an investigation of the relationship between personality...
TRANSCRIPT
An Investigation of the Relationship betweenPersonality Traits and Performance
for Engineering and Architectural ProfessionalsProviding Design Services to the Building Sector
of the Construction Industry
by
Paul Gerard Carr, P.E.
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of theVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYin
Civil Engineering Construction Engineering and Management
APPROVED:
______________________________________Professor Jesus M. de la Garza, Ph.D., Co-Chair
______________________________________Professor Michael C. Vorster, Ph.D. Co-Chair
______________________________________Lt. Col. (Ret.) Richard S. Alvarez
______________________________________Professor Yvan J. Beliveau, Ph.D.
______________________________________Professor Lawrence H. Cross, Ph.D.
November 10, 2000
Blacksburg, Virginia
KEY WORDS: PERSONALITY, BEHAVIOR, SUCCESS and CRITICALINCIDENTS
UMI Number: 9991280
______________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 9991280Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
i
An Investigation of the Relationship between Personality Traits andPerformance for Engineering and Architectural Professionals Providing
Design Services to the Building Sector of the Construction Industry
by
Paul Gerard Carr, P.E.
Professor Jesus M. de la Garza, Ph.D., Co-Chair
Professor Michael C. Vorster, Ph.D. Co-Chair
Civil Engineering
(ABSTRACT)
One of the prominent trends in business organizations today is the attention placed on
individual personality traits to predict job performance. Distinct personality characteristics of
members of various work groups must be carefully considered so that the assignment of
individuals to work teams results in successful behaviors and performance improvements.
The particular task assignment to various work groups, and thus assignments to individuals,
will affect performance. It is critical that these individuals possess both the abilities and
behavioral preferences to create conditions that promote the highest probability for success.
Contingent variables will always be present in any decision-based action, particularly in
complex situations, however, when an individual holds a native preference for a successful
pattern of behaviors in a certain task’s realm, higher overall organizational performance may
be expected. As such, the current study investigates the impact of various personality traits
and patterns on critical success behaviors in the Engineering and Architectural profession’s
project design services. The four project service categories measured in the Critical Success
Factors Questionnaire are: Planning (Conceptual Design), Design (Contract Documents),
Construction (Administration) and Firm Management duties. The measurement of the
individual personalities is accomplished in this investigation through the Myers-Briggs Type
ii
Indicator ® (MBTI). This psychometric instrument measures one’s attitudes in dealing with
the outside world, as well as one’s preferences for data collection and decision making.
On an individual basis, it was predicted that persons with personalities whose
preferences were towards openness to new ideas, and resistant to closure of the discovery
process, would perform well on planning or conceptual design tasks. It was predicted that
those with a preference towards compliance with rules, regulations and thorough adherence
to established standards, would outperform on tasks of detailed design. The research work
also offered a prediction of high performance from persons with a preference for innovative
ideas and openness to alternatives in the administration of construction, and predicted a
contrast with personalities that vary from this pattern.
Of the 85-person sample, it was found that those possessing a preference for Intuitive
data collection (MBTI Dichotomy, N) and Perceiving structure, (MBTI Dichotomy, P),
outperformed individuals with preferences for Sensing and Judging, (MBTI Dichotomies S
and J), in both Planning and Construction Administration. However, professionals with a
personality favoring Judging, outperformed in the duties associated with the Design Phase.
Contrary to predictions, the decision processes captured in the Thinking/Feeling MBTI®
dichotomy (MBTI, T/F) did not meditate the performance in any of the four service
categories.
The results of the Research indicate a greater utility for personality measures as a
diagnostic tool for team and individual performance interventions, rather than a tool for team
selection or team-building. The implications of the results of this research, and
recommendations for future investigations are discussed.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all of those important people in my life who encourage,help, and guide me in the pursuit of my never ending dreams. A world without peoplelike Professor Jesus M. de la Garza and Professor Michael C. Vorster, would be a sorryplace indeed.
Over the period of this endeavor, Professor de la Garza and Professor Vorsterhave become to me superb mentors, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude beyond my abilityto pay. I am honored to consider both of these master educators my true friends.
I express my most sincere gratitude to my entire committee, including ProfessorYvan Beliveau, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Richard Alvarez and Professor Lawrence Cross, for themost generous of gifts; their time and experience.
Lastly, I must save my most intense thanks for my wife, Kathleen, who has onceagain demonstrated her love and support, beyond that which should be expected of anyhuman.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT… ........................................................................................................................ iACKNOWLEDGMENTS.....................................................................................................iii
Chapter
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 11.1 Personality Traits, Critical Success Factors and The Construction Industry............................................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2: PERSONALITY AND CRITICAL SUCCESS PERFORMANCE RESEARCH: A LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................. 122.1 Changing Role of the Design Professional…................................................................. 122.2 Personality and Behavioral Data .................................................................................... 172.3 Industry Application....................................................................................................... 21
2.3.1 Current Examples of Industry Application........................................................ 232.3.2 Firm Interviews and Profiles ............................................................................. 262.3.3 The Alternative Psychometric Instruments ....................................................... 27
2.4 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 342.5 Research Considerations ................................................................................................ 382.6 Individual Personality Traits .......................................................................................... 392.7 Properties for the Measurement of Project Success: Critical Success Factors ............... 432.8 Fitness of the Psychometric Tool – Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® ............................. 48
2.8.1 Creation and Construction of the MBTI® Form M........................................... 572.8.2 MBTI® Validity ................................................................................................ 61
2.9 Suitability of a Critical Incident Behavioral Preference Instrument............................... 63
CHAPTER 3: HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................. 663.1 The Null Hypothesis....................................................................................................... 663.2 Exploratory Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 66
3.2.1 Planning Phase (Study and Report, Conceptual or Preliminary Design)........... 673.2.2 Design Phase and Detailed Preparation of Control Documents ........................ 683.2.3 Construction Administration Phase ................................................................... 693.2.4 General Management of the Design Firm.......................................................... 71
CHAPTER 4: SCOPE LIMITATIONS AND GOALS OF THIS RESEARCH.................. 73
CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY........................................................................................ 785.1 Approach to Methodology.............................................................................................. 785.2 Exploratory Study........................................................................................................... 795.3 Questionnaire Development and Pilot Study.................................................................. 81
5.3.1 Dichotomies Implied in the Questionnaire ........................................................ 875.4 Reliability and Validity Analysis - Questionnaire Refinement ...................................... 94
5.4.1 Reliability .......................................................................................................... 955.4.2 Validity .............................................................................................................. 99
5.5 Focal Study................................................................................................................... 101
v
5.6 Subjects ........................................................................................................................ 101 5.7 Task .............................................................................................................................. 110
5.8 Comparative Study ....................................................................................................... 1105.9 Independent Measures .................................................................................................. 111
5.9.1 Individual Profiling (MBTI®) ......................................................................... 1115.10 Dependent Measures .................................................................................................. 113
5.10.1 Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire ............................................. 1135.11 Procedure.................................................................................................................... 1155.12 Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 117
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS ................................................................................................... 1206.1 Descriptive Statistics and Personality Trait Effects ..................................................... 1206.2 Personality Type Effects .............................................................................................. 1246.3 Analysis of Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 1286.4 Other Measures............................................................................................................. 1296.5 Research Hypotheses Results ....................................................................................... 1366.6 Other Measures and Predictors of Success................................................................... 138
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 1437.1 Critical Success Factors, Personality Traits and Performance ..................................... 143 7.1.1 Planning (Conceptual Design) Phase Service.................................................. 143
7.1.2 Design (Contract Documents) Phase Service .................................................. 1457.1.3 Construction (Administration) Phase Service ................................................. 1467.1.4 General Management Services ........................................................................ 1487.1.5 Individual Personality Traits and Personality Type......................................... 148
7.2 Future Research: Gender, Educational Level and Tenure ........................................... 1517.3 Limitations and Future Research.................................................................................. 154
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Type Distribution - National Representative Sample (Base Population) ........... 32
Figure 2-2 Contribution Made by Each Preference to Each Type........................................ 55
Figure 2-3 Item Characteristic Curve for Two Hypothetical Items...................................... 58
Figure 3-1 Four-Duty Areas of the Design Profession ........................................................ 72
Figure 4-1 Method and Goal of the Research ..................................................................... 77
Figure 6-1 Box-Plots of Judging – Perceiving v. Design and Construction Phase ........... 128
Figure 6-2 Box-Plot of Sensing-Intuition Dichotomy ....................................................... 131
Figure 6-3 Curve Estimation of Sample with Tenure < 5 Years ....................................... 140
Figure 6-4 Design Scores v. Sensing/Intuition Dichotomy Female Respondents N=12 ... 141
Figure 6-5 Box-Plot of Graduate Education v. Planning Scores ....................................... 142
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Exploratory Hypotheses....................................................................................... 71
Table 5-1 Comparison of MBTI Scores with Johnson and Singh Study.............................. 80
Table 5-2 Correlation of Original Questionnaire (Q=52)and Sample of Pilot Study Architects, Engineers, Surveyors andConstruction Administrator Sample N=13 .......................................................................... 84
Table 5-3 Identification of Survey Question's Implied MBTI® Dichotomy ....................... 90
Table 5-4 Critical Success factors Questionnaire Refinement ............................................ 97
Table 5-5 Pearson - Correlation of Refined Questionnaire (Q=33)and Pilot Study Architects, Engineers, Surveyors andConstruction Administrator Sample N=13 .......................................................................... 98
Table 5-6 Spearman Rho - Correlation of Questionnaire (Q=33)and Sample of Pilot Study Architects, Engineers, Surveyors andConstruction Administrator Sample N=13 ............................................................... 100
Table 5-7 Service Offerings by Research Sample Firms ................................................... 104
Table 5-8 Research Sample Demographic Data ................................................................ 107
Table 5-9 Refined Questionnaire Reliability Analysis ...................................................... 114
Table 5-10 Common Statistical Procedures ....................................................................... 118
Table 6-1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation for Variables Sample N=85................... 120
Table 6-2 Exploratory Hypotheses and Research Findings................................................ 123
Table 6-3 ANOVA Extraversion – Introversion Slight Cases Removed .......................... 125
Table 6-4 ANOVA Sensing – Intuition Slight Cases Removed ........................................ 126
Table 6-5 ANOVA Thinking – Feeling Slight Cases Removed......................................... 126
Table 6-6 ANOVA Judging – Perceiving Slight Cases Removed… ................................. 127
Table 6-7 Correlation of Research Findings and ANOVA Confirmation.......................... 129
Table 6-8 ANOVA of the Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and ConstructionAdministrators v. Performance Measures of the CPSF Questionnaire............................... 130
Table 6-9 Descriptive Statistics of Sensing-Intuition Dichotomy ..................................... 130
Table 6-10 ANOVA of the Personality Results of the Four Service Categories ............... 131
vii
Table 6-11 Descriptive Statistics for Each Service Category............................................. 132
Table 6-12 Research Sample’s Distribution of Preferences v. National Sample .............. 133
Table 6-13 Correlation of Respondent’s Educational Level and Variables… ................... 134
Table 6-14 Correlation Results…....................................................................................... 136
Table 6-15 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation for Sample of Tenure < 5 Years ......... 139
Table 6-16 ANOVA Planning – Extraversion/Introversion - Tenure < 5 Years ............... 140
Table 7-1 Research Findings .............................................................................................. 150
APPENDICES
Appendix A: References and Bibliography........................................................................ 156
Appendix B: Critical Success Factors Questionnaire......................................................... 169
Appendix C: Questionnaire Variants and TablesC-1 Original 52 Item Questionnaire Mapped by Category and Dichotomy.................... 182C-2 Items Removed from the Questionnaire ................................................................... 198C-3 Raw Point Range - Mapping..................................................................................... 201C-4 Individual Question Factor Analysis ........................................................................ 203C-5 Reliability Analysis of the Full Sample Final Version of the CSF Questionnaire
and MBTI Responses................................................................................................ 206C-6 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Scores of the Respondent Results ................ 208C-7 Type Distribution of Respondents ............................................................................ 210C-8 ANOVA Results of Whole Type and Combination Influence v. Independent
Dimensions of Personality ....................................................................................... 212C-9 Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire Survey Results ............................... 220C-10 Respondents MBTI Type, Intensity (Clarity) of Personality Dimensions
and Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire Results..................................... 227C-11 Inter-Correlation of the Original 52 Questionnaire .................................................. 230
Appendix D: Plan of Study................................................................................................. 246
Appendix E: Author’s Resume........................................................................................... 247
1
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION
In the Construction Industry there is significant momentum for change in the way
building projects are completed. The traditional, systematic process of planning, design,
construction and occupancy, all performed by separate entities, is giving way to
alternative approaches to project delivery. These approaches, consolidating groups of
people traditionally responsible for separate functions in the project’s delivery, are
resulting in new forms of organizational structure and hierarchy for the design and
construction of these works. Whether these new project design teams are called Design-
Build, Concurrent Engineering, Partnering, Construction Management or any one of a
number of titles, the impact is the same. In order for such projects to be successful, it is
essential that the participating organizations are comprised of staff that can work
effectively with one another (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997).
One of the first steps in any Building Construction project is the selection of
optimal members of the Design Professional’s workforce, the A/E (Architect-Engineer)
Team. The effective or optimal selection of a firm’s professional composition should
take place before a project is begun, and this will enhance the probability of the team’s
success (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997). An organization, selected, ignoring all of the
factors which play a role in optimizing performance, invites chaos and ultimate project
failure (Kezsbom, 1992).
The characteristics or preferences of one’s personality have been demonstrated in
numerous research studies to be factors impacting job performance (Kichuk and Wiesner,
1997; Tett et. al. 1991, Tizner, 1985; Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Barrick and Mount,
1991; Day and Silverman, 1989). Striving to comply with the need for optimization of
2
individual efforts and a design’s achievement, an organization can no longer look at only
cognitive abilities, education and experience as indicators of predicted performance. The
dimensions of an individual’s personality must therefore be recognized as a significant
factor impacting job performance.
Furthermore, these personality factors are acknowledged to hold potential in the
organization of optimal performance (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997 and Franklin, 1995).
Effective organizations require appropriate talent, efficient procedures, clear roles and
responsibilities. In addition, these teams require an atmosphere for constructive
interpersonal relations, managerial reinforcement and strong diplomatic ties with other
parts of the organization. It is this later group of criteria that relies considerably upon the
presence and interaction of certain personality attributes to yield effective and positive
team performance.
This research holds that the contribution of personality traits of the individual
members of cross-functional, multi-discipline, public sector building design firms will be
significant variables impacting the outcome of various project activities and ultimately,
overall team performance.
Psychometric instruments have been designed to provide trait profiles of people’s
personalities. The major grouping of personality traits have been referred to as the Big-
Five Personality Factors (McCrae and Costa, 1987). These factors, as defined by Costa
and McCrae, are Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability
and Openness to Experience. These factors can be measured and used to provide an
indication of how an individual will react in certain situations, faced with a particular
challenge or task. McCrae and Costa evaluated the five-factor model of personality with
3
the MBTI (McCrae and Costa, 1989). It was found that the MBTI consistently measured
four of the five factors of the five-factor model’s accepted taxonomy. The one factor
neither correlated with, nor measured by the MBTI was Emotional Stability, or
neuroticism, which the present research has chosen to avoid. The avoidance of this
personality trait is because the work of this dissertation is that of an occupational study
and not a clinical effort.
If a reliable indication of expected behavior is a function of personality, and can
be predicted, then logic follows that optimal job assignments and team development may
be expressed as a function of individual personality (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997).
The way an individual interacts with others is a function of both the perception
and decision making components within the makeup of his or her personality. Since it is
possible to use psychometric instruments to define these personality traits, then it may be
possible to predict what the impact of certain combinations of personalities will be on
enhancing, or diminishing, project performance (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997).
The research undertaken in this study is to use personality testing, through the
administration of Form M of the MBTI®. These results are then analyzed against the
Critical Project Success Factors (CPSFs) Questionnaire, developed and tested in this
work. This examination provides a source to evaluate the impact of individual personality
traits on design team member’s performance in the General Building sector of the
Construction Industry.
1.1 Personality Traits, Critical Success Factors and the Construction Industry
The noted Swiss psychologist, Dr. Carl G. Jung, held an unproved theory that
people could be identified by their attitudes and for their preferences in the decision
4
making process (Spoto, 1989). This theory held that people gather information, arrive at
decisions and interact with others in different, yet appropriate, ways. Recognizing the
theory of Jungian psychology, the behavior of participants in any organization, including
all segments of the construction industry, is a function of both personality traits and
contingency variables (Lester and Bombaci, 1984). The circumstances of a construction
project, whether in the planning, design or construction phase, create the situational
factors that will drive the behavior of individuals and organizations in the performance of
critical duties. To these situations, each member of the design team brings with him, or
her, a combination of individual technical knowledge, skill and experience, along with
those personal attributes known as personality traits. It is those traits that are founded in
Jungian psychological theory.
There has been an extensive body of research, and subsequent knowledge
developed, relative to performance and personality characteristics of individuals and
teams (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997; Tett et al. 1991, Tizner, 1985; Maidique and Zirger,
1984; Barrick and Mount, 1991; Day and Silverman, 1989). As we move into a more
technically mechanized and fast paced arena in the construction industry, the role of the
individual’s behavior, driven by the attitude and functions of the personality, will become
a critical concern. With the movement toward greater consolidation of services, hence
greater consolidation of functional roles in the delivery of building construction projects,
the distinct personalities of the individual participants will become a major element in
determining the success or failure of the effort.
