Jung postulated that when the dominant function in an individual is any one of the four, the inferior function will, by definition, be its partner in that pair. In other words - if Sensation is the dominant function, iNtuition in that individual will be inferior, and vice versa - if iNtuition is the dominant function, Sensation will be inferior. Similarly, if Thinking is the individual's dominant function, Feeling is, by definition, that individual's inferior function, and vice versa.

When Myers and Myers bought into Jung's system, they also bought into all of these underlying basic assumptions which therefore hold true in their system as well.

Jung was (and many contemporary Jungians still are) particularly interested in the inferior function, the least developed function in the individual, because it is the function that is least conscious. Indeed, the Jungians conceive of the inferior function as immersed in the 'unconscious' of the individual, where it is contaminated by unconscious urges and impulses. For instance, in an individual who has thinking as a dominant function, feeling (that individual's inferior function), will be underdeveloped, crass, undifferentiated. Such a person may be prone to becoming carried away by their feelings, or express them inappropriately. Individuals of this type will be prone to 'sentimentality'. They also incline toward making gross value judgments, in 'black and white' terms (for instance, that things are either simply 'good' or 'bad'). They will ignore the subtle shades in the spectrum of feeling available to human beings, will not feel the nuances. Likewise, for someone whose dominant function is 'feeling', their inferior function (thinking) can also be described as undeveloped, undifferentiated, crass. They can be 'carried away' by overly simplistic thinking, expressing themselves in what might appear, to the thinking type, to be 'platitudes'. Such an individual can be described as having thoughts which are more crudely formed, underdeveloped or even trite. In the 'feeling' person opinions appear to be adopted without much deliberate conscious consideration of alternatives - such a person will operate according to underdeveloped or oversimplified systems of logic, and may appear (when carried away by 'unconscious' urges) to be opinionated, simplistic, or lacking analytical skill. [In a separate paper we have articulated five levels of development for each of the four functions.]

Depending upon the individual's development, more than one function may be submerged in the individual's 'unconscious' - e.g., less differentiated, less developed, and less subject to conscious control. In general, individuals will differ as to how many of the functions have become 'conscious', which we can illustrate by drawing a horizontal line (representing the interface between 'conscious' and 'unconscious') at varying positions on the cross-shaped diagram of the four functions, like this, for instance:

Or like this:

The first diagram shows three functions that are more or less developed and under the 'conscious' control of the individual. In the second diagram the individual has succeeded in consciously mastering only one of the functions, his 'dominant' one, and the remaining three are highly underdeveloped.

Presumably it is exceedingly rare to find an individual who has succeeded in mastering his or her 'inferior' function. The best that most of us can individually hope for, according to Marie Louise Von Franz, a renowned Jungian analyst, is to achieve a degree of control over the inferior function sufficient to keep it from getting the best of us. Von Franz provides a fascinating account of how each of the four functions can appear as an inferior capacity in respective psychological types ⁷ (1993, pp. 140-143). She insists on the importance of the inferior function and how it operates in an individual, for this is the most telling feature of the individual's style. ⁸ We can learn more about the thinking type by looking at how their feeling function operates (or fails to operate!) in them. In fact, for analysts such as herself, who do not use the MBTI or other instruments for the purpose of typing, the key to discerning an individuals type is identification of the inferior function in the individual. [It will be important to keep this in mind later, in assessing organizational forms associated with particular psychological types. We shall see that organizational forms embody the deficits associated with the inferior function of the psychological types that 'prefer' them.]

For Jung it did not matter theoretically which function in the individual played the secondary role and which the tertiary role. So two letters would suffice to indicate a person's type - the letter for orientation (either E or I) and the letter that stands for the individual's primary or dominant function (S, N, T or F). If one knows the dominant function of an individual, one will, of necessity, also know the inferior function of that individual (the polar opposite to it, its 'partner' - S and N are one pair, T and F the other).

But in the Myers-Briggs system each of the sixteen types is a four-letter combination. Why? The first letter in the combination is either I or E and designates a preference for introversion or extraversion, in a manner similar to Jung's system. The second and third letters represent the individual's primary and secondary functions (but not necessarily in that order). In contrast to Jung, for the Myers-Briggs system it is significant which of the two intermediary functions is identified as secondary and which is identified as tertiary. So to the two letters (say E, for extravert, and S for sensing) that would suffice to define a Jungian personality type (i.e., 'ES'), they would add a third letter, say 'T' for 'thinking'. We could thus speak of an 'EST' type.

