent value or importance of new ideas, focusing on those about which they feel most strongly.

The research indicates that managers at different levels assume different roles. The MTR-i Team has not conducted research on how the absence or presence of certain Team Roles contributes to the success or failure of a project. As a leader / manager with 28 years experience, I can attest to the necessity of all of these roles in any successful team / project / office. How the roles are mixed, and in what proportion is dependent on the situation, but all are necessary for success.

Although a single role may dominate in a given situation, most people score high in two or more roles. As stated in S P Myers' research, a dominant and tertiary function have the same basic orientation, and the auxiliary and inferior functions are, on average, oriented equally across both the inner and outer worlds. This indicates that a single person may be capable of fulfilling two or more roles on a team. S P Myers also states that the orientation of the functions vary greatly from individual to individual. This can, and probably will cause some 'creative tension' on a team, which once again is a necessary ingredient for success.

For additional information, the basic research is available from a web site at: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/ The marketing agency for this test also has a very informative write up at: http://www.testagency.co.uk/viewpage.asp?id=42

 Administration of this test requires a 'Level A' certification in the UK, 'Level C' in the USA.  Level C (USA) is the lowest of four levels for test administration and is described as:
             * Bachelor's degree in psychology, education, human relations or human resources, business, or a closely related field.
            * Specific course work or workshops are not required, although participation in an NCS-approved workshop is recommended,
           *  Proof that they have been granted the right to administer tests at this level in their jurisdiction

These levels of qualification were developed by and for the distributors of these testing materials in order to comply with the various codes of ethics promulgated by the APA, ACA and other organizations. (http://assessments.ncs.com/assessments/top/qualify.htm)

The last area that peaked my interest in the development of this test was the extensive use of the Internet as a research vehicle. What were the demographics of the population that took part in the test, and how is Internet testing viewed by the 'research community' as a viable sampling instrument?

First the demographics of the test population as provided by S P Myers and Dr. Leanne Harris.

                   Biographical Data                           (Last version posted to the Web)

Male	43.4%	Average Age	34.57
Female	56.6%	SD for Age	11.02
Current Residence
US	61%	Canada	10%
UK	9%	Australia	8.5%
W. Europe	5%	N. Zealand	2%
Far East	2%	S. Africa	1.5%
S. America	0.5%	E. Europe	0.5%
Asia	0.15%
Ethnic Origin
White	83.0%	Indo-Chinese/Japanese		4.2%
African/Caribbean	4.9%	Asian		3.5%
Latin / Hispanic	3.8%	Native American		0.1%
Education Level
School - 16	10.7%	School / College - 18	26.2%
Bachelors	42.2%	Masters	16.8%
Doctorate	4.1%
Occupation
Student	13.0%	Teaching	9.9%
Management	9.8%	HR & Training	9.0%
Computing	8.5%	Science / Engineering	5.8%
Adv./Marketing	4.9%	Administration	4.5%
Social Work	4.0%	Finance	3.6%
Consultancy	3.1%	Nursing	2.3%
School student	2.2%	Academic	2.1%
Media / Journalism	1.8%	Other	15.2%
Reason for participating
To discover personality / type		Career planning
Curiosity		Suggested by friend
Learn more about self		Instructed by lecturer / manager
Fun / filling time		Team building
Helping research		Interest in teaching & learning styles
Self improvement

As demonstrated by the demographic data, the information was not gathered from a truly random sample of the population, but an argument may be made that this is a significant sample from the population targeted by this test, i.e. Team Members and leaders from government and private industry. The sample is at least as applicable to the general population as the normal run of undergraduates in Psychology classes that are used for a significant number of published studies.

Another area of investigation is how closely the Team Roles conform to the tested individuals declared personality type in accordance with the MBTI. A relatively small number of people (+/-100) participated in this test without using the Internet.
 