Much of the current literature on personality traits, relative to group performance,
emphasizes psychopathology and the avoidance of such characteristics (Driskell, Hogan
5
and Salas, 1987). In light of the recognized need for improved performance of individuals
and groups, the relationship of positive personality traits and performance outcomes
warrants exploration. It is this domain where the MBTI has focused; where its use is
specifically for “normal healthy” persons, capturing relevant characteristics of personality
to differentiate the preferred behavior patterns of individuals. Military service is a prime
arena where negative traits have been the essential metric for whether or not a team
assignment will be made. It has long been recognized that identified personality traits
can be employed in the selection process, and that these traits may be categorized to
either enhance performance or prove detrimental to performance. There is a significantly
greater body of knowledge about “undesirable people than… about (people’s) talent,
competence, and effectiveness” (Driskell, Hogan and Salas, 1987, p. 93).
The design outcome of the concepts, innovations, judgments and detailed plans of
the consulting engineer or architect is, simply put the product. To define and determine
that product’s quality can be somewhat obscure (Saarinen and Hobel, 1990). According
to Saarinen and Hobel, quality is the “conformance to requirements.” It is also held that
if a firm were to provide “requirements without the system or conditions conducive to
success” (Saarinen and Hobel, 1990, p. 179) that there can be no expectation of quality.
It is the position of this research that one of the base ingredients for conditions conducive
to success is the combination of individual talents in conjunction with the proper
personality traits matched with the assignment.
Technical capabilities are relatively easy to identify, judge and monitor on both an
individual and team basis. Recognition and identification of individual personality traits,
along with the interaction of those traits in work groups and teams is another matter.
6
Saarinen and Hobel state “that every transaction engaged in by a company’s
people in the chain from project initiation to delivery to the ultimate customer has a
quality dimension to it. Each of those interfaces must be performed as well as
possible…” (Saarinen and Hobel, 1990, p. 179) lest the chain be broken and exposure to
the conditions of failure will follow. This is a profound and important observation in that
there is a clear identification of the “chain” of the design process. Each module of
activity is a new creation in the design process. There is a fundamental need for each of
those elements to arrive at the subsequent phase in a state of high quality. If the product
does not arrive at the subsequent project phase in high quality, therein may very well lie
the genesis of what has been referred to as the “Sinister Momentum” (Vorster, 1998) for
project failure.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that personality variables are valid and
important predictors of performance outcomes, particularly when matched with the
appropriate occupation (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997; Tett et al. 1991, Tizner, 1985;
Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Barrick and Mount, 1991; Day and Silverman, 1989). This
critical element should then be recognized as having a potentially significant impact on
project quality. In order to achieve a project’s best results it is important to maintain
congruency between personalities and project situations through the appropriate
assignment of personnel to specific job functions, work teams, and even project phase. A
representative of the design firm with a personality incongruent with the hectic,
accelerated pace of a fast-track construction program could lead to immeasurable
problems. Such a situation would likely need an intuitive engineer or architect who is
7
open to new ways of getting things accomplished, and is comfortable dealing outside of
himself, with other people.
In contrast, disaster may follow when the firm is working on getting the job
designed, put on paper and out the door, if the job is not managed by task oriented, reality
based individuals. A design project is likely destined for trouble if left to the direction of
a personality such as that described in the previous paragraph, open to new ideas and
always looking for another way of arranging the job.
In each of these cases, it is a different set of personality traits driving the action.
The impact of those personalities can result in an integral component of success or failure
that can be summed up in two words, “good judgment.” It is this judgment, which is
primarily situational, which can set in motion the conditions of project success, or project
failure.
It is condensed into the concept of “judgment,” when decisions made in complex
and constraining work environments, under conditions of both uncertainty and stress,
where the natural preference of an individual’s personality will dictate behavior with
greatest clarity (Myers, 1980 and Jensen, 1982). One of the purposes of this research is
to identify the personality patterns which, when viewed in conjunction with that complex
of an organization’s task, will serve as a predictor of success or failure on an individual
basis. The goal of this research is to evaluate the relationship between personality traits
and the factors of success or failure.
Throughout industry, there has been a significant effort to focus on and evaluate
personality traits as measures and predictors of performance on the job (Tett, Jackson and
Rothstein, 1991). A number of psychometric instruments have been utilized in an effort
8
to capture the characteristics of the behavior of individuals into distinct categories of
personalities. Two of the most widely accepted, and broadly employed instruments are
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) (Myers, McCaully, Quenk and Hammer,
1998) and an instrument using the Five-Factor Model of Personality Inventory (McCrae
and Costa, 1987, Goldberg, 1990, and Ghiselli, 1973). There are a number of instruments
that focus on the Five-Factor Model; however, one of the most popularly reported is the
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI®) (McCrae and Costa, 1989).
There is a high correlation of the personality factors of the Five-Factor Model,
when evaluated with those of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (McCrae and
Costa, 1989 and, Johnson, 1995). The major difference between the MBTI and the other
instruments, whether they be the NEO-PI, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI), or any of the others, is that the MBTI is designed for use only in a
“normal population” (Myers, et al., 1998, and Barrick and Mount, 1991). Although there
are a number of supporting reasons, on the strength of the instrument’s focus on a normal
population, the MBTI® is chosen as the appropriate psychometric instrument for this
research.
The approach using personality traits for the prediction of job performance has
gained wide acceptance in recent years. The validity of personality types, or traits, has
gained recognition through meta-analyses performed by various researchers, with
significant and recent work completed by Barrick and Mount (1991); and Tett, Jackson
and Rothstein (1991). It has been discovered that a major problem with the early work of
personality theory application and job performance prediction, was that studies had
9
utilized such a broad array of personality traits and attributes that they appeared to have
little or no importance for the job in question (Ghiselli, 1973).
Several important and encouraging findings have been reported in recent literature
(Tett, et al., 1991). These efforts have found that performance prediction using
personality profiling for professional staff was significantly higher than it was for non-
professional staff. These predictions were also true for managerial versus non-
managerial personnel (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Recent work has also found that
increases in tenure, age and incumbency in the job were all conditions that increase the
validity of using personality factors as predictors of performance. This is a significant
finding in light of the mandatory intern period for design professionals, prior to being
awarded a license to practice either engineering or architecture.
These reported results are particularly applicable in this dissertation, since it has
provided valuable guidance on establishing a correlation between Critical Success
Factors (CSF’s) and personality traits. These studies by others suggest that the
investigation of older, higher tenured professional and managerial staff, having held their
particular positions for some time, (incumbency), will provide the highest probability for
the collection of stable and predictive personality traits for comparison to job and project
performance measures.
Based on the above summary of information, consolidating the validity of
personality traits as an influencing factor for the prediction of job performance, it seems
reasonable to expect that these personality factors should play an equally important and
valid role in the determinant of group performance. There are a number of considerations
and questions that arise as we consider the implications of personality traits on the
10
performance of organizations. It is reported that group performance “often differ(s) from
the simple additivity model” (Tziner, 1985). Tziner reported a number of apparently
competing phenomena in team performance. The question of homogeneity of teams on
complex projects leading to enhanced performance (Tziner, 1985) is at odds with the
work of Pearce and Ravlin, (1987) that suggests the greatest performance will be
achieved through a team of heterogeneous composition. This inconsistency in research
findings highlights then that a clear design and definition of the team and its objectives is
needed prior to prediction of performance outcomes. What will work in one situation or
project phase, vis-à-vis team composition, may prove a dismal failure under different
circumstances. This enhances the proposition of the criticality of an individual’s
preferred behavior pattern and subsequent performance.
A specific situation may impact performance relative to an organization or group.
Respect and trust between members may provide the understanding that could lead a
heterogeneous team toward a homogeneous functioning. An effective and homogeneous
team, intuitively appropriate for a particular job assignment because of the need for good
communication, cooperative relations and a pleasant interpersonal atmosphere, could
provide for the best team. In a situation such as in the final design phase of a project,
where different staff members are all working cooperatively on separate aspects of the
same project, the aggregation of individual capabilities that are homogeneous may in fact
provide the most effective team.
The theory of Pearce and Ravlin (1987) is that the highest performing teams are
those that are composed of individuals with diverse personality traits (attitudes and
abilities). This heterogeneity can be useful in the planning, or the design development
11
phase of a construction project, where innovation and problem solving are called for.
This research holds that the keys are communication, understanding, respect and trust to
enhance effective performance. Personality characteristics with a preference towards
coping with uncertainty, as well as dealing with innovation may be called for here.
During the detailed design phase of a project, where work just needs to be “cranked out”
to stay within budget and schedule, a “new and innovative” approach to the design of
standard details could prove devastating to the project.
An integral component of this study is the consideration of personality
interactions of different members of the multi-task design team, and the impacts on
success or failure of project phase activities.
12
CHAPTER 2PERSONALITY AND CRITICAL SUCCESS PERFORMANCE
RESEARCH: A LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Changing Role of the Design Professional
For decades, the construction industry has functioned in a relatively stable
approach in the delivery of design and construction services to clients and owners. The
owner identified a need, and the Architect/ Engineer (A/E) team conducted studies,
developed a planned program to satisfy that need, prepared detailed design documents
and oversaw construction. These created plans and professional services provided the
directions to guide the construction forces in the building of the facility. The inter-
relationships of the planning and design task, although well defined, have always
presented the participants with a “complex situation” (Douglas, p. 1).
The construction industry, and the public bid general building sector in particular,
is changing. The businesses in this industry are in a period of consolidation, through
acquisitions and mergers, according to FMI Management Consultants, a leading
consultant to the construction industry with headquarters in Raleigh (Engineering Times,
p. 14). These acquisitions include mergers of traditional design firms with construction
companies. The industry is facing owners and clients who are demanding one point of
project responsibility. This demand is placing more risks on the deliverers of design and
construction services, with less being retained by the project owner. A/E firms are
moving into project services where greater risk exists, along with broader responsibilities
(Engineering Times, p. 14).
As these new consortiums are formed, we find dissimilar members are
participating in various branches of the design and/or construction process. The old,
13
traditional and stable team of design professionals working together, as they had for
years, if not decades, find themselves in a complicated mix. This new and challenging
environment seems to become more complex with every project.
The idea that we can predict and control the work through our traditional time
tested methods of management is simply not enough. Daily, the world becomes more
complex. Prudent management would dictate that if a factor can be predicted, reducing
risk, an effort should be made toward such predictions. These results may then be
factored into the organizational equation. While the factors of education, experience and
cognitive ability have served us well over time, James Gleick, in his 1987 bestseller
Chaos, summarizes this concept efficiently. “Tiny differences in input could quickly
become overwhelming differences in output – a phenomenon given the name ‘sensitive
dependence on initial condition’” (Gleick, 1987, p. 8). Clearly, personality traits account
for one factor in the “initial conditions” which can direct an outcome in one direction
(success) or onto the opposite path. Much of the initial work in this field, predicting
performance based on personalities, was initiated to avoid negative behaviors and
undesirable traits (Driskell, Hogan and Silas, 1987).
In the past, it was not unusual for a design team to be together for literally
decades. Today, the most critical issues facing consulting engineering firms is to “retain
and motivate quality employees” (Hecker, 1996). As in many other industries, the
Architectural and Engineering Design professions are not immune to labor shortages.
This has led to a new way of forming teams through aggressive recruitment of
professional staff, often using signing bonuses as an enticement to lure staff to a
particular firm (Stussman, p. 27). This mobile and transient workforce places a new
14
challenge on the managers of these professionals, to put together an effective design
group of professionals. With little or no time to create a culture, let alone really get to
know one another and put together design teams based upon the temperaments of the
individuals, the positive potency of the professional group will likely be a lucky
coincidence. In fact, according to Mike Robbins, temporary employees assigned from
agencies are commonplace in technical fields such as engineering (Robbins 1998). It is
reported that “(t)emporary professionals are increasing twice as fast as the temporary
workforce as a whole” (Robbins, 1998, p. 42).
It is an accepted premise that there are fundamental standards for the
development of successful teams and the creation of effective teamwork. Gibson (1996)
promotes the idea that there are three fundamental criteria that define a successful team.
These criteria are training/education, communication and ownership. However, in order
to put together an effective team for a particular job, there is much more to the task than
simply selecting a group of technically competent engineers who can talk to one another.
It takes the right team; or in other words, the right mix of people to make it all work.
It is reported in the work of Ghiselli (1975) that investigations using tests as a
prediction of job performance can be traced back to Munsterberg, who in 1910 conducted
research on the selection of motormen. This work coincided with the advancement of
what is now commonly referred to as scientific management, the work of efficiency
expert Frederick Taylor. Continuing through the 1920’s, the validity of personnel
selection based upon aptitude, intellectual ability, spatial ability, perceptual accuracy,
motor abilities and personality traits was tested (Ghiselli, 1975). These tests, including
15
personality traits, began to yield encouraging information relative to the usefulness of this
data as a predictive tool in the effective assignment of persons to jobs.
This is supported in the work of a number of researchers who have investigated
the relationship between personality and performance. Personality variables have been
shown to be “significant predictors of job performance when carefully matched with the
appropriate occupation and organization” (Day and Silverman, 1989, p. 24). The
variable of personality in an individual is an effective predictor, supporting cognitive
ability, in assessing which prospect is apt to work well within a firm. Wherever a job’s
function requires the employee to work within a team setting, there is not only a cognitive
element to the work, but an interpersonal aspect. The task requirement is recognized as
an important factor in performance, however, particularly in a setting with a need for
active team performance, this task completion is strongly linked to a people requirement.
This people factor effectiveness has been shown to be a predictable function when
considering occupation, organization and personality traits (Day and Silverman, 1989).
While a number of early research studies were less than successful in establishing
any clear relationship between personality traits and job performance, (Locke and Hulin,
1962, Hedlund, 1965, Guion and Gottier, 1965) recent work in this area has demonstrated
significant improvement (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997; Tett et al. 1991, Tizner, 1985;
Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Barrick and Mount, 1991; Day and Silverman, 1989). The
1965 work of Guion and Gottier is one of the most commonly referenced works in
advocating the difficulty of using personality factors in performance prediction. The
Meta-Analysis of Tett, Jackson and Rothstein, (Tett, et al. 1991) using the “Big Five”
16
personality factors, found significant “grounds for optimism concerning the use of
personality measures in employee selection” (Tett, et. al 1991, p. 703).
Guion and Gottier (1965) concluded that personality traits would require
validation, with adequate regard of the specific task framework. Unlike aptitude tests of
general cognitive ability that have been proven as important performance predictors
across employment settings, personality traits do not offer the same level of inter-
correlation (Tett, et al. 1991). Job analysis directed at specific personality requirements
is an area of research supported as valid by Tett et al. (1991).
As mergers and acquisitions take place, new teams will be formed and mobilized,
based upon the availability of professional staff. The research of Keller (1986) suggests
that the highest performing teams are those with the longest tenure. This finding supports
that of Barrick and Mount (1991) where tenure was found to mediate personality factors
as performance predictors. Unfortunately, the variable of rapid team formation will not
allow for the essential factor of “tenure” to take its course. The impact of rapid formation
on how these units will function clearly does not support a prediction of high
performance. If the team’s personality factors will be considered during formation,
research has shown the results on performance can be positive, (Day and Silverman,
1989), and an advantage to success can be seized.
The need to ensure the creation of high performing design teams will be critical to
successful projects. It is the design effort that has the greatest impact on the success of a
project (Badawy 1995, Post 1998). Badawy emphasizes that the leading cause of project
failure is “poor conception of the project” (Badawy 1995, p. 262). He further suggests
17
that the first phase to ensure project success is to “appoint a capable project manager with
the proper mix of technical, interpersonal (emphasis added), and administrative skills.”
It is essential that these groups have the technical skills to perform the task ahead
of them, but it is equally important that they have the capacity to function well as a unit.
It is commonly held that the character of the individual is an important factor in
determining whether the effort of the group will result in success, or will follow on a path
to disaster.
Since in the construction industry, teams of people necessarily undertake most
tasks, the effects of group performance and team personality interactions are important.
Within such work groups cooperation, cohesiveness and coordination are imperative for
the attainment of effective results (Tziner, 1985).
Therefore, the goal of this research is to investigate the factors of personality that
will enhance the effective selection, formation, maintenance and intervening adjustments
to Architectural and Engineering design professionals for the Building Sector of the
Construction Industry. This is accomplished through the correlation of individual
personality traits and critical success factors (performance measurements).
2.2 Personality and Behavioral Data
“Happy is the manager who understands his own philosophy, who report to like
minded supervisors, who hires employees who share the same outlook or at least can live
with it, and who is able to implement his preferred (emphasis added) management style
with personal ease and organizational efficiency. Unhappy (as well as ineffective or a
cause of chaos) is the manager who is caught in an organization that does not share his
natural inclinations (emphasis added)” (Kline and Coleman, 1992, pg. 17).
18
The investigation of personality traits, attributes and/or characteristics alone will
only begin to hint at a prediction relative to expected performance. It is the behavior of
the individual, which is the outcome of the combination of personality traits and
situations, which becomes of value to the manager. The example offered by Day and
Silverman, (1989) compares the job of an accountant versus the duties of a fireman.