To all of these Jungian premises the Myers-Briggs folks agree. In addition, they make the further assumption that if the primary 'judging' function of the individual (either thinking or feeling) were directed outwardly (to the world), that person's primary 'perceptive function' (either sensing or intuiting) would be directed inwardly . And vice versa, if the primary 'perceptive' function (either intuiting or sensing) were the one directed outwardly , that individual's primary 'judging' function would have to be directed inwardly. [This assumption can be questioned, as we have done in a separate paper].

What about the fourth letter in the four-letter combination? Jung sometimes used the word 'judging' to describe the thinking-feeling pair of functions, and the word 'perception' to describe the sensing-intuitive pair, although this is a rather confusing nomenclature that is no longer emphasized, but lives on in the 'J' and 'P' designations that are used as a fourth letter in each MBTI name.

The fourth letter has two operational purposes in the system. First, since the 'P' tacitly references the second spot in the four letter combination - which is filled by one of the 'perceptual' functions (S or N), and the 'J' references the third spot (filled by F or T - the 'judging' functions), the fourth letter tells us which of the two middle letters designates the individual's superior function. Unfortunately the rule for this is somewhat complex, making it difficult to apply on first sight. The rule is: for Extraverts, If the last letter is a P, the second letter designates the dominant function, and if the last letter is a J, the third letter designates the dominant function. For Introverts, it is the opposite: if the last letter is a P, the third letter is the individual's dominant function, and if the last letter is a J, the second letter is the dominant function.

By using the 'rule' one can determine the dominant function for each of the 16 Myers-Briggs types. For instance: merely by looking at the letters 'INFP', and using the above rule, one can determine that the feeling function is the dominant one. We will use a simple alternate convention in this paper, permitting the reader to immediately see the dominant function: it will appear as the bolded letter in the four letter combination - for instance, INFP. Since ALL ESTJs have thinking as the dominant function, all ESTJs will be ESTJs.

By knowing which of the middle two letters is the dominant function, we also know which of the two is the secondary function - namely, the remaining letter. For instance, since 'T' is the dominant function for an ESTJ, 'S' must be the secondary function. And since 'F' is the inferior function (as it is the 'opposite' of T in the F-T pair), there is only one function left ('N'), which therefore must be the 'tertiary' function. All of this one can simply 'read' from the specific four letter combination that makes up a type name.

But that is not all! Since the ESTJ is an extravert, he will presumably be primarily interested in turning his attention to the outside world and according to Myers-Briggs will use his dominant function, thinking, to do that. Insofar as he uses his secondary function (sensing), it will be primarily inwardly - so when he turns attention inwardly it will be to his inward bodily sensations. Similarly, since the INFP is an introvert, her interest will primarily gravitate toward inner matters to which she will attend using her dominant function, feeling. Insofar as she uses her secondary function (intuition), it will be primarily for outward encounters.

In addition to the above, the Myers-Briggs system gives a second role to the fourth letter. It indicates, in addition to its previously described role, a predisposition that the individual has for taking an active ('judging') stance or a passive ('perceptive') stance toward the outside world.

Myers and Myers (1993)⁹ postulate that if an individual uses a 'perceptive' function (sensing or intuiting) as the primary mode with which to connect with the outside world, she will have a tendency toward being passive/receptive and have character traits that include 'spontaneity, open-mindedness, understanding, tolerance, curiosity, zest for experience, and adaptability'.

Similarly, if an individual primarily uses one of what Jung called the 'judging ' functions (thinking or feeling) in dealing with the outside world, he will have a tendency toward wanting to order the world in an active fashion and have character traits that include 'systematic manner of doing things, order in possessions, planned life, sustained effort, decisiveness, exercise of authority, settled opinions, and acceptance of routine'.

This is tantamount to postulating an additional factor, on top of the two that were important to Jung. In addition to a preference in (1) 'function' (feeling, intuition, sensing, thinking), in combination with (2) a preference in how one how one generally deploys attention in the world - toward the outside world ('extraversion'), or toward internal phenomena ('introversion'), Myers and Myers make explicit an additional dimension, only tacitly present in Jung's statements - (3) preference toward either an active/judging OR passive/perceptive stance with respect to one's interactions with the world. Together these three constitute the parameters by which 'psychological type' are measured in this system, as modified by Myers and Myers. This is why the Myers-Briggs system is usually considered to be an extension of Jung's work on typology. An argument may be made that the distinction between an attitude that 'seeks closure' and one that 'remains open' is not a primary factor on which to base a theory of personality and that this is precisely why Jung did not himself introduce this distinction as a fourth variable defining type. We will not pursue this line of argument, and grant the significance of the distinction. What we do want to argue, however, is that there occured a logistic error in the design of the MBTI, when the 'J/P' designation was made to carry the burden of the two separate (and not always compatible) purposes delineated above.

