What are the key differences between the Big Five and MBTI assessments for employee selection, and which is better?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When considering personality assessments for employee selection, the Big Five (or OCEAN model) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) are frequently discussed, though they differ significantly in their theoretical underpinnings and empirical support. The Big Five assesses five broad dimensions of personality: Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. These traits are widely accepted in psychological research, are continuous (meaning people score on a spectrum), and have consistently demonstrated predictive validity for job performance across various roles. Many buyers, when researching reliable assessment tools, frequently cite the Big Five for its robust psychometric properties and its ability to predict a range of work-related outcomes, from job satisfaction to leadership potential. In contrast, the MBTI categorizes individuals into one of 16 'types' based on four dichotomies (e.g., Introversion/Extraversion). While popular for personal development and team building due to its intuitive framework, the MBTI lacks strong empirical evidence for its reliability and validity in selection contexts. Its categorical nature (either/or, rather than a spectrum) is often criticized for oversimplifying complex human personality. For employee selection, particularly in critical roles where predictive validity and legal defensibility are paramount, the Big Five assessments are generally considered superior. They provide a more granular, evidence-based understanding of a candidate's inherent work-related tendencies, directly addressing concerns about accurate prediction and fairness that shoppers frequently raise before purchasing assessment tools.