While cognitive ability plays a role in determining the successful performance in either
job, so do “relevant personality traits” (Day and Silverman, 1989, p. 26). It is not
probable that individuals performing within these two diverse occupations, when judged
to be functioning at a high level of success will hold the same traits. Different sets of
personality traits will likely be congruous with the achievement levels of different
occupations (Day and Silverman, 1989).
Most managerial decisions, necessary throughout the design and construction of a
building project, require a contingency or situational approach, which requires the design
professional to assess any given set of circumstances to make a decision. The objectively
oriented engineer or architect, when dealing with technical matters is generally thought to
be within his element. He is often less than comfortable in dealing with the subjective
world of interpersonal, informational and decisional roles (Nelson, 1988).
Much of the success or failure in the design and construction industry will be a
function of client satisfaction, or client perceived value (Ahmed and Kangari, 1995).
Recognizing that the client is a member of the project team, this consideration increases
the complexity of achieving a successful project. This is the entrance of yet another
uncertain, and in some sense, random variable into the complex of the formation of
effective project performance. Ahmed (1995) promotes that primary service providers
19
who have direct contact with clients and others on the overall project team, outside of
their own firm, should possess good interpersonal skills. These interpersonal skills, or
other attributes of personality for any particular job function should come natural to those
assigned to particular duties. Within the basic premise of personality theory, it is
accepted that people, when under stress, are most comfortable and at ease when working
in their preferred functions and attitudes.
As stated previously, in earlier studies (Locke and Hulin, 1962, Hedlund, 1965,
Guion and Gottier, 1965) there was a problem in correlating, in a valid and reproducible
manner, personality traits and job performance. It has been reported that this was due in
part, to not having a well-understood and valid taxonomy for the classification of
personality traits (Barrick and Mount, 1991). As early as 1932, W. McDougall reported
in the first issue of Character Personality that, “Personality may to advantage be broadly
analyzed into five distinguishable but separate factors, namely intellect, character,
temperament, disposition and temper…” (Barrick and Mount, 1991, p.2). Throughout the
years, different researchers have promoted various theories ranging from those that are
impracticably complex, to those which are uselessly simple. The impressive body of
literature, that this study has found, continues to return again and again to two primary,
and, in fact, complementary taxonomies; the Big-Five factor of personality and the
Myers-Briggs typology, based on the psychological theory of Carl Jung. While a number
of researchers have adopted the Big Five factor of personality (Extraversion, Emotional
Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) each seems to
have their own interpretation of the meaning of each factor (Norman, 1963, Barrick and
Mount 1991, Goldberg, 1990, and McCrae and Costa, 1985).
20
The alternate taxonomy, in common and widespread use, is the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI®). The advantages of this measure of personality are numerous,
including the fact that its wide acceptance may be found in that it is for use in “normal”
populations and offers little guidance in clinical cases. The factor of “emotional
stability” is noticeably absent in the MBTI®. The MBTI® is based on Jung’s classic
statement of personality theory, and is designed to measure types (dichotomous values),
rather than traits (continuous values).
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) defines four personality measures, or
Types. As stated previously, these Type measures are viewed, not as scales, but rather as
dichotomies, where an individual’s preferred state is defined. This powerful instrument,
which has been extensively tested for validity and reliability, measures and reports
personality factors as Types rather than traits. The scoring, though, does record
responses on a continuous scale, which allows further analysis of data. The basic measure
of the MBTI is the preferred direction in four dimensions of personality, and can be used
to identify an individual’s preferences. In this way it can be used as a predictor of
behavior and performance in various circumstances (Myers, et al., 1998). It may also be
used to evaluate the strength of the particular personality preference that will aid in the
evaluation efforts of this research. For these additional reasons it is the MBTI® that has
been chosen as the psychometric instrument for use in this study. The detailed discussion
of the MBTI personality dichotomies is presented in the later sub-section entitled
“Individual Personality Traits”.
21
2.3 Industry Application
There are many reasons why the construction industry is particularly influenced
by the composition of teams. One reason is the varying characteristic of the individual
personalities of the participants in each phase of a building project. The Construction
Industry Institute’s publication 12-2 (CII, 1991) provides a Comparison of Construction
Culture in their Table 3 (page 26). These comparative cultures shed light on the
uniqueness and the differences between the construction industry and other industries.
These differences relate to objectives, rewards, players, systems, procedures, time and
space. For example, considering “objectives”, the CII reports that the manufacturing
industry “tends to be centralized, homogeneous, top down driven… reconciled by (a)
single authority… (c)lear, non-conflicting and controlled.” On the other hand, a project
in the construction industry is apt to involve “(m)any companies” with varied objectives.
The objectives may “ be schedule, profit, cost, safety, professional credo, liability…” and
the objectives may be those of “conflicting-adversaries.” Recognizing that when any
procedure is grounded in such diverse objectives it will certainly experience at some level
“conflict”, and the control of this conflict is essential to avoid chaos and failure. The
Five Stages of Conflict (Nadler, 1998) move rapidly from the impersonal, “fixing the
problem”, to subsequent stages, all with significant dimensions of “personal”. One of the
key elements to be recognized and dealt with by those charged with controlling and
resolving disagreements as they arise, is the containment of “personal” antagonism, prior
to the conflict taking on an existence of its own quite apart from the actual technical issue
which is the origin of the trouble.
22
These diverse goals can also lead to situations of great stress, with a high
potential for hostility and “failure”, on a job by job basis. Since each project is generally
composed of a new set of “teams” (owner, designers and contractors) in the public
building sector of the construction industry, there is little opportunity to develop long-
term understandings and relationships to enhance and improve the interactions of the
players. It is critical to have the right people, in the right assignments, from the beginning
of the project, to minimize the initiation of conflict, and have the people in place with the
temperament to mitigate those situations when they do arise.
In the design phase of the project, it is critical to minimize errors and deficiencies
which, if undetected, can lead to potential negative impacts on the construction process.
During construction there are more participants actively involved in the building process.
As the number of participants increases in any phase of the project, the opportunity for
conflict increases geometrically. Disciplined and scheduled planning and design reviews
can provide significant protection for a project through the detection and correction of
design conflicts and errors (Lutz, et al. 1990), but it takes the right managerial and
technical personality to provide that quality control function.
Research has shown that job-relevant personality scales are significantly related to
job performance. These performance outcomes are predicted through personality traits
with greater accuracy and validity, than if predicted based on cognitive ability only (Day
and Silverman, 1989). Therefore, it can be surmised that in order to enhance the
probability for a successful outcome, the project needs persons with the right abilities, in
the right situations, who possess the proper personality characteristics to deal with the
people and situations of the moment. The evaluation of work related personality traits,
23
and understanding the implications of those traits will help improve employee task
assignment and problem intervention, which will subsequently improve the probability
for a successful project outcome.
On any project, an individual, group or team must meet certain criteria in order to
be successful (Hensey 1991). What is needed for any project is a mix of people; these
Hensey refers to as bottom-line people, visionaries, and technically wise people. What is
being said is that there is a need for people with different views, temperaments and
personalities to perform a variety of functions effectively. High performance teams value
diversity of personalities when placed in the proper functional roles (Hensey, 1991). The
basic managerial roles are identified as; producer, administrator, entrepreneur,
interrogator and leader. Hensey recognizes that there is no one manager who holds these
capabilities. That is because each of these roles parallels a unique set of personality traits
that are held by unique individuals. This research work investigates the particular
personality traits that maximize performance outcomes, such as those described by
Hensey.
2.3.1 Current Examples of Industry Application
In the conduct of this work several firms have been investigated where personality
factors and their measurements are used. This sub-section of this study moves beyond a
strict literature review and reports on several examples of the current use of these
psychometric tools, their methods and their perceived effectiveness.
In each of the organizations investigated there existed the common theme for “the
importance of the selected psychological test to answer the question management held”
(Nitsch, 1999). It was recognized by each organization that there are valid limitations in
24
the tester’s training, experience and professional objectives, as well as the competency in
the proper interpretation of the test results. Often the testing is done by outside
professionals. For example, one firm pays a professional management consultant an
annual fee to perform the administrative and interpretation tasks associated with their
psychometric application. On the other hand, one case study organization was “seminar
trained” in an alternative psychological “type” instrument called the Enneagram, used as
a method of psychological evaluation. The firms investigated varied in size, offering
substantial variations in instruments used. This investigation demonstrated the breadth of
psychometric testing currently in use within the industry.
Each organization reported value in the psychometric testing. In addition, the
participants in such training/testing sessions gained the added benefits of self-awareness
and empathy. It is here that we begin to see the value of personality preferences beyond
managerial awareness. Much of the psychological testing and application is to enhance
“self-awareness.” Once a self-awareness is achieved we begin to move into a zone where
there is hope of ideal communications. George Kelly, the noted cognitive psychologist,
stated the “ideal communication takes place when one person understands how another
person sees the world” (Burger, 1997 p. 503).
This portion of the research has served to clarify the essential role that
communication plays in the development of cooperation and trust on a project. Without
effective communication there can be no expectation of understanding between the
participants within the construction process. If one is unable to cross the hurdle of
understanding, gaining the associated quality of empathy, there can be no expectation for
the development of respect between the parties. Likewise, without respect, there can be
25
little hope for the development of trust. In summary, who would possess a desire to be
on a project team with others they believe that they cannot trust or respect? It is unlikely
one would succeed where there was no appreciation for the other team members’ goals
and aspirations. Without these critical elements there is no opportunity to effectively
achieve the project goals that the ultimate user of the constructed facility expects. The
suffering will be evidenced in the project's quality, efficiency, costs and even safety. The
entire process will suffer.
A psychometric instrument may be selected for the sole purpose of behavioral
prediction and diagnosis. The prediction of individual behavior was not, in itself, the sole
purpose of the tests conducted by the group investigated in this research, but rather the
promotion of a better understanding of the motivating factors which impact behaviors.
With the use of these tests in organizational settings, rather than clinical settings, the goal
is the understanding of personality driven behavioral patterns, contrasted with the clinical
psychologist’s objective of intervention; an attempt to change behavior. The application
in the A/E/C (Architecture, Engineering and Construction) Industry is for use with
“normal-healthy” individuals and not intended to offer insight in dealing with neurosis
within any of the firms participating in the investigation.
The three firms interviewed provide a wide range of service offerings, firm size
and management orientation. In addition, each of the three firms used a different
psychometric instrument, for a different purpose, and at different intervals. These three
cases offer a broad cross-sectional view of the industry and will offer a better
understanding of the basis for this proposed research.
26
2.3.2 Firm Interviews and Profiles:
Firm A (JNE) is a full service civil engineering and surveying firm specializing in
the design of educational facilities, senior housing and commercial facilities sectors of
the construction industry. The firm’s staff is made up of 55 full-time employees, of which
43 are professional and technical staff members. It is estimated that the gross annual
billings for the firm range between $3 and $4 million dollars in fees for service. JNE
uses the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for leadership and team building, while
using the Predictive Index (PI) for all employees and new hires.
Firm B (MAE), like JNE, is also a full service Civil/MEP engineering firm,
however, this firm also holds prime consultant status on a number of major Architectural
projects. The firm is made up of approximately 110 employees and associates. There are
10 partners, comprising the professions of Architecture, Engineering and Surveying. It
was reported that the gross annual billings for the firm are estimated to exceed $10
million dollars per year. MAE uses the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for
leadership development and managerial assignments.
Firm C (RGC) was selected due to the principal’s keen interest in the use of the
Enneagram, an increasingly popular, yet “non-mainstream” psychometric instrument.
The unique application of personality profiling using the Enneagram adds breadth to the
research, and RGC’s principal was willing to openly share his views and uses of the
instrument.
RGC is a small, specialty engineering and construction firm specializing in the
niche market of tunneling work. The firm’s principal also provides expert witness and
27
negotiation services across the country. The size of the firm’s staff varies by project,
however, it was primarily the principal who uses the Enneagram.
2.3.3 The Alternate Psychometric Instruments:
The three psychometric tools, tests or instruments used by the firms are the
Predictive Index, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Form G, and the Enneagram. The
basics of each of these tools are described, along with their use, in the following
paragraphs.
The Predictive Index and Firm A.:
The Predictive Index is a tool developed in 1955 by the principal of a firm in
Wellesley, Massachusetts called Praendex. The basic instrument is a classic
psychometric method of a self-report Adjective Checklist. The goal of the checklist
approach is to provide a “snapshot” of an individual’s personality. The PI is an 86 item
adjective list. The respondent is to make a choice of preferred adjectives describing how
they believe others would view them. This is followed with the test subject using the
same adjective checklist, then selecting those words that “truly describe” themselves.
Typical adjectives include “patient, passive, restless, dutiful, obstinate, innovative and
talkative” (Atanasov, pg. 10). The process takes about 15 minutes.
The question then becomes does it work? Can a quick tool such as the PI provide
meaningful information? The Handbook of Psychological Assessment, (1997) reports
that when dealing with external social reinforcements, or in other words, when you are in
a “real world” situation, predicting “real world” behavior, self-report questionnaires
provide impressive results of correlation scores (∆= 0.35). The adjective checklist is one
of the self-report methods discussed and reported on in this reference handbook.
28
The PI measures four traits of personality reported as A, B, C and D. The four
measurements are for A - Dominance, B - Extraversion, C – Patience, and D - Caution
and Duty. The theory of this simplified measurement tool is to combine the high and low
measurement traits with job characteristics that fit a particular assignment. For example,
if the firm’s principal was to look for a staff member to “sell” her firm as a marketing
specialist, she might look for a high A, even higher B with low scores on both C and D
(Nitsch, 1999). If it were a draftsperson she was attempting to place, the opposite traits
might be sought. Low A’s and B’s would be desired in order that the person will not
become impatient working in one location all day. It would be expected that someone
who is methodical and cautious with a sense of duty, a high C and D, would be useful
here.
It was reported that the firm has been using the Predictive Index System with
management consultant for several years. Prior to that, the experience with psychological
testing was at the managerial level, with the firm using the Form F, MBTI to develop
team understanding. The firm’s view is that the details of the MBTI are beyond that
needed for hiring and initial work assignments.
The Predictive Index is used by the management consultant to objectively
measure traits that will impact work behavior, but this information is then blended with
the standard practice of candidate interviews, background investigations, educational
preparation and experience evaluation to make a hiring decision. In addition, Firm A
uses the PI as a tool viewed as “easy to understand”, and not as prone to
misinterpretation.
29
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Form F), and Firm B:
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a personality measurement tool that has been
used in many studies on engineers and technical professionals (Myers, et. al, 1998). The
use of the MBTI is secure, in that it is an extensively researched instrument recognized
and accepted for personality measurement. The Handbook of Psychological Assessment
(1997) lists the Sixteen-Personality Factors Test, the NEO-PI-R, the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator and the Adjective Checklist as the four primary instruments for general
personality measurement. Other tests are listed for areas of psychology such as
“interpersonal patterns”, “schizophrenia prognosis”, “depression”, and “intellectual
functioning” to name a few. This list develops a comparison between the “General
Personality Measures” and the other more clinical domains.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is reported to be the tool preferred by managers
of many of the country’s leading companies (Gibson, et. al, 1996). Exxon, General
Electric and Apple are named as users of the instrument.
The concept of the MBTI is based on the work of the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl
Jung who saw sensing and intuition as influencing a person’s perception, while thinking
and feeling impact an individual’s judgment (Myers, et. al, 1998). Myers and Briggs
went on to develop a test which follows the basic principles of an adjective checklist,
where a subject chooses from a word pair the item that appeals to them more. The
example of planned/open might be a typical choice. From this an indication of a person’s
preference for structure or openness to experiences can be drawn, which is a measure of
the Judging-Perceiving preference. This is one of the four scales of personality defined
and measured in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
30
While the MBTI is not viewed as a test, and there are no “right or wrong”
answers, the tool does sort personalities by four preference scales (Myers, et. al, 1998).
These are not referred to as “traits” in MBTI, they are “type” measurements indicating a
non-scalar measurement, or a dichotomous sorting of personalities. The evaluations of
the scalar testing scores are commonly used in research. The scales, or dichotomies are
Introversion (I) / Extraversion (E), Sensing (S) / Intuition (N), Thinking (T) / Feeling (F),
and Judging (J) / Perceiving (P) (Myers, et. al, 1998). For additional information on the
MBTI Dichotomies, refer to the sub-section 2.6, entitled “Individual Personality Traits”.
The E/I scale measures the focus of a person’s preferred source of energy and
stimulation, from the outside world (extraversion), or from an internal source
(introversion). The J/P scale identifies a person’s preference for closure on an issue
(judging) or the preference to keep options open (perceiving). These two traits outline a
person’s “attitude” in dealing with the outside world, theoretically sorting people into
Type.
The following two scales determine a person’s preference for how they collect
data and subsequently make their decisions (Myers, et. al, 1998). The sensing/intuition,
(S/N) dimension measures how people gather information and data, with their senses;
what you can touch, see and feel, or with their intuition; what they can imagine or
connect from the hard, sensed data collected. Likewise the thinking/feeling, (T/F)
dimension then offers an indication of how a person makes his/her decision; with one’s
head (logical and analytical) or with one’s heart (subject and value based) (Myers, et. al,
1998).