In order to see the difficulty more clearly, look at the 'INFP'. By the rules of the MBTI game, the 'P' designation indicates that the letter in the third place ('F') identifies the individual's dominant function. The INFP, thus, is an 'introverted feeling type'. But the 'P' also tells us that the INFP is typically an individual who 'remains open', and is not interested in seeking 'closure' (as is the J). The question to ask here is, 'Is it legitimate to make all introverted feeling types with auxiliary iNtuition BY DEFINITION non-closure-seeking (P) types?' Cannot an introverted feeling type with auxiliary iNtuition not be a closure-seeking J? If so, how would we go about 'writing' the name of such a type? It cannot be done using the current MBTI nomenclature!

This is clearly brought into relief when we explore the following simple change in nomenclature - a change that separates out the two purposes that the 'J/P' designation was made to carry (but does not change the system in any other way whatsoever) by 1) indicating which function is the dominant one in the letter combination not by what the fourth letter is, but by bolding and underlining the dominant function's letter; and, 2) treating the 'J/P' designation as independent, simply indicating the individual's preference for 'closure' and 'open-ness' respectively. Using this nomenclature we would still have INFPs (introverted feeling types who prefer to 'remain open'). This would have the effect of permitting new types into the system - for example, the INFP (introverted intuitives who are not characteristically 'closure-seeking' - a type which, under the current Myers-Briggs system, there can be no such thing as, since all INFPs are necessarily, BY DEFINITION, INFPs!) This, of course, would change the system radically, since the glitch in the nomenclature effects not just the INFP, but all 16 types, and 16 new types would be logically required (an INFJ, for instance, and so forth and so on).¹⁰ [Editor's note - When this paper was written, in 1994, we were using a bolded and underlined letter to indicate the dominate function. When, a few years later, we were faced with the prospect of communicating by email (in which there was, at the time, no way to underline or bold letters) we switched to using an upper case letter for the dominant function and lower case letters for all of the others. So what we refer to as an INFP in the above material is now designated as an inFp. The two nomenclatures that we suggest are identical in meaning; no substantial difference in meaning is intended. For further discussion, please see our recent (4/2000) article on this topic, 'What We Mean When We Speak of the 'inFp', etc - A Critique of the J/P Designation in the MBTI'. ]

We shall have to return to the ramifications of the 'J/P' problem in a later paper, ¹¹ as further discussion here would take us too far afield. Returning to our summary of the Jungian/MBTI system, we see that the E/I preference, the S/N preference, the T/F preference and the J/P preference results in a four-letter code (eg, ESTJ) for which there can be 16 permutations: (ISTP, ISTJ, ISFP, ISFJ, INFP, INFJ, INTP, INTJ, ESTP, ESTJ, ESFP, ESFJ, ENFP, ESFJ, ENTP, ENTJ). Individuals who take the MBTI (Myers-Briggs type indicator) are thereby classified into one of these 16 personality type categories.

In building upon Jung's system, Myers and Myers intended to enrich organizations through an appreciation of psychological diversity. In the application of the MBTI, we regularly hear statements similar to the following:

Any team, therefore, should include a sufficient variety of [psychological] types to perform the required jobs effectively and with satisfaction.... a well-balanced team should contain at least one skilled representative of each process [sensing, thinking, intuition, and feeling]. ¹²(Myers and Myers, 1993, p.163)

Myers and Myers, and others who practice the application of personality typology in Organizational Development work, frequently insist that no type is better than any other, just different - a statement with which we shall not disagree. But less often is it pointed out that the types vary radically as far as frequency of occurrence in the general population, and that this has an impact on how we operate culturally - the kinds of choices that we make as a people about how we organize ourselves socially, in the workplace, at home, in our schools. In the MBTI literature that has established a foothold in corporate America, little explicit attention has, ironically, been given to these matters despite the fact that Jung himself, and a number of his followers since, have been sensitive to the social and political ramifications of the type-biases that can become deeply embedded in a culture. In the next section we turn our attention to the impact that type-bias has on organizational structure in contemporary America.

12.Myers and Myers, 1993, p. 163. back to text