	Scale Reliability
	Team Role	MBTI	Web	Non-Web
	Coach	Fe	0.90	0.90
	Crusader	Fi	0.85	0.84
	Explorer	Ne	0.79	0.83
	Innovator	Ni	0.83	0.88
	Sculptor	Se	0.76	0.86
	Curator	Si	0.85	0.90
	Conductor	Te	0.88	0.93
	Scientist	Ti	0.83	0.86

The final point of interest was the veracity of using the Internet as a research tool. As can be expected, S P Myers and Dr. Leanne Harris support Internet use. To confirm their conclusions I went surfing for an independent source and found Dr Tom Buchanan who lectures in Psychology at the University of Westminster. His teaching and research interests lie mainly in the areas of personality and social psychology, with specific interests in aggression and Internet-mediated research. His Homepage is at: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/~buchant/ He has published a presentation titled "WWW Research: Does it Work?" located at: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/~buchant/downloads/bpssocial99/

Dr. Buchanan found the results of traditional / laboratory studies versus Internet studies yielded an equivalent pattern of results. This implies that the Internet addresses the same psychological constructs and traditional studies. He concluded that Internet research works, it is a valid extension of traditional laboratory work, some caveats and areas require additional investigation and research into the psychology of on-line behavior is required.

The cost of the MTR-I materials seems reasonable at the current exchange rates. A basic Sample Pack containing the Manual, and one of each form is listed at 49.50 British Pounds. The tests, answer sheets and profile sheets are all sold in packs of 10. The tests cost 55.00 British Pounds per pack, the answer and profile sheets cost 35.00 British Pounds per pack. Discounts are offered if you are willing to participate in research. http://www.testagency.co.uk/viewpage.asp?id=42

The exchange rate as of 07 November 2000 was 1.00 British Pound = $1.43 US dollar.

The MTR-I is a test with excellent, but yet scientifically unproven potential. The face validity is excellent, the material well presented. This is a product that would be provide an excellent way to start a project team in industry or government, to help develop leadership in a standing organization such as a office or factory. For this learning team it may have use at the next retreat you hold for your parish or school staff. I do believe that this test has the potential to become a standard for examining team roles in the future much like the MBTI has become a standard for examining personality types today.

References:

MTR-i, Management Team Roles-indicator by S P Myers, the colored wheel and the eight team role names are all trademarks of S P Myers.

®MBTI and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are trademarks of Consulting Psychologists Press. OPP have exclusive rights to the trademark in the UK. ©2000 S P Myers.

Team Technology. (1997) Personality Type, Based on the model of personality developed by Jung and Briggs/Myers Briggs. (On-line) Available: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/mb-intro/mb-intro.htm

Myers, S P. MTR-i, Management Team Roles-indicator (On-line) Available: http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/teamroles.html

No author specified. MTR-i, Management Team Roles-indicator Sales Site (On-line) Available: http://www.testagency.co.uk/viewpage.asp?id=42

Woolhouse, L.S. & Myers, S. (1999). Factors affecting sample make-up: Results from an Internet-based personality questionnaire. Paper presented to the BPS Annual Social Psychology Conference, Sept '99. (Note Woolhouse, L S has changed her name to Harris) (On-line) Available: http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/pub/L_Harris/publicat.htm

Buchanan, T. (1999, September). WWW Research: Does it work? Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, Lancaster, UK. (On-line) Available: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/~buchant/downloads/bpssocial99/

About the Author:

Patrick D. Snyder dropped out of high school in part because he was 'bored' with school. He received his General Education Development (High School) in the Army, graduated Summa Cum Laude from Troy State University with a BAS degree in Resources Management, earned a MBA in Management from Golden Gate University and is currently working on a MA in Counseling from Seton Hall University. He is a retired Army Officer, currently serving as a Department of the Army Civilian working in the areas of information management, strategic planning and project management. He is a member of the Knights of Columbus, serves on several community boards for charitable organizations and is active in his parish. He has been happily married for almost 25 years, has two children; both enrolled in college at North Carolina State University. His hobbies include hunting and flying stunt kites. If you haven't guessed, Pat consistently tests out as an 'Explorer'. His resume is available on line: http://patx2.home.mindspring.com/psnyder.html