31
The use of the MBTI is a rather complex psychometric exercise, particularly
when using it for management training and team-building work as the Firm B is doing
with their executive group.
Current roles of the firm’s senior management are reviewed and assessments
made as to points of strength and weakness in each assignment and group. Points of
potential conflict of types, styles and even values are assessed as the firm undergoes its
annual review of its officers’, directors’ and management duties.
Certain appraisals of the firm’s personality profile are conducted when new
stockholders are being considered. It is reported in the literature (Myers, et al., 1998) that
firms sometimes find themselves in the “likes like likes” syndrome, and that when new
people are considered for stock acquisition the mix of personalities needs to be taken into
account. This accounting is both to ensure a broad mix of personality types in order to
prevent corporate myopia, and to take into account the potential for major conflicts in the
corporate decision process. In order to understand the “groupthink” syndrome, it is
important to understand the distribution of Type across a national sample. The MBTI
Training Manual (Myers, et. al, 1998) is the data source for the percentage of people in a
national sample that fall within each MBTI Type. This information is helpful in allowing
an organization to discover if there exists a balance within their ranks of all Types, or if
they suffer from an unbalanced distribution of personality Types, self-selected to “fit in”;
likes like likes. This information is presented in Figure 2-1, Type Distribution – National
representative Sample (Base Population).
32
ISTJ SFFJ INFJ INTJ% % % %
Total Population 11.6 13.8 1.5 2.1Male 16.4 8.1 1.2 3.3
Female 6.9 19.4 1.6 0.9ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
% % % %Total Population 5.4 8.8 4.4 3.3
Male 8.5 7.6 4.1 4.8Female 2.3 9.9 4.6 1.7
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP% % % %
Total Population 4.3 8.5 8.1 3.2Male 5.6 6.9 6.4 4
Female 3.0 10.1 9.7 2.4ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
% % % %Total Population 8.7 12.3 2.5 1.8
Male 11.2 7.5 1.6 2.7Female 6.3 16.9 3.3 0.9
Figure 2 - 1. Type Distribution - National Representative Sample (Base Population)
The Enneagram and Firm C:
The Enneagram is a psychometric instrument that classifies people into one of
nine different types. Each of these types falls into one of three major subdivisions of
personality according to the theory. While tools such as the MBTI, the Predictive Index,
Keirsey’s Temperament Sorter and others have become popular in the corporate world
for hiring and management, the Enneagram has found increasing recognition in the
mainstream of society, although not the mainstream of corporate America. While the
Enneagram is being promoted as a method of self-understanding, the true value of
understanding oneself is clearly captured in Jung’s quote, “Everything that irritates us
about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves” (Hall and Nordby, 1973).
33
The concept of the Enneagram is that each of the nine personality types holds
certain traits that allow for the prediction of emotional makeup. These various
personalities are coupled with a strategy for facing life and all its challenges (Riso, 1996).
From this, the practitioner using the Enneagram may understand his/her own personality,
and is then also able to identify the personalities of others, and thus predict their
motivations and behaviors. The concept further holds that the personalities are actually
groups of human emotions and behaviors that are both positive and negative.
The nine personality types that form the Enneagram are grouped into three
categories or triads. The three triads are: the feeling, the doing and the relating
categories. Within the triads, there are three types in each, which lead to nine
personalities in total. Different literature refers to these by different names. A common
listing is 1. The perfectionist, 2. The giver, 3. The performer, 4. The romantic, 5. The
observer, 6. The questioner, 7. The epicure, 8. The boss, 9. The mediator (Clough, 1999).
While it is beyond the scope of this research to go into detail on the individual
characteristics of each of these Enneagram personalities, each one consists of its own
descriptive definition of type. One example would be that the giver would be empathetic
and demonstrative, but can be intrusive and manipulative.
The common use of the Enneagram is for self-knowledge and understanding of
human motivations and behaviors. The firm’s principal, who has been trained in the use
of the Enneagram, employs it daily in his work, within what he describes as a sector of
the design and construction industry where individual performance (as opposed to
equipment performance) has the highest impact on the project’s overall productivity
(Clough, 1999). It is the principal’s contention that in the tunneling industry egos run
34
high and personality sensitivity by management is critical to maintaining a safe and
efficient workplace. It was reported that the application of the principles of the
Enneagram to understanding personalities in his dispute resolution, mediation and
arbitration work is most important to the principal’s success.
With this instrument, the main purpose is self-understanding. The use is not in
the application of a “test” to an individual, to better diagnose individual personalities for
job assignments, but rather to thoroughly understand a range of personalities and the
associated motivational forces. To accomplish this, the starting point is to understand
one’s own type. Once that is fully developed, then one may move on to effective “type
watching” (Keirsey and Bates, 1974, Kroeger and Thuesen, 1988, Kroeger and Thuesen,
1992 and Keirsey, 1998). Keirsey, Bates, Kroeger, and Thuesen are practitioners and
promoters of the effective use of self-understanding, followed by efficient identification
of others’ types. According to these authors, such an effort can result in the accurate
predictions of motivations and behavioral patterns. That being possible, the contention of
the Enneagram users is that the application of these principles will promote
understanding and tolerance, which will provide a venue to resolve conflicts.
2.4 Problem Statement
One of the major trends in the practice of engineering and architectural design as
a profession, according to FMI Management Consultants is the continued “convergence
of design and construction” (Engineering Times, 1998, p. 14). This view reflects the
philosophy of Professor J. M. de la Garza of Virginia Tech, where he states that
“Construction is the last phase of the Design process…” and “Design is not what’s
35
represented on paper drawings or CAD models, but rather, Design is what actually gets
built.”
A project’s design, and its subsequent construction, has been commonly
performed for decades, as separate industry functions. This has been particularly true in
the public works market of the building sector of the construction industry. Today, there
exists a strong movement in the construction industry for a consolidation of these
services. This convergence of design and construction can be found in the increasing
acceptance of project delivery systems, such as partnering and design-build, and with the
use of such methods as concurrent engineering, construction management and fast-
tracking. Such changes in the industry will create great challenges in the evolution of
effective professional design teams, which will be of primary importance for the
assurance of successful project performance.
According to a recent study of the Personalities of Civil Engineers (Johnson and
Singh, 1998), it is reported as commonplace to find “conflict and infighting” between the
various participants of the design and construction process. While this particular thesis
may create debate, there is a commonly held belief that as a result of the differing goals,
objectives and motivating forces between the various groups within the design and
construction process, conflicts frequently arise. One challenge facing industry
professionals today is how to mitigate these conflicts, and deliver for facility owners, and
the public at large, a more efficient, effective and problem free construction process.
The construction industry is a large sector of our national economy. These
industry sectors are divided into the general categories of Building (Residential,
Commercial and Institutional), Heavy and Highway (or Engineering) and Industrial.
36
While common elements remain between them, each of these sectors of the industry has
their own unique characteristics and methods.
Badawy (1995) points out that as any project progresses through its phases, the
competencies required to perform, and/or manage these phases will vary. This is
particularly true in the design element in construction industry. The skills, attitude and
administrative capacity needed for the initial studies, and the planning of a project, are
quite different from those needed for the detailed design. Likewise, the interpersonal
expertise and temperament required for the construction oversight phase, is not that
which is needed for either of the first two phases. The attributes needed most in the
planning phase, differ from either design or construction administration. The recognition
of these differences, and the limitations they impose are “crucial, and yet (the) most
neglected, requirement for project success” (Badawy, 1995, p. 263).
Tziner (1985) looks at the impact of Similarity Theory and Equity Theory relative
to how team composition impacts task performance. Any question of team performance
which involves the coordinated effort of activity must address the issues of interpersonal
relations (Tziner, 1985). This view is particularly connected to the detailed design sub-
phase of the A/E’s work. Where there is a high level of inter-dependence of complex
tasks, the benefits of attraction, good communication and a pleasant working atmosphere
through “likes like likes” (Tziner, 1985, p. 1113), there will be improvement of group
cohesiveness (Tziner, 1985). In this activity of the A/E’s work, there is a great need for
many people to work cooperatively, yet independently, on several of the design elements.
In contrast, the notion that the creative forces of diversity enhance the efforts of the
planning sub-phase of the A/E’s work is well grounded.
37
The construction administration sub-phase of the A/E’s scope of work involves
the interrelationship with more outside business entities. Until this point in a project,
(construction) the A/E has been dealing primarily with the owner, interpreting his needs
and reflecting those needs within the details of the design documents. Now the process
takes on a new, and potentially hostile dimension, with the involvement of outside
construction companies chosen for their low competitive price bids, who will transform
those designs, from plans to structure. It is here that the A/E, performing the construction
administration duties, must balance the goals of the contractor with the needs of the
owner, all the while ensuring that the details and concepts of the design remain
undiminished. This requires a whole new set of skills, attributes and, as theorized in this
research, personality traits, in order to provide success.
There is little doubt that the tension of creative conflict can enhance the outcome
of a product. However, the fine line between creative conflict and confrontational
conflict can offer a very dangerous zone for managing a project. It is here that an
understanding of equity theory can play an important role (Gibson et al., 1997). The
perception of over-reward and under-reward has a strong potential for enhancing or
restricting project performance. The sense of inequity arises when it is perceived by one
or more of the participants that their effort in achieving the outcome is disproportionate to
the efforts of others. This is particularly problematic when rewards do not correspond to
the efforts demanded. These balances, as well as the detection, control and resolution of
conflict, are the primary challenges of the construction phase of a project. Of course, this
is all required in an environment where “differing individuals of differing talents come
together”(Tziner, 1985, p. 1117), where one hopes for an outcome of performance greater
38
than the sum of the parts. Unfortunately, if one is unable to maintain the balance of the
equity theory, the exposure to negative non-additivity of talents is real, and will likely
manifest itself in project failure.
The current research work in the area of personality traits as predictors of
performance, employing valid and reliable taxonomies along with job specific
performance criteria, demonstrate that there exist true and measurable correlations
(Barrick and Mount, 1991). Moreover intuition dictates, and research has confirmed, that
supervisors and management personnel rely upon impressions of personality traits in
hiring and team formation decisions (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997).
These personality traits of an individual explain in part the tendency of persons to
conduct themselves in certain manners and to interact with others, cooperatively or
unsatisfactorily (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997).
Therefore, it is the premise and scope of this research to evaluate whether or not
we can enhance the opportunity for project success through determining which
combinations of personality traits will contribute to individual, team and project
performance. As such, this research effort investigates and identifies the characteristics
of professional staff members who participate in various phases of the design process in
the building sector of the construction industry.
2.5 Research Considerations
Considerable research has been conducted directing attention to personality traits,
attributes and characteristics relative to predictors of job performance. Studies have
focused on cognitive abilities and personality. The two primary elements of an A/E
(Architectural/Engineering) firm’s work are “products (such as the plans and
39
specifications for a project) and service (the process used to develop the design, build the
project and maintain budget and schedule)” (Principal’s Report 1999, p. 14). While the
product and services of a firm are unquestionably intertwined, the product is primarily a
function of cognitive ability. The service component has a significant interpersonal
element that is at all times ready for the convergence of friction and conflict.
As the construction project is planned and designed, within the A/E’s office
setting, various personality traits can have an impact on performance (Barrick and Mount
1991, Tett et al., 1991). In fact, personality traits can impact performance based upon the
leadership perception and achievement (Lord, De Vader and Alliger, 1986).
Once the project moves into the construction phase there can be an exponential
increase in the opportunity for conflict, with the introduction of the construction
contingent; prime contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. It is here that the personality
characteristics of the participants continue as critical elements to successful outcomes.
It is the objective of this research to explore relevant personality dimensions
pertinent to the professional performance of duties in the planning, design and
construction administration in the general building sector of the construction industry.
2.6 Individual Personality Traits
A literature review has been conducted to investigate the published criterion
based studies of personality for the prediction of job performance. The journal articles
have been drawn from publications including: Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Journal of Management in Engineering, Personnel Psychology, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Journal of Research in Personality, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Human Factors, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of
40
Engineering and Technology Management, Industrial Engineering, Journal of Research
in Personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Human Relations, and
Psychological Reports.
Of the various evaluations offered, it has been found that those known as the Big-
Five Personality Factor taxonomy are the most commonly encountered in recent
literature. This Big-Five taxonomy of traits has been a primary tool to compare an
individual’s personality attributes with predicted job performance, in a broad array of
research reports. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), however, is a psychometric
instrument developed to measure individual personality preferences on four dichotomous
scales that has also found wide application in education, career counseling and
organizations (Myers, McCaully, Quenk, and Hammer, 1998). The MBTI differs
fundamentally from the Big-Five, in that neuroticism, or emotional stability, is not a
personality dimension explored in the MBTI. The other four factors of the Big Five are
significantly correlated to the MBTI dimensions of personality (McCrae and Costa,
1989). The MBTI is classified for use in normal, healthy populations and does not enter
the arena of clinical or abnormal psychology. Therefore, the MBTI is considered as the
instrument for use in this research.
In addition, this literature review has illustrated that within the various research
papers and journal articles, the most powerful test of the Jungian functions and attitudes,
is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This instrument, a well-validated and
reliable measurement tool applied across a wide landscape of occupations, has been
proven to be particularly effective in the engineering and architectural professions
(McCaully, MacDaid and Walsh, 1986, and Hall and MacKinnon, 1969).
41
It is the basic premise within Jung’s theory of psychological type that what might
appear to be random behavior patterns in an individual’s actions, and their inter-personal
relations with others, can actually be explained through personality types (Spoto, 1989).
These types are based on preferences measured in four dichotomous categories that
reflect preferred attitudes and decision-making functions (Myers, McCaully, Quenk, and
Hammer, 1998 and Quenk, 1993).
These traits, or types, actually allow for the prediction of behavior in an “orderly
and consistent” manner (McCaully, MacDaid and Walsh, 1986, p. 99). Additionally, it is
held that if one is capable of predicting behaviors, then there is a better opportunity to
contend with the differences in personalities in a productive manner (Myers, 1980).
One important consideration in the evaluation of performance as a function of
personality characteristics, is that personality traits offer an enduring measure of an
individual that is quite resistant to change (Helmreich, 1984). There is considerable
evidence in psychotherapy that personality traits are stable. This is demonstrated in the
low level of effectiveness in the efforts to modify personality through intensive
therapeutic interventions. This is supported and reported in the work of the Myers, et al.
(1998)
The basis of the MBTI, and its application of the theory of Jung, are that people
perceive and make judgments in different ways. Myers (1980, p.1) supports this in the
statement that the “basic differences (in people) concern(s) the way people prefer to use
their minds, specifically, the way they perceive and the way they make judgments.” The
theory is, however, that although there is a wide and continuous intensity of traits through
a breadth of personalities, these dimensions can be captured through the analysis of four
42
distinct dichotomies (Myers, McCaully, Quenk, and Hammer, 1998). These factors of
personality are captured and identified through the MBTI personality inventory. The
four dichotomies of personality include two that distinguish attitude, and two that identify
perception and judgment, or functions.
The four dichotomies measured through application of the MBTI are presented in
the MBTI Manual (Myers, McCaully, Quenk, and Hammer, 1998) and paraphrased
below (McCaully, MacDaid and Walsh, 1986, p, 101).
Extraversion/Introversion (E and I)
“Some people are oriented to a breadth-of-knowledge approach to quick action; others
are oriented to a depth-of-knowledge approach, reflecting on concepts and ideas. Jung
calls these orientations, extraversion and introversion (E or I in MBTI terminology).”
Sensing and Intuition (S and N)
“Some people are attuned to the practical, hands-on, common-sense view of events, while
others are more attuned to the complex interactions, theoretical implications, or new
possibilities of events. These two styles of information gathering, or perception, are
known as sensing and intuition (S and N), respectively.”
Thinking and Feeling (T and F)
“Some people typically draw conclusions or make judgments objectively, dispassionately
and analytically; others weigh the human factors or societal import, and make judgments
with the personal conviction as to their value. These two styles of decision making, or
judgment, are called thinking and feeling (T and F), respectively.”
Judgment and Perception (J and P)
43
“Finally, some people prefer to collect only enough data to make decisions before setting
on a direct path to a goal, and typically stay on that path. Others are finely attuned to
changing situations, alert to developments that may require a change in strategy, or even
a change of goals. These two styles are called the preferences for judgment or perception
(J and P), respectively.”
Since it is the consensus of current research that personality traits “consistently
predict performance”, (Lord, De Vader and Alliger, 1986, p. 407) the purpose of this
research is to identify an accurate set of performance criteria that reflect the achievement
of participants in the design group of the construction process. The next step would be to
correlate through statistical measures, these performance criteria with the personality
traits inventoried in the MBTI, hypothesized as being associated with effective individual
performance on any one of the achievement categories.
The next sub-section identifies current areas of research, and the resulting factors
that define and measure project success or failure. These are known as Critical Project
Success Factors (CPSFs), or Critical Success Factors (CSFs).
2.7 Properties for the Measurement of Project Success – Critical Success Factors
Critical Project Success Factors (CPSFs or CSFs) are varied, and are neither
singularly project team related, nor related to individual factors. The primary CPSFs can
be summarized as falling within the following categories (Lutz, et al., 1990):
a. Owner Satisfaction
b. Schedule and completion
c. Construction and operational costs
d. User safety and health
44
e. User morale
f. Litigation and liability
The major areas where a project’s success is put at risk, is a carryover from the
design activities. This risk to a project includes errors in the design work, which if
allowed to go undetected, will result in problems from conflicts or omissions in the
specifications or on the drawings. These can be categorized, according to Lutz (1990) as:
a. Contract Document conflicts
b. Interdisciplinary coordination errors
c. Technical compliance discrepancies
Jain’s work studies the effectiveness of organizations in the construction industry
(1997). An essential consideration that is presented in this literature, is that for an
organization to be effective it is important that members are not out doing “their own
thing” (Jain, 1997, p. 41). Only when there is a congruence of goals and objectives of the
organization and the individual, will there be an expectation of high performance. Of
course, it can be extrapolated that if there is to be a consistency in the delivery of quality
services, in conformance with the goals of the organization, that the individuals must
clearly understand what those objectives are, and be given the opportunity to be
successful in their delivery (Saarinen and Hobel, 1990).
Management processes that will lead to these CPSF’s being accomplished include
the following basic principles (Saarinen and Hobel, 1990):
a. Total involvement at every level of the firm
b. Customer orientation: and understanding at all levels of the firm as to what the
client requires and expects
45
c. Systematic support by way of policies and procedures to allow quality
d. Continuous improvement-even when the client is satisfied
CPSF’s can be measured in the quality of the delivered project. The cost of
quality is in “not doing things right the first time” (Saarinen and Hobel, 1990). In order
to deliver a successful project it must be recognized that different points of view will see
success or failure differently (Sanvido, Grobler, Parfitt and Coyle, 1992). The owner’s
criteria of “on budget, on time, and user satisfaction” differ from the view of the
contractor, who sees success as meeting requirements for “schedule, profit and claims
avoidance” (Parfitt and Sanvido 1993). The designer, on the other hand, ranks success by
the level of owner satisfaction, architectural quality, adequacy of fee and professional
staff fulfillment (Parfitt and Sanvido, 1993).
As demonstrated above, there seems to be no single, comprehensive list of
CPSF’s. In fact, there is a good deal of literature on general factors believed to be
correlated with project successes that are less than manifest. Maidique (1991) suggests
an understanding of customer needs, efficiency of service, and seniority and authority of
responsible managers, are discriminators of project success and failure. The additional
factors that Maidique highlights as having significant impact on project success include:
a. Marketing Proficiency
b. Technological Capacity
c. Program Management
d. Product Uniqueness
e. Benefit to Cost Ratios
f. Synergy with other Projects
46
In preparation for moving into the construction phase of a project the design team
can evaluate their preparation for achieving a successful outcome through the review of
(Stukhart, 1987):
a. Design constructibility recommendations
b. Construction document coordination
c. Cost estimating, budget and control
d. Planning and scheduling of work, including design
e. On-site management and processing of documentation
f. Procurement management
g. Contract compliance and field procedure review
h. Value engineering and safety review
The critical sub-phases of the design firm’s duties relative to the contract
performance are broken down into five categories by Stukhart (1987), where his research
evaluates effectiveness. Those design-related activities are:
1. Planning
2. Conceptual design
3. Preliminary Design
4. Detailed Design
5. Construction
For the purposes of this research these activities have been collapsed, with the
first two forming the planning sub-phase, while the third and fourth are likewise
combined to form the detailed design sub-phase. The last sub-phase, construction
administration remains.
47
The most important “personal traits” reported by Abdel-Razek (1997) constituting
success measures, listed in order of importance are: the ability to innovate, the presence
of personal integrity, ability to communicate, and a discipline and adherence to
regulations and procedures.
Most of the research work, investigated in this literature review, offer their own
positive measures of performance, vis-à-vis, those criterion that when met will ensure a
higher probability of a successful project outcome. Lester (1984) suggests several
characteristics, or thought patterns, that create hazards to success. Those patterns are
labeled “anti-authority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho, and external control or
resignation”(Lester, 1984, p. 567). It can be hypothesized that if there is a consistent
disposition within an approach to a project that is defined within these patterns of
thought, then there may be a personality trait correlated with this style which may predict
the potential for problems.
Each of the above references offers varied measures of project success, and it
requires consideration of each dimension to develop an effective measurement instrument
in the form of an investigative questionnaire. Songer and Molenaar (1997) focus
succinctly on the most widely held definition of success criteria. The following
traditional criteria for project success are offered:
1. On Time
2. On Budget
3. Meets Specifications
4. Conforms to User Expectations
5. High Quality of Workmanship
48
6. Minimizes Construction Aggravation
There can be little argument that it is the measurement of these factors that
determines whether the combined efforts of individuals on a project have been successful
or not. The “traditional” measurement of these hard criteria need to be supplemented
with the additional tracking, forecasting and control of “additional soft measurements,
such as customer satisfaction, leadership, employee involvement, teamwork, training,
flexibility, responsiveness, and so forth” (Stevens, 1996. p. 36).
Keying off these criteria, it is the task of this research to develop a questionnaire
to define and measure project success based on individual performance. These criteria
are then analyzed in the statistical evaluation against the personality traits of those
participants functioning within the various design sub-phases of the building sector of the
construction industry.
2.8 Fitness of the Psychometric Tool – Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®
Extensive research has been conducted throughout the last century investigating
the relationship of personality traits, types, temperaments and preferences with job
performance characteristics. In fact, it is reported that Sir Francis Galton, in 1884, was
one of the first investigators to observe that through the use of language one could begin
to “tap the more conspicuous aspects of character” (Goldberg, 1990, p. 1216). Thomas
Jefferson, in an 1823 correspondence with John Adams observed that, “No duty the
executive had to perform was so trying as to put the right (person) in the right place,”
(Jefferson, 1823).
The difficulty of finding the right person for the right job is one that has plagued
management through the ages. In fact, the temperaments postulated by Hippocratic;
49
Sanguine, Choleric, Phlegmatic and Melancholic, have been of significant value to noted
psychiatrists and psychologists, including Jung, Freud and Maslow, in the development
of their theories of personality (Keirsey and Bates, 1978, Keirsey 1998, Hall and Nordby,
1973 and Groth-Marnat, 1997). These early attempts to understand the nature of man’s
temperament and personality continue today.
The research of the Construction Industry Institute (CII, 1994) has concluded in
“Lessons Learned” (CII p.14) that disputes and problems in construction are not
necessarily caused by people, but people will either help or hinder the process of dispute
resolution. It reports that in “essence, disagreements on Project issues will be settled by
People.” This work highlights the importance of people, and by inference the unique and
individual personalities of those people.
The value of individual and team personality traits, as dimensions of achievement,
rest in the incremental contribution of understanding beyond the traditional measures of
predictive performance (Kichuk, 1997). The most commonly employed variable to
predict performance is the measure of an individual’s general cognitive ability (Tett, et
al., 1991). Barrick and Mount’s research (1991) showed that personality traits generally
do not co-vary with cognitive ability, thus personality factors hold promise in offering
unique insight into performance measures. It is understood, however, that the validity of
peer-evaluated and expert rater validity was consistently lower than self-report measures
(Barrick and Mount, 1991, and McCrae and Costa, 1989). Likewise, the validity of
objective correlations, such as cognitive ability also have been demonstrated as
consistently higher than those performance measures of a more subjective nature (Tziner,
1985).
50
The recent works published within the traditional publications of the
psychological institutions seem to have centered on the Five-Factor Model of Personality.
As previously stated, the study conducted by McCrae and Costa, (1989) comparing the
MBTI with the NEO-PI measurement of the Big-Five factors, found that the MBTI “did
measure four of the five dimensions of normal personality.” (McCrae, 1989, p.17).
Furthermore, this study went on to conclude, “the five-factor model provides an
alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within the broader, more commonly
shared conceptual framework” (McCrae, page 17). Clearly, the reciprocal view is
equally valid, that the results of the MBTI may be extended to interpret the personality
dimensions investigated by the five-factor model, and its derivatives. This ties the MBTI
psychometric instrument to a wide array of earlier research on individual and team
performance.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is an instrument that has been under
development for over 50 years. The instrument has been subjected to intensive evolution
since 1962. It continues to be improved through its mission to distinguish personality
types even today, through the ongoing efforts of the research centers for psychological
type of the Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. (CPP) in Palo Alto, California, and the
Center for Applications of Psychological Types (CAPT) in Gainesville, Florida.
One of the principal, and MBTI competing, research teams of personality traits as
predictors of performance is Robert McCrae and Paul Costa. Although there is
continuing evidence of competition between McCrae and Costa’s NEO-PI and the MBTI;
their 1989-study (McCrae and Costa, 1989) found considerable validity and correlation
between the two instruments when evaluated against the five-factor model of personality.
51
The quote from their 1987 research, performed for the National Institutes of Health and
the National Institute on Aging states, “(u)nless methodological studies are conducted on
well-defined and meaningful traits (emphasis added) their conclusions are dubious;
unless the traits are selected from a comprehensive taxonomy, it is impossible to know
how far or in what ways they can be generalized” (McCrae and Costa, 1987, p. 81).
McCrae and Costa’s testimony for the validity of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, as a
sufficient tool for the investigation of personality dimensions, supports its confirmation
as the psychometric instrument for use in this research.
This is further supported by the findings of Barrick and Mount (1991, p. 1) that
these models of personality are most appropriate for “research and practice in personnel
psychology, especially in the sub-fields of personnel selection, training and development,
and performance appraisal."
In addition, any psychometric instrument must be both reliable and valid. The
following appraisal of the MBTI® further substantiates its selection as the instrument of
this research.
The construct validity of a psychological tool was dubbed the “queen bee” of tests
by C. B. Rogers of the Psychological Testing Enterprise. The MBTI® Type Indicator is
no different, it must prove its reliability and validity to show it is a legitimate and
effective psychometric tool.
The common concept in the development of psychometric instruments prior to
1995 was to select items defining theoretical traits, without the benefit of extensive
reliance upon external criteria. The efforts of the Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., the
52
distributor of the MBTI®, from mid-1970 through the completion of the new Form M is
therefore noteworthy.
The Form M of the MBTI® was developed with the goal of maximizing validity,
specifically the maximization of construct validity. The development of the MBTI®
produced internal reliabilities reported to range from 0.86 to 0.95 (Myers, et al., 1998).
Recognizing that reliability estimates of higher than 0.70 are expected for instruments to
be used for research, the MBTI® provides that reliance. Other tests such as Jackson’s
Personality Research Form, although widely used falls short, with internal consistencies
of less than 0.60 (McCrae and Costa, 1989). The NEO-PI on the other hand shows
internal consistencies of 0.86-0.95, precisely the same range as that of the MBTI® (0.86-
0.95).
It is the finding of this paper that the MBTI® is a powerful tool for use in
Personality Assessments and Research work based on its demonstrated reliability,
consistency and validity.
The MBTI® is a psychometric instrument that has been under continuous
development for decades. The basic concept of the theory of the MBTI® “is that much
seemingly random variation in behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being
due to the basic differences in the way individuals prefer to use their perception and
judgment” (Myers, et al., 1998, p.3).
The concept of the preferences was developed independent of the work of Carl
Jung, by Katherine Briggs. Briggs discovered the theory of Jungian psychology after her
initial investigations and theory development had begun. Once this “discovery” was
made, Briggs used the concepts of Jung to continue her refinement of the instrument she
53
was in the process of creating (Myers, et al., 1998). This instrument was being designed
to produce an inventory of personality characteristics to better understand why people
behave the way they do; different from one another.
Jung’s theory of psychological type consisted of three basic elements;
Introversion/Extraversion, Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling. Briggs, in her
interpretation of Jung’s work, added a fourth dimension of personality,
Judging/Perceiving. This added fourth dimension is the core of the MBTI® in that it is
here that each of the four preference categories of the instrument guide the use of
perception and judgment in the gathering of information and forming of decisions from
that data (Myers, et al., 1998).
The four dichotomies: E/I, S/N, T/F and J/P are classified as either, orientations
or attitudes for the first and last dimensions, while the two middle dimensions are
considered functions and processes.
As presented by Spoto (1989), from the collected works of Dr. Jung (no. 6, par.
986) the concept of typology is clearly recognized. “It is not the purpose of a
psychological typology to classify human beings into categories; this in itself would be
pretty pointless. Its purpose is to provide a critical psychology which will make a
methodical investigation and presentation of the empirical material possible” (Spoto
1989, p.23).
It is held that one of the problems with the application of Jungian theory is that it
is the unconscious that stimulates an individual’s action. Therefore, problems may be
produced if the theory is believed to be too well mastered, or that there are distinct and
definite explanations from this work (Spoto, 1989).
54
The core notion of Jungian psychology rests in the concept of “polar opposites”.
This notion may begin to be expressed in word pair preferences, such as “rationalistic-
empiricist, intellectualistic-sensationalistic, idealistic-materialistic, optimistic-pessimistic,
etc.” (Spoto, 1990, p. 25). The MBTI® mines the polarity of the four dichotomies of
personality, with such word pairs and short preference questions. For example, the
realistic versus the imaginative word pair would offer insight into the Sensing-Intuition
dichotomy. The Intuitive’s tendency is to imagine the reality within things at the expense
of seeing the simple appearances. This is the opposite of the Sensor’s inclination to see
only what is, without the benefit of appreciating what is occurring out of view. This
example gives an introduction of the concept of polar opposites as it relates to the
dichotomies of the MBTI®.
The specifics of each dichotomy may be found in any number of reference
documents; that includes texts, journal articles and user manuals. The primary source of
information used in this research work is the MBTI® Manual, 1998 (Myers, et al., 1998).
The MBTI® consists of four dimensions of personality. Those dimensions are
Extraversion/Introversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/ Feeling and Judging/Perceiving.
These in combination are expanded to form 16 Types, which are demonstrated in Figure
2-2 from the Manual (Myers, et. al, 1998).
55
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
I depth of concentration I depth of concentration I depth of concentration I depth of concentration
S reliance on facts S reliance on facts N grasp of possibilities N grasp of possibilities
T logic and analysis F warmth and sympathy F warmth and sympathy T logic and analysis
J organization J organization J organization J organization
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
I depth of concentration I depth of concentration I depth of concentration I depth of concentration
S reliance on facts S reliance on facts N grasp of possibilities N grasp of possibilities
T logic and analysis F warmth and sympathy F warmth and sympathy T logic and analysis
P adaptability P adaptability P adaptability P adaptability
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
E breadth of interest E breadth of interest E breadth of interest E breadth of interest
S reliance on facts S reliance on facts N grasp of possibilities N grasp of possibilities
T logic and analysis F warmth and sympathy F warmth and sympathy T logic and analysis
P adaptability P adaptability P adaptability P adaptability
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
E breadth of interest E breadth of interest E breadth of interest E breadth of interest
S reliance on facts S reliance on facts N grasp of possibilities N grasp of possibilities
T logic and analysis F warmth and sympathy F warmth and sympathy T logic and analysis
J organization J organization J organization J organization
Figure 2-2 Contribution Made by Each Preference to Each Type
In general, the dichotomy of Extravert/Introvert is the dimension that will
distinguish an individual’s preference for the focus of energy. This means the E/I
dimension will identify if a person prefers the outer world of “people and objects”, or the
inner world of “concepts, ideas and internal experiences”. The Judging/Perceiving
dichotomy is similar, yet uniquely different in that this dimension identifies the person’s
preference for how they deal with the outer world. This is the dichotomy that indicates
the dominant function for the Sensing/Intuition and Thinking/Feeling dimensions for the
extraverted part of an individual’s life. The Judging person prefers T/F (decision-
making) in dealing with the outer world, while the Perceiving person shows a preference
for S/N (data gathering) in their interaction with the world of others.
56
In dealing with each of these dichotomies, there is no single use of a preferred
style to the exclusion of the other. MBTI Type theory promotes (in fact adamantly so)
that there should be no mistake between type (categorical) and traits (scalar). The issue
remains that there is a balance in the use of both elements of each dichotomy. There
should be no belief that a “less preferred” is never used, the theory only identifies the
individual’s preferred process.
The functions of data gathering (perceiving) and decision making (judging) are
identified in the middle dichotomies, S/N and T/F. The Sensing individual prefers the
clearly observable elements around them. They find comfort in collecting data using
their five senses. On the other hand, an Intuitive is quite comfortable making
observations with the senses and looking for the meanings, connections and opportunities
that this data offers. Once the data is in, the T/F spectrum provides insight into the
preferred way of making a decision. The Thinking person will make judgments based on
the logical consequences of that action. The Feeling person will allow personal and/or
social values and the future impact of an action to enter into the decision making function
(Myers, et al., 1998).
Everyone occasionally uses each of the eight preference elements to guide their
actions in life. While the theory states that relative to Type, you either are, or you are
not, an E vs. an I, and so forth, there is a recognition that different people use the
complementary attitudes and functions at least some of the time. There has been little use
of the MBTI® to predict severity of Extraversion or Intuition; therefore, there appears a
great aversion to the use of this instrument as a scalar measure of personality traits.
There are a number of references in the manual to validity studies viewing the
57
measurement in a scalar fashion, however, in the practice of administering the MBTI® in
a non-research forum the instrument is strictly a categorical Type tool.
The use of the scale consideration, or the severity issue is approached in the use of
the Preference Clarity Index. This offers, as the name would indicate, the level of clarity
a respondent demonstrates for a particular preference in the completion of the instrument.
“The preference clarity index is an estimate of relative confidence that a preference has
been accurately identified” (Myers, et al., 1998, p.121).
This is, however, in contrast with the research use of the instrument as detailed
throughout chapter 9 of the Manual (Myers, et al., 1998). Here the MBTI® reports
numerous correlational studies using continuous scores. This use, while discouraged for
interpretation of individual results, seems a readily accepted standard for investigative
research.
2.8.1 Creation and Construction of the MBTI® Form M:
The Form M Indicator was developed from the extensive research effort of a
number of investigators. The creation of the questionnaire followed the procedure of 1)
Creation of an Initial Item Pool; 2) Develop the selection criteria; 3) Construct the Form;
4) Administration to a national sample; and 5) Select the Final Items for Form M. The
primary method used to select the items for inclusion in the latest revision of the
Indicator is referred to as Item Response Theory (IRT). This theory has been designated
as the new rules of measurement for psychological instruments. The IRT differs from
Classical Test Theory (CTT), in that CTT uses the entire test to determine its reliability,
while IRT measures and validates each item individually.
58
The concept of the IRT is to measure the likelihood that a person with a true
personality characteristic of E, or I; or S, or N; (or any of the other dimensions) will
provide a particular response to an individual item tested (Myers, et. al, 1998). For
example, with the word pair “structure and possibilities”, what is the likelihood that a
true J will select structure or more accurately a true P will select possibilities? The keyed
direction is, for the sake of consistency, and by convention, a positive z scores in the
direction of I, N, F and P. The measure of the response relationship is depicted in the
Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) as shown in the example figure below.
Figure 2-3 Item Characteristic Curve for Two Hypothetical Items
The curve in Figure 2-3 plots on the “Y” axis the probability of a person or
subgroup of persons classified as (or intensity of) extravert or introvert will answer in a
Theta Scale of Extraversion/Introversion
3210-1-2-3
PR
K
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0.0
PKR
ITEM2
PKR
ITEM1
59
particular direction. In other words, a “true” introvert has a low probability of choosing
an extravert response (negative theta).
The Theta score is an arbitrary scale, usually a Z-score with “0” defining the mid-
point. This is where the continuous nature of the “personality trait scale” measurement is
used for research purposes.
In Figure 2-3 there are three factors that impact the ICC. The first is
discrimination. This is the shape and slope of the line providing information on the item.
The steeper the slope the more information is provided relative to the response, and the
more likely the respondent is answering in the keyed direction. In 2-3, an example would
be if the line was horizontal, there would be no information of a discriminatory value
given, and the item would be of little value.
The second dimension of the ICC is the difficulty. This would be shown in a shift
of the 0.0-theta intercept point. As the intercept shifted up or down from the 50%
probability point (0.50 PKR), the difficulty of discrimination of the item would be
increased. Or in other words, the mid-point of the ICC would not be above the theta 0.0
point, but rather would be either to the left or right. If a steep slope were found at other
than the mid-point, this would indicate difficulty. Those who were not sure would answer
incorrectly and thus shift the mid-point.
Continuing with the example in Figure 2-3, the third characteristic of the ICC is
the lower asymptote at the left of the theta scale. This is typically non-zero for right-
wrong tests as well as personality tests. The non-zero lower asymptote for right-wrong
tests is a function of answer guessing. On a personality test, the non-zero point is
60
attributed to social desirability of a particular answer, where some true extraverts may
provide a pressured introvert answer.
The power of the IRT for individual items on the MBTI is that there are three
parameters for discrimination and selection, offering increased validity assessments of
the item. The particular value of IRT to the MBTI® is that it is most powerful as a
dichotomous selection instrument, while the four dimensions of the MBTI® are bipolar
elements.
Once the concept of the IRT is established, the Individual Response Items are
tested in theory against the proposed MBTI dimensions. With this baseline, the actual
application of the MBTI® Form M development is outlined. The method used was to
first collect an array of possible distinguishing items. Each of these items would purport
to discriminate between a particular dimension of personality defined in Jungian
psychological theory (E/I, S/N, T/F or J/P).
In the case of the Form M there was an initial set of 290 discriminating items
proposed. These were from a collection made throughout the years of research done by
Myers and Briggs, along with their colleagues. In addition to these 290 items there was
added another 200 items proposed by L. Thomas (a Virginia Tech student) in an
unpublished Masters Thesis (Thomas, 1996). Two professionals who regularly used the
MBTI® wrote the final 90 items (Myers, et al., 1998).
This pool of 580 potential discriminators of personality dimensions was then
subjected to the various tests of the IRT. Combining those results with the theoretical
criteria, such as forced choice format, and phrase questions and word pairs, the MBTI
61
Research Advisory Board selected the 264 “best” items to be further investigated for
ultimate inclusion in the new MBTI® Form M.
These 264 items were subjected to a factor analysis at which time it was
discovered that 26 of the items yielded a poor discrimination for one or more of the
dimensions. This was generally found on the S/N and J/P scales (Myers, et al., 1998).
As a side note, this is one of the examples of why the pure Jungians are not in favor of
the Myers-Briggs addition of the implied J/P scale, because it is thought to interfere with
the S/N and T/F dichotomies (Myers, et al., 1998). Although advocates of the MBTI
believe that it is clear to those who view the instrument as a tool to understand
personality and subsequent behaviors, that the direction of influence given by the J/P
scale is essential to the power of the MBTI® (Hirsh and Kummerow, 1998).
Of the remaining 238 items the Research Advisory Board made the final selection
of the “best” 93 items to make up the new MBTI® Form M.
The summary of the final Item to Scale Correlations is presented in Table 7.11 of
the Manual (Myers, et al., 1998). These are reported to range from 0.36 to 0.76. This
demonstrates the differentiational power of the Indicator. For example, E/I measures
Extraversion/Introversion, and not the S/N, T/F or J/P items.
2.8.2 MBTI® Validity
A final question is the instrument’s validity and has it been tested thoroughly and
continuously throughout the 50-year development period. This research effort continues
today with the latest revision of the MBTI® designated Form M (Myers, et al., 1998). In
the evaluation of a psychometric instrument, typical criteria considered are internal
consistency and content validity. In addition, to the measures investigated in the previous
62
sub-section, the question remains one of construct validity. This issue is evaluated and
reported in the Manual (Myers, et al., 1998). Additionally, an independent literature
review has compared numerous Meta-Analysis studies of not only the MBTI® but other
psychometric instruments (Barrick and Mount, 1991, Lord et al., 1986, McCrae and
Costa, 1987). If there is a clear construct validity between the MBTI® and the NEO-PI®,
and there is a Meta-Analysis correlation of the NEO-PI® and MMPI® then a correlation
of the MBTI and the MMPI follows (if A=B, and B=C, then A=C).
The construct validity of the MBTI® is established through the use of the
continuous scores, accurate midpoint, and internal consistency through a test/re-test
approach, and the view of a trait based scalar measurement. The reliability is further
secured through consistency of a categorical reporting of results.
The approach used for internal consistency evaluation of the instrument is a
simple procedure referred to as “half-split” tests. This is self evident, that with a random
splitting of the instrument’s questions and subsequent scoring there should be no
significant difference in the results. This has been proven through the research efforts
used in the development of Form M (Myers, et al., 1998).
The final validity consideration is that of construct validity, established through
research studies correlating the MBTI® with other psychometric instruments. All of the
industry standard tests; the 16 Personality factor Questionnaire, Million Index of
Personality Styles, California Psychological Inventory, the NEO-PI, the Firo-B, the
Adjective Checklist and the Strong Interest Inventory are evaluated against the MBTI®
for construct validity.
63
These correlation studies are included, and are presented by Myers (Myers, et al.,
1998). The validity of the Indicator as a personality assessment inventory is established.
Based upon all of the above, as well as the extensive data provided by the MBTI
principal investigators (Myers, McCaully, Quenk, and Hammer, 1998), the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator, Form M, is the instrument used in this study.
2.9 Suitability of a Critical Incident Behavioral Preference Instrument
A primary objective of this research is to develop a set of quantifiable predictive
behavioral measures for individual professionals. Current work by other researchers has
demonstrated that such are possible (Stevens, 1996). The checklists developed and
published by Longo (1991), Wuellner, (1990), Saarinen, (1990) Ahmed, (1995) and
Sanvido (1993) provide extensive guidance in the development of inquiry on behavior
and performance, for the development of a CSF Questionnaire.
The literature recommends that the research instrument be refined for data
collection to include biographical data of the respondents’ (Maidique, 1984). While
collecting biographical information relative to the respondent might appear less than
highly informative, considerable research has concluded that one of the best predictors of
future behavior is past behavior (Childs and Klimoski, 1986). Bio-data of personnel have
consistently yielded relevant predictors of organization measures (Maidique, 1984).
A consideration to this research effort is to solicit responses of a reasonably
general nature, not requiring respondents to rely upon a detailed and extensive memory of
events. In this fashion the inquiry limits biasing (Ahmed, 1995). Furthermore, it is
recognized that it is difficult to measure job success (Myers 1979). Two firms, or two
supervisors may very well disagree on the success achieved by a particular employee or
64
by a particular approach to a problem. Specific job conditions, interpersonal
relationships, and strengths or weaknesses of other project participants may all combine
to create a very real problem in predicting successful outcomes that follow specific
behavioral patterns. The validity of the research data, defining successful and less
successful behaviors and outcomes, will form the basis of the research inquiry. The
inquiry is critical to measuring successful behavior. The validity of the results of the
research of others, and their measurement of success, is adopted as a true measure. It is
on these issues that the research implies content validity (Stodola, 1967).
This research study allows for evaluation from the standpoint of question fitness,
consistency and reliability. This investigation will not determine if the matters reported
in the research of others, validly defines successful performance (content validity). The
present research inquiry however, will be evaluated for consistency of accurate
measurement of success. The following items are important in the consideration of an
inquiry’s development (Sommer and Sommer, p 135):
1. Is the question necessary?
2. Is the item clear?
3. Is the question “double-barreled”?
4. Is the item short, unambiguous and precise?
5. Are the questions formatted to reduce bias?
6. Are the questions balanced to investigate the metrics of interest?
The wording of the inquiry within a pilot study will offer insight into the
effectiveness of a Critical Incidents Approach in a draft questionnaire. Drawing from the
literature, specific incidents defining or illustrating successful and less successful
65
performance will make up a pilot inquiry. From these responses, the evaluation of the
reliability and internal consistency will be performed.
The process recommended is outlined in the following excerpt from Sommers’
(1997, p.137):
Basic Steps: Constructing a Questionnaire
Content
1. Exploratory Interviews… and/or casual observation…
2. Decide aspects of the problem to be covered.
3. Generate Items.
Sommers’ (1997) recommends the use of a closed format ranked response
question for ease of scoring. The inquiries must ensure that the items meet the criteria for
clarity and precision. Sommers’ final recommendation is, to “Pretest- pilot test the
questionnaire before putting it into final form”. It is here that this research will address
the performance measure questionnaire’s issues of the reliability and consistency.
66
CHAPTER 3
HYPOTHESES
The research work evaluating individual and team performance as functions of
personality traits or characteristics is generally conducted to evaluate specific attributes.
Consequently, there are only limited studies pertaining to personality traits and team
performance (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997). It is the concept of this research that certain
personality attributes may influence the performance outcome of the design services, as
measured through the application of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® (MBTI, Form-
M), a commercially available personality test for normal adults.
3.1 The Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis (Ho) of the research is: In the population of
Architectural and Engineering Professionals practicing in the Design Services
Division of the Building Sector of the Construction Industry, based upon the
measures of personality captured in the MBTI®, there will be no performance
differences measured for the planning, design, construction administration and
general firm management duties by these professionals.
3.2 The Exploratory Hypotheses
The trait measures of the MBTI are through four distinct personality dichotomies,
which are: Extraversion/Introversion, (E/I); Sensing/Intuition, (S/N); Thinking/Feeling,
(T/F); and Judging/Perceiving, (J/P). The relationship of each of these dichotomies,
along with the professional duties and functions of the design service phase of the
building industry, are summarized below in the research hypothesis (H 1).
67
3.2.1 Planning Phase (Study and Report; Conceptual or Preliminary Design)
An individual member of a design group, performing the task of project planning
will need to be open to alternative solutions towards achieving the desired results of the
program. While a certain discipline is required in order to accomplish the goals of the
planning effort, a rush to a solution will lead to a building program where options have
not been thoroughly investigated and explored. The words that would describe the
attributes hypothesized to yield an effective and successful performance in the conceptual
design effort, through the completion of a formal Planning Report would include:
openness to ideas, flexibility, tolerance, broad-mindedness and adaptability (MBTI, P).
In addition, it is hypothesized that the Planning Phase activity would likewise
produce the best performance through the leadership and participation of professionals
who demonstrate a sense of innovation, concept abstractions, connections, and a grasp of
possibilities (MBTI, N).
The third section of this hypothesis is that when presenting ones ideas to a client it
is an essential element of ones work to listen to exactly what it is the client expects. Just
as in medicine, it can be argued that the most effective portion of a diagnosis is in the
physician’s active listening to, and empathy for the patient. The same holds true in the
design professions. This listening and empathy does not stop at the initial meeting with
the client. In fact, in the public building sector of the construction industry, some believe
that the most critical understanding occurs during the public presentation portion of the
project, where the public expresses their concern and asks questions of the design group.
Here it is hypothesized that high performance will come from the professional who
68
actively listens and contemplates the question behind the question, avoiding “thinking”
aloud. Moderate introversion/extraversion provides balance (MBTI, E/I balance).
In addition, these attributes are those of persons showing a preference for
understanding, values, and merits. These are indications of taking into account the
effects of a planning decision, and the impact such a decision will have on the people
involved (MBTI, F).
3.2.2 Design Phase and Detailed Preparation of Contract Documents
During the Design Phase of the project, it is imperative to begin work within the
realm of time and budget. These two traditional measures of project success, “on time
and on budget”, may only be words during the Planning Phase work. Once project
planning is complete, the scope for the work is agreed upon, as well as the project’s
schedule and cost allocation (time and budget).
As the detailed design work begins, a group of design professionals is set in
motion who require a high level of interpersonal, yet independent action. These are inter-
related and complementary functions, which must be finely integrated in order to avoid
future conflict, a prime metric for an unsuccessful effort.
The first in a series of hypotheses for the detailed design work is that those
participating in, and leading in this phase of a project should demonstrate the
characteristics of discipline to task and do not, throughout the process, find themselves
and their teams on a search for “a better mousetrap.” The conception of the new and
better mousetrap is the domain of the planning effort. The Design Phase is to produce a
clear, concise, unambiguous and well integrated set of plans and specifications which
meet code requirements, conform to the objectives set out in the Planning Report and
69
comply with the design firm’s standards. This is the characteristic of a structured and
organized design professional (MBTI, J).
The interpersonal interaction is hypothesized as being essential to providing a
forum for the effective integration of various components of the design: site, structural,
architectural, electrical, heating and ventilating and so forth. With each of these
ingredients of design, often times separate professionals must interact with one another in
order to bring the project’s components together in a coordinated fashion. It is
hypothesized that the higher the level of complexity, the more intense the inter-
professional activities, followed by individual design and production efforts. Thus, it is
hypothesized that success will associate with those whose preference is for a high level of
interaction (MBTI, E).
While it is important for the designers to be solidly grounded in reality, the third
in this series of hypotheses suggests that there is a need to deal in the “real world” of
what is. The strength of a professional’s ability to grasp the facts is a likely predictor of
successful performance (MBTI, S).
The final basis of this hypothesis is that at this project phase individuals, leaders
and the team will all demonstrate a preference toward logical, just, and impersonal
application of reason, rather than “value based” decisions (MBTI, T).
3.2.3 Construction Administration Phase
During the Construction Phase of a project, the requirement for active
communication is at its peak. This communication by the professional, designated as the
design firm’s representative on a building project, is at the center of the communication
flow involving the owner and the design firm’s office staff. This design interpretation and
70
coordination can force the construction administrator’s communication to deal with
separate architectural and engineering firms including structural, mechanical (MEP),
interiors, landscape, etc. In addition, the construction administrator must interface with a
multitude of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.
While communication and interface with others seem to be the critical words to
capture the talents of the construction phase professional, there are other characteristics
equally important in achieving effective results. Each player in the mix of participants
within the construction of a project is encumbered with their own company’s goals,
objectives and agendas. It is the duty of the construction administrator to interpret and
respond to these forces, all the while maintaining an equitable balance on a path to the
completion of the project in accordance with the plans, and to the standards of the design
requirements.
The construction administration professional generally acts as an individual
problem solver, who actively deals with a project when things at any time may not go as
planned. This individual is typically called in specifically when things have gone wrong,
or are getting out of hand. The role is then to assess the difficulties and create alternative
solutions. The hypothesis is that the effective construction administrator will listen to
what all have to say about a question or controversy, understanding “complex
interactions, theoretical implications, or new possibilities of events” (McCaully, et al.,
1987, p. 101). Developing alternatives, and establishing a strategy for action through a
rational and logical decision for project direction requires what Myers-Briggs refers to as
an innovative thinker (MBTI, N and T).
71
This research theorizes that the more effective construction administrator will
tend towards openness to new ideas and possibilities for the concept of what can be,
rather than a blind interpretation of what the contract documents specifically require
through narrow interpretation of technical mandates (MBTI, P).
There is no prediction offered relative to performance associated with
Introversion or Extraversion, associated with the construction administration phase.
3.2.4 General Management of the Design Firm:
It is hypothesized that the single personality whole Type most likely to offer a
prediction of successful behavior in this category will be the recognizer of “standards and
procedures”, the super administrator. The adherence to regulations and policies, along
with a respect for tradition, both offer predictions of successful management behavior
and performance, and are predicted to be found in the traits of Extraversion, Sensing,
Thinking and Judging (MBTI, ESTJ).
Table 3-1 below, and Figure 3-1 on the following page, demonstrate graphically
the MBTI® functions and attributes hypothesized as being associated with the four
primary activity domains of the engineering and architectural professional’s duties within
the design service field.
Table 3-1 Exploratory Hypotheses
X indicates where significant correlation is predicted in the HypothesesHYPOTHESES E I S N T F J P
Planning (Conceptual Design) X X X
Design (Contract Documents) X X X X
Construction Administration X X X
General Management X X X X
72
Planning PhaseInvestigationsStudy and ReportUnderstanding, Empathy, Options(MBTI _NFP)
Construction PhaseContract Administration, Inspection and Construction ManagementOptions, Openness, Alternatives, Meanings,Connections(MBTI _NTP)
Design PhaseDetailed Design, Construction Documents,Plans and SpecificationsLogical, Adherence to Regulations &Standards(MBTI ESTJ)
Occupancy
Building Project Planning, Design and Contract Administration
GeneralFirmManagementOversight of allFirm Activities
FollowEstablishedProcedures,Experience(MBTI ESTJ)
Figure 3-1 Four-Duty Areas of the Design Profession
73
CHAPTER 4
SCOPE LIMITATIONS AND GOALS OF THIS RESEARCH
The construction industry is one of the largest single sectors of commerce in the
United States, representing nearly 10% of our gross national product. As such, it is
beyond the scope of this work to investigate the construction industry as a whole. This
research has as its first scope limit, a focus only on the Building Construction sector of
the industry.
Likewise, it is recognized that to accomplish the overall delivery of a building
project it necessarily includes the tasks of pre-planning, design, procurement and
construction and start-up or occupancy, which “constitutes a complex situation”
(Douglas, 1969, p. 1). Therefore, the second limitation of this research will be to restrict
the investigation to the design services of a project. These project sub-phases encompass
the services provided by the project’s design professional, generally including planning
studies and programming and detailed design, along with architectural and engineering
oversight during the construction phase of the project. These, in total may be referred to
as the Project Design Services. In addition, the management of the design firm is a
distinguishing duty for which many A/E executives are responsible, along with their
normal technical activities. This management activity can have a significant overall
impact on the direction and performance of a project.
The objective of this research is to explore the relationship between individual
personality characteristics of the technical and executive staff members of architectural
and engineering firms, and the factors identified as Critical Project Success Factors
(CPSF’s). These success factors vary with project phases: 1) project planning, 2) project
74
design, 3) project construction administration and, 4) overall management of the
architectural and engineering firm. Therefore, the goal of this research is to identify
those personality traits correlated with CPSF’s for the various phases of the design
process, in order to use this information to supplement the traditional predictors of
individual performance.
The findings of Ghiselli (1973), Barrick and Mount (1991) and Tett et al. (1991)
all lead us to a conclusion that personality trait measurement has an important place in
personnel placement for effective performance. Tett, Jackson and Rothstein (1991)
strongly support the continued research into personality based performance selection and
prediction. They state, in part, that there is a need for “research strategies employing
personality-oriented job analysis…” and that the outcome of this work should become
“standard practice for determining which traits are relevant to predicting performance on
a given job…” (Tett, et al., 1991, p. 732). The two top factors proposed by these authors
for research considerations are: “(a) conceptual basis for trait selection; (b) exact job
analysis procedures, results and applications.” In the case of this study, these factors are
answered with the MBTI® Form M Psychometric Instrument and a Critical Success
Factor Questionnaire, developed specifically for this research.
In order to appreciate the objective of this research, an appropriate question would
be “why is there a need for improved performance of design teams?” The cover story of
the May 11, 1998, issue of the weekly construction industry magazine, Engineering News
Record, was dedicated to the question “Are Owners Satisfied?” (Post, 1998). This
question might be appropriately answered with another question; “Is there room for
improvement?” This research holds that there is room for significant improvement and
75
further posits that this improvement is best invested at the beginning of the project
delivery process.
The question then becomes, can we as an industry recognize that the way we
deliver public works programs demand a continuing improvement in the design and
construction process (Post, 1998)? Can we find the most effective way to ensure that the
performance expectation of both public and private owners is fulfilled?
Current thinking seems to suggest that design and construction are most effective
when they become a truly integrated process. That process begins with the owner’s
program. The project requirements are then reflected in design documents; plans and
specifications, from which the procurement, construction and occupancy processes flow.
Recognizing this reality, there is then a heavy burden for project success, or failure,
placed at the feet of the Architectural and Engineering design team.
It is the position of this research work that:
A. Both successes and failures of the building sector of the construction industry
can have significant impacts on our national economy, and,
B. The current methods used for project delivery, and the success of these
construction activities rest largely with the quality of the planning and design effort of
Architects and Engineers who form the teams of design professionals.
C. With the dramatic changes in the way business is performed in the construction
industry, it is essential that the most effective methods of forming and managing the
design function are critical for the delivery of successful projects.
76
D. That creating a new business program without considering the personnel, and
personal implications is a certain formula for chaos, disruption and failure (Sanders and
Eskridge, 1993)
E. An effective and high performance team is the result of effective and high
performing individuals working together, in a coordinated and low stress environment
(Useen, 1998). Stress, and subsequent panic, arises from people being forced to operate
outside of their natural and preferred personality zones, thus individual personality
characteristics must be considered in effective team formation.
The first critical phase of the Building Construction process is the planning and
design of the project. As suggested, without proper plans and specifications, or in other
words an excellent product of the design effort, all that follows will be in jeopardy. In
particular, if design is poorly completed, there is little chance for a project to achieve
success.
The main objective of this research is to (a) provide an unbiased evaluation of the
predictability of job performance based upon measures of personality characteristics for
individuals. The second objective is to (b) compare personality traits across job content
areas and the project design sub-phases of planning, design, construction administration
and general firm management, adopting a confirmatory research strategy utilizing a self-
report personality measure and critical incident behavior instrument.
77
Individual Members of theArchitectural and Engineering
Design Teams
Self-Report of IndividualResponses to the CriticalProject Success Factor(CPSF) Questionnaire
Psychometric Testing ofIndividual Personality Traits and
Characteristics through TypeMeasurement
Individuals’ Strengths andWeaknesses Identified by
Project Phase
Correlate Respondents’Individual Strengths and
Weaknesses, Identified in theCPSF’s, with the PersonalityTraits Identified in the MBTI
Psychometric Instrument:Matching Assignments with
Individuals, Resulting inMore Effective
DESIGN TEAMS
Figure 4-1 Method and Goal of the Research
78
CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY
5.1 Approach to Methodology
The Research Methodology for this investigation has been developed into a three
part series. This series of investigations will first determine the psychometric instrument
for use in the research. The Methodology will then develop, a valid and reliable, critical
incident behavioral questionnaire; a Critical Project Success Factors (CPSF)
Questionnaire. And finally, the Methodology will investigate the correlation of
personality characteristics, reported in the psychometric instrument, and the behaviors
captured in the Critical Project Success Factors (CPSF) Questionnaire.
The first step of the Methodology is the performance of an Exploratory Study to
investigate the relationships between critical incident behaviors and MBTI® Types. The
basis of this Exploratory work is the short form MBTI type of instrument developed by
Holly M. Johnson and Amarjit Singh. This instrument is presented in their paper entitled
the Personality of Civil Engineers (Johnson and Singh, 1998).
The Exploratory Study compares the Johnson and Singh questionnaire results for
a sub-sample group of this research, and two versions of the MBTI® instrument. The
Exploratory Study is to evaluate the utility of a short-form instrument.
The second step in the Methodology series is to develop a Critical Project Success
Factors (CPSF) Questionnaire. This development is followed by a Pilot Test of the
instrument, measuring its function. The Pilot Test results, then allow the Questionnaire
to be evaluated for reliability and repeated measures validity. The questionnaire’s
reliability provides the measure of its refinement. The subsequent refinement, and
79
development of the final version of the Critical Project Success Factors (CPSF)
Questionnaire leads to the third phase of the Research Methodology.
The third phase of the research is to administer the refined Critical Project
Success Factors (CPSF) Questionnaire to a sample group, representing the various sectors
of the Design and Construction Administration service providers, in the building sector of
the construction industry. The Questionnaire captures behavioral preferences to critical
incidents. These behavioral preferences are then correlated with the results of the selected
psychometric instrument’s measure of personality inventory items.
5.2 Exploratory Study
The Journal of Management in Engineering published a paper authored by Holly
M. Johnson and Amarjit Singh entitled The Personality of Civil Engineers (Johnson and
Singh, 1998). The stated objective of the study was to develop a short form survey to
type categorize the personality of Civil Engineers in a state agency, noting any distinction
of characteristics between design engineers and construction engineers. It is the basic
work of Johnson and Singh that is used in this research as the Exploratory Study, testing
for replication of the results.
The purpose of the Exploratory Study was to “test the test” with a control group, to
determine if a short form, modified MBTI, psychometric instrument, would capture both
personality types and behaviors within a single instrument. This evaluation is accomplished
through administering the Johnson test to a control group. This is then followed with the
administration the official MBTI® instruments (Form G and Form M) to the control group.
The results are then compared and contrasted.
80
The Exploratory Study goal is to determine if a ‘modified, short-form” MBTI can
accurately and consistently determine a person’s Type.
The reported MBTI Types of the Johnson modified MBTI Questionnaire were
evaluated against the reported Types of the control group. The reported Types of the
members of the control groups, 12 members common between the groups, are presented in
Table 5-1. In addition to the Johnson Questionnaire, the control groups completed both the
MBTI Form G (N=12) and Form M (N=19) instruments, as published and distributed by
the Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Table 5-1 Comparison of MBTI® Scores with Johnson and Singh Study
ASCE J. Test MBTI MBTI Agreement on Personality Dichotomies
Respondent Johnson, et al. Form G Form M S&J/Form G S&J/Form M Form G/Form M
1 ENFP ISTP INTP 1 2 3
2 ESTJ ESFJ ESFJ 3 3 4
3 INFJ ESTJ ESTJ 1 1 4
4 ESFP ESTP ESTP 3 3 4
5 ESTJ ISTJ ISTJ 3 3 4
6 INFJ ISTJ ISTJ 2 2 4
7 ISFJ INTJ INTJ 2 2 4
8 ENFP ENTJ ENTP 2 3 3
9 ISFP ISFJ ESFJ 3 2 3
10 ISFJ ISTP ISTP 2 2 4
11 INTP ISTJ ISTJ 2 2 4
12 ESFJ ISFJ ISFJ 3 3 4
13 ISFJ No Form G INTP 1
14 ESFJ No Form G ESTJ 3
15 ESTJ No Form G ESTJ 4
16 ESFJ No Form G ISFP 2
17 INFJ No Form G ISTJ 2
18 ESTP No Form G INTP 2
19 ISFJ No Form G ENTJ 1
Dichotomy Agreement with the (3) Three S&J/Form G S&J/Form M Form G/Form M
Test Forms – Johnson, MBTI Form G and M 56.25% 56.58% 93.75%
The results of this Exploratory Study demonstrate poor agreement between the Type
reported in the Johnson study, and that of the CPP published MBTI® instruments (Forms G
81
and M). The ideal agreement on Type would have shown a consistent “4” in each column,
representing complete agreement between all four of the measured personality dichotomies.
Evident in Table 5-1, the results of the Johnson study’s modified MBTI
classification, while reported to be internally consistent within the Johnson research study’s
test objective of job class discrimination, offer no reliable prediction of the Type captured
in the official MBTI® instruments. The results of 56.25% and 56.58% offer a consistency
of little more than chance (50/50). On the other hand, the test / re-test results of the two
forms of the MBTI® instruments offers a 93.75% reliability. This is consistent with the
reported results by the Consulting Psychologist Press (CPP), which range from 94% to 97%
(Myers, et al., 1998).
These findings in the Exploratory Study lead to the conclusion that use of the
published questionnaire of Johnson and Singh is not appropriate for the present research.
While the basic concept of job discrimination and reported personality Type held promise,
the use of the Johnson questionnaire would prove unreliable as a tool to measure the true
and consistent personality dimensions of the MBTI® theory of Jungian psychology.
The decision resulting from this Exploratory Study was for this researcher to
become trained and authorized to administer and interpret the Form M of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator® (MBTI). It was the decision to utilize the officially published and tested
MBTI® Questionnaire for the determination of personality dichotomous types and scalar
measures of personality traits of the full research sample.
5.3 Questionnaire Development and Pilot Study
With the psychometric instrument selected for the measurement of personality
characteristics established as the Form M-MBTI®, the second step in the Methodology is to
82
develop an instrument to measure the critical behavior patterns within the design sector of
professional services. The measure of success or failure, in the day to day behaviors of the
design professionals, needs to be captured in a reliable and valid behavioral assessment
instrument.
The procedure for the development of the Critical Project Success Factors, or
Critical Incidents, within the Questionnaire is an effort that relies primarily upon the
research of other investigators. Numerous studies have been conducted, and are reported
within the various professional journals, that identify success factors in the design
profession. It is these previous research studies, and various professional practice guide
documents, that are the primary sources of the questions that formed the initial Pilot
Study CPSF Questionnaire.
The initial development of the proposed CPSF Questionnaire was accomplished
through the refinement of what are referred to as critical incidents. These “critical
incidents” are captured within the confines of successful performance actions. The
successful performance actions, are as reported by the numerous researchers in the
literature review sub-section 2.7, “Properties for the Measurement of Project Success:
Critical Success Factors”. A total of 52 potential questions were compiled and organized
within the professional service domains of; project planning, including conceptual design
and client interaction; project design, including the detailed preparation of contract
documents; project construction administration, from the design office; and finally the
overall management of the design firm’s activities. These four service domains account
for the majority of the work accomplished in the design sector of a building project.
Please refer to Appendix C-1 for a complete copy of the original 52-item Questionnaire.
83
The questions were specifically developed from the works of eleven research
studies and professional guidance document reports. There is considerable overlap
between the research work of these authors and others (Carr 1997, Construction Industry
Institute 1991, Construction Industry Institute 1994, Crowley 1996, Dias, W. P. S. 1990,
Hakim and Wittenborn 1998, Lester and Bombaci 1984, Lutz, Hancher, and East 1990,
Pocock, Hyun, Liu, and Kim 1996, Saarinen and Hobel 1990, Sanvido, et al. 1992).
For an example of the development of a specific question within the
Questionnaire, Pocock’s research on project interaction is offered (Pocock, et al., 1996).
Pocock found that “ (i)t is generally accepted that project performance can be enhanced
when the interaction occurs on a regular basis, beginning at an early stage in a project, in
an open and trusting environment” (Pocock, et al., p.165). He goes on to state “(m)ost
engineers and architects could benefit from contractor input, but contractors are not
usually involved in a project until bidding. They work from completed drawings and
specifications without having had any input to their contents” (Pocock, et al., p.165). It is
further presented that one of the “critical factors” identifying successful projects is
“constructibility…information from and available to the project team in a timely manner”
(Pocock, et al., p.166).
As an example of the type of critical incident inquiry of the Questionnaire, the
Pilot Study sought a response to the following situation:
14. D. When completing the Design on a project, how important is it that it be reviewedby, and input received from suppliers and contractors,…? (Dias and Pocock)
A B C D E *Minimal
ImportanceMost of the time
– A)Some of the time
– A)Most of the time
– E)Great Importance
84
This question is keyed for evaluation, where the “correct” answer is indicated
with the asterisk. The five point Likert-scale was used to evaluate the scores of the
respondents in the Pilot Study. This is one of the original 52 questions used for
exploration in the Pilot Study. Fifty-one other questions were developed covering all
four sectors of the design services areas, planning, design, construction and management.
These questions, in their complete original form, are presented in Appendix C-1.
These questions were then administered to a group of thirteen (N=13) A/E
executives in a Pilot Study, to provide the data for Questionnaire exploration, evaluation
and refinement. The Pilot Study was accomplished, and the results were employed in the
investigation of the Questionnaire’s reliability. This work allowed the investigation of the
correlation of personality traits measured in the MBTI®, with the Questionnaire’s scalar
performance measures. The Table 5-2 presents the results of the Bivariate Correlation of
the Pilot Study test:
Table 5-2 Correlation of Original Questionnaire (Q=52) and Sample of Pilot StudyArchitects, Engineers, Surveyors and Construction Administrators – Sample N=13
Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
Thinking (-)Feeling (+)
Judging (-)Perceiving (+)
Planning - PearsonCorrelation
.054 .043 .456 .497 *
Sig. (2-tailed) .862 .888 .117 .084N 13 13 13 13
Design - PearsonCorrelation
.480 * -.422 .119 -.249
Sig. (2-tailed) .097 .151 .700 .412N 13 13 13 13
Construction PearsonCorrelation
.390 .696 ** -.191 .214
Sig. (2-tailed) .187 .008 .531 .483N 13 13 13 13
Management PearsonCorrelation
.344 -.184 .339 -.343
Sig. (2-tailed) .250 .548 .258 .252N 13 13 13 13
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed).
85
As shown in Table 5-2, the Pilot Study results offer a significant correlation
between personality characteristics, as captured in the Form M MBTI®, and the 52 Item
Critical Incident Questionnaire. As an example, the measured behavior of the pilot group
towards Construction phase incidents, is positively correlated with the personality
preference for Intuition (Sig.< 0.01). This is shown with a Pearson Correlation of
+0.696**, indicating the direction toward Intuition, (+), as a positive correlate with a
higher score on the construction questions of the CPSF Questionnaire. As a second
interpretive example, the Sensing, (-), preference is correlated within the design questions
in a non-significant relation (Sig. > 0.10). Even though there is a tendency for Sensing (-)
to yield a higher score in the design questions, with a significance of 0.157, the findings
in the Pilot Study offer only a suggestion of “approaching significance.” This is indicated
with the negative correlation, which indicates the direction of higher performance. In this
example, a sensing personality tends toward improved design performance.
With the results obtained that correlation existed in the Pilot sample, the next
stage of the research is to validate the Questionnaire. This is accomplished through an
investigation of reliability, internal consistency and the validity of repeated measures.
In addition, the question of balance within the Questionnaire is considered. This is
an inquiry of whether the Questionnaire presents a balanced collection of critical
incidents, relative to the various questions’ implied personality dichotomies and the
professional service categories.
The draft Critical Project Success Factors (CPSF) Questionnaire was a “work in
progress” throughout this research work’s early stages. The Questionnaire’s initial
purpose was an attempt to capture, through a review of the current literature, what were
86
the documented issues that would define successful and less successful behaviors in the
design and construction industry today. Each question had an accessory implied
dichotomy of success or failure. This subsidiary “success or failure dichotomy” is the
heart of the scoring of the “CPSF’s” Questionnaire. Within each question, it is the thesis
of the research that there is also an “implied association” with a dimension of personality,
as captured in the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, (MBTI®).
This approach to the research, the use of a Questionnaire to seize a respondent’s
preferred course of action, was intended to capture a pattern of behavior and performance
within various categories of service. This research performed an evaluation of the
Questionnaire to determine if it could accurately reflect the true “pieces” of what we
intend to measure.
If it is the intent of the instrument to measure success and failure related to
dimensions of personality, categorized by areas of service, then the Questionnaire must
be properly balanced and of sufficient statistical power to measure these qualities. The
concept of the Questionnaire was to capture a respondent’s demonstrated inclination
towards a particular pattern of behavior, within a service category (Planning, Design,
Construction Administration or General A/E Managerial activities). This pattern may
then be scored against researched success profiles, which in turn may be evaluated
against tested dimensions of personality as measured in the MBTI®.
Unfortunately, the measurement of these behaviors is not a computation of a hard
quality index. Such hard measurements, in contrast, might include items such as the
number and/or value of Change Orders on a project (budget issues). It may be a
measurement of schedule growth on a project (schedule issues). These measurements,
87
studied by others, have formed the basis of many of the inquiries of the Questionnaire.
While measurements, such as schedule and cost growth were used in much of the
research found in the literature, from which the Questionnaire was developed, they are
not the direct metrics used in this survey. The metric used in this Questionnaire is more
subjective. This Questionnaire results in a soft measure of perception, attitude and
behavioral patterns to critical incidents.
The purpose of the Questionnaire is to formulate a comprehensive list of the
important quality dimensions of an individual’s behavior, in various service categories.
Thus, it was important to ensure that each of the service categories is balanced and
represented, and that each dimension of personality is balanced and represented.
Furthermore, it is important that within each of the categories, the personality dimensions
are balanced in accordance with the hypothesis and measurement goals of the research.
These are the elements investigated in the following sections.
5.3.1 Dichotomies Implied in the Questionnaire
The dichotomy of personality implied in each of the Questionnaire’s items might
remain open to subjective judgment and expert opinion. What is “implied” to one,
experienced in the use of Type, may or may not be implied to another. Each dimension
of personality might be inferred in each question, related to a “critical incident” as
described in each question. Within any critical incident question, an individual’s behavior
may be driven by each of the MBTI® personality dimensions. How one deals with the
outside world (E/I), how one prefers to collect information (S/N), the values one uses in
reaching a conclusion (T/F) or, whether or not one moves to close the issue or option
(J/P), can easily impact behavior. The challenge then becomes, which of these
88
dimensions of personality, captured in the MBTI®, is the strongest driving force in each
critical incident question. The most powerful MBTI® personality dimension is defined as
the “implied” dichotomy associated with each question.
The question used in the following example, and explored here, was originally
developed from the Construction Industry Institute (CII) Source Document No. 19,
“Input Variables Impacting Design Effectiveness”, January 1986. In this CII study, there
were simple inquiries as to which factors influenced the success of a project most. The
CII Document provides a list of factors in descending order of consequence, as
determined through their research.
28. P. What is more important in the success of a project?(CII)
A B C D E *Project Pre-
Planning EffortMost of the time
– A)Some of the time
– A)Most of the time
– E)Owner
Experience
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
When this question is inspected, it could be argued that it implies
Extraversion/Introversion. If an individual prefers Introversion, he or she may suggest
that success will be found internally, not needing to rely on the external activity of
dealing with the experience of the owner. Likewise, it may imply to some that the Pre-
Project Planning will yield success as a matter of factual data collection, while to others
the Owner’s Experience may offer connections and alternatives that will contribute to
success. Therefore, it might then be held that this question implies an association with
the Sensing/Intuition dichotomy. Further, this question may be inferred to suggest an
associated dichotomy of Thinking/Feeling. If one were to hold a preference for Thinking
(T), it could be viewed that Pre-Project Planning will itself yield success, with or without
89
an Experienced Owner. A preference for the Feeling (F) dimension, would suggest the
recognition of the importance of the owner’s values and experience to a successful
outcome.
The method used in this research study, for the identification of the “implied
dichotomy”, is to refer to the Pilot Study. In Question 28 of the Pilot Study, it was none
of the dichotomies outlined above that was implied with statistical significance, but rather
it was the dimension of Judging/Perceiving. While there was a tendency toward
identification of success by those with a preference for Introversion (sig. = 0.394);
Sensing (sig. = 0.585); and Feeling (sig. = 0.522); it was the Perceiving preference that
was statistically significant (sig. = 0.041*). In the Correlation Analysis of Appendix C-4,
the item labeled VAR00028 refers to Question 28.
One view of the implication of the success in this question is that one might
believe that only with the input of an experienced owner would overall success be
achieved, even if it means postponing the planning effort’s completion. Therefore, the
implied dichotomy in this question, identified in and supported by the Pilot Study, is the
Judging/Perceiving preference, with a prediction of higher performance with a preference
towards Perceiving.
This method of identification of the “Implied Dichotomy” was followed for each
of the questions. The results of this investigation are presented in Table 5-3. While not all
of the questions yielded statistical significance of <0.05, each question was analyzed to
identify the dichotomy that yielded the strongest association, and was thus identified.
Certain questions carried an implication of being driven by more than one
dimension of personality, but it was the strongest relationship that is included in this
90
preliminary assessment of the “Implied Dichotomies.” Those strongest identified
“Implied Dichotomies” are noted in the Factor-Analysis of Appendix C-4, and are shown
in Table 5-3, with the mark of an “X”.
Table 5-3 Identification of Survey Question's Implied MBTI® Dichotomy
QuestionNumber
MBTIPersonalityDimension
QuestionNumber(con't)
MBTIPersonalityDimension
E/I S/N T/F J/P E/I S/N T/F J/P1 X 27 X
2 X 28 X
3 X 29 X
4 X 30 X
5 X 31 X
6 X 32 X
7 X 33 X
8 X 34 X
9 X 35 X
10 X 36 X
11 X 37 X
12 X 38 X
13 X 39 X
14 X 40 X
15 X 41 X
16 X 42 X
17 X 43 X
18 X 44 X
19 X 45 X
20 X 46 X
21 X 47 X
22 X 48 X
23 X 49 X
24 X 50 X
25 X 51 X
26 X 52 X
E/I S/N T/F J/PTotals 12 10 13 17
91
The Questionnaire evaluation continued with the mapping of the Dichotomies.
This was accomplished by modifying the Pilot Study Questionnaire, in that the preferred
answer to the critical incident question was identified with a letter A, B C, D or E. A
scoring template was based on a five-point Likert scale with a numerical value associated
with the respondent’s selected letter. A score range of 1 through 5 was assigned for each
of the questions, with 5 associated with the “successful” or “correct” answer, and 1 being
assigned to the “unsuccessful” or “wrong” answer. The Questionnaire was then scored by
area of service. The identified areas of service in the A/E industry are Planning, Design
(Construction Documents), Construction Administration and General A/E Management
of the Design Firm. Each area of service was scored and analyzed independently.
Appendix C-1 contains the original 52-item questionnaire “mapped” by area of
service and implied personality dichotomy based on the results of the Pilot Study. Each
of the questions identifies the following information: which Dichotomy is implied in the
question (from the Pilot Study); the “correct” direction of the dichotomy (underlined);
which answer is the “right” answer (yielding a score of 5, and identified with and *). In
addition the service area that is investigated, is identified with the letter after the question
number (i.e., P = Planning; D = Design, etc.). This mapping allowed the research study
to ensure that an overall balance existed in this Questionnaire.
In order to develop the Raw Point Ranges for each of the Dichotomies, it is
necessary to identify the “strongest” dichotomy driving each question, and then associate
that dimension with the a success or failure selection. As an example, if an individual
holds a preference for Extraversion, the highest score of the Raw Score Range that this
individual could theoretically achieve on the Questionnaire would be if he had selected a
92
5-point choice for each question where Extraversion or Introversion was the “correct”
direction of the implied dichotomy. The lowest score of the Raw Score Range this
individual could achieve would be if he selected the “wrong” answer for each of the
Extraversion and the Introversion questions, and was assigned a score of 1 for each. Since
there are a total of twelve questions where the Extraversion/Introversion Dichotomy is
the strongest, (statistically, the most powerful dimension from the Pilot Study), the Raw
Point Range for the E/I questions would be a low of 12, to a high of 60.
Since it is a basic premise of the research that people will choose an answer in the
direction of their personality preference. While the Range may be 12 to 60, the actual
score expected will fall within this range. It is anticipated that those with a preference for
Extraversion will select the “correct” answer on the Extraverted favored E/I questions,
scoring 5 points each. Additionally, that Extraverted individual, when faced with an
Introversion “correct” question, will likely choose the wrong behavior (answer), and
score only a 1. These scores form the predicted “toy” scores in Appendix C-3. This
evaluation allows the exploration of a balance in the distribution of questions.
As presented in Appendix C-3’s Raw Score Range, with each question there was
selected and awarded a score of 1 or 5. These scores were awarded to the implied
dichotomy, and the direction of the dichotomy, from the Pilot Study results. For
example, in question 1 of the Questionnaire (Appendix C-1), the “Implied Dichotomy” is
Thinking/Feeling, and the direction is Feeling as underlined (Appendix C-4, VAR00001,
Correlation of –0.491, meaning F). Therefore in Appendix C-3, (T), Thinking receives 1
point and (F), Feeling receives 5 points. At the bottom of the Table, the Grand Total
Predicted Score presents the predicted scoring of each dichotomy. Again, by way of
93
example we could predict that an ESTJ would have an overall score on this Questionnaire
of 156 points, (E-32; S-38; T-37; and J-49). It can be seen that the Questionnaire is
reasonably balanced with the national sample of percentages in each personality
preference (Myers, 1998, MBTI® Manual, p. 298). In Appendix C-3 it can be observed
that the lines Percentage of Grand Total, indicating the percentage of questions favoring
a particular preference, are in balance with the National Sample Percentages (Figure-2-1,
Chapter-2). This National Sample Percentage indicates the percentage of people in the
United States with a preference for that dimension. When these percentages are viewed
in light of the national sample’s average, in the general population, the balance of
questions favoring each preference may be judged.
By way of an example of the questionnaire’s development effort to achieve
balance, the range for the E/I Dimension has a high possible score of 60 (12 questions
with an “Implied E/I Dichotomy” at 5 points each) and a low of 12 (12 questions at 1
point each). The average score within this Range is the 36, or ((32+40)/2)). The
predicted score for this Dichotomy, assigning 5 points to each question with an Implied
Dichotomy of E/I, and a preference indication of Extraversion, is 32 (44.4% of the
questions) and Introversion, is 40 (55.6% of the questions). This indicates a reasonable
balance with the percentages of the general population, at 49.3% Extraverts and 50.7%
Introverts. The Sensing/Intuition dimension is also closely balanced, while both the
Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Perceiving dimensions are well balanced. In all, the
Questionnaire is judged to reflect a reasonable balance, both within, and between the
dichotomies.
94
Through the exploration of the Implied Dichotomies, it has been shown that
overall there was a reasonable balance and representation of the MBTI® dimensions of
personality, both in the dichotomies, and the direction of preference in the Pilot Study
CPSF Questionnaire.
5.4 Reliability and Validity Analysis – Questionnaire Refinement
In order to develop a powerful Questionnaire that measures what it is intended to
measure, in a valid and reliable fashion, certain methods and procedures are undertaken
to ensure this is the case. The primary effort of this sub-section of the Research
Methodology, is to refine the Questionnaire, and remove those items that on the surface
offer face validity, but through the Pilot Study were identified as being poor
discriminators of personality and behavioral patterns. This is accomplished through a
statistical evaluation of the reliability of the Questionnaire’s items.
The computation of a reliability coefficient provides an estimate of the
consistency of respondent’s scores along a meaningful continuum (Stodola, 1967).
Clearly for the results of the Questionnaire to be meaningful, they must report differences
which are a true measure of variations in character, rather than reporting that which is
attributed to chance. It is here that this research explores the reliability of the CPSF
Questionnaire.
The approach taken is to evaluate the entire set of 52 test items of the
Questionnaire, considering the measures of the personality traits scored in the pilot-study
of thirteen design industry executives. The correlation analysis offered confirmation of
the implied dichotomies of the MBTI, with the various questions of the instrument. Does
the Questionnaire actually measure and track with the four dichotomies of the MBTI?
95
For example, if within a question there is an implied dichotomy of the
Extravert/Introvert attitude of the MBTI, is the question answered consistently by those
respondents with either Extravert or Introvert personalities? Is there a high degree of
reliability computed for each of the eight-(8) elements of personality? The personality
traits explored in the MBTI®, as explained in previous sections, of Extravert, Introvert;
Sensing, Intuition; Thinking, Feeling; Judging and Perceiving, when identified, join to
form a personality Type.
5.4.1 Reliability
The evaluation of the reliability of the draft 52 item Questionnaire is to conduct a
factor analysis of the questions. This is conducted on the questions identified as test
items of each factor, or group, used in the evaluation (i.e. Planning, etc.). This factor
analysis allows the observation of those test items, or questions that were inter-correlated.
Those items that are inter-correlated are then grouped; confirming or rejecting the
assignment of the Questionnaire items based on critical incidents. As the positive inter-
correlation of questions is identified, the Questionnaire is refined through selection of the
more powerful items, or conversely the removal of items weakly correlated. This is a
multi-step activity, with the objective to improve the instrument’s overall reliability,
through the removal of items with weak value of discrimination. This process will begin
to reduce the number of questions in the CPSF Questionnaire, from the initial 52, to some
final form number of questions.
The Questionnaire items are evaluated within the SSPS statistical program for
Repeated Measures and Reliability. Considering the sample size, (N=13), and the “pilot”
nature of the Questionnaire, the task of this sub-section of the Methodology is not to
96
“validate” the instrument, but rather to adjust and improve the instrument’s
(Questionnaire’s) reliability.
In order to improve the Questionnaire’s reliability, the inter-correlation output of
the questions is studied. These original inter-correlation results are included in Appendix
C-11. The exploration of the test items (questions) is conducted to determine if there are
particularly strong and/or weak inter-correlations. The next action selects the weakest of
the questions, removing them from the next phase analysis. It is here that the alternative
of validity of the Questionnaire might be improved. In order to increase validity and
reliability, either the removal of the “worst items” (Smith, 1934), or the future re-wording
of the items, could capture more reliably the performance, and behavior of a critical
incident, which formed the initial basis for the item. Since a semantic differential might
result from a “re-wording” of the questions in the Questionnaire, and might distort the
results being evaluated, the simple removal of the weak items from the factor’s group
was the method chosen. The removal of the “weak” items then allowed for the re-
evaluation of the reliability test.
Once this is completed, the results are examined again, modified and re-tested a
third time for reliability. These results of the improved reliability are shown in Table 5-4.
The reliability of the Questionnaire in its various, and improved forms, is
evaluated using the SSPS Statistical program’s feature of Repeated Measures and
Reliability. Table 5-4 reports the results of the alpha-value reliability tests for the three
iterations of Questionnaire refinement. This successive improvement is noted, as weak
questions are removed from the instrument, from the original 52 items, to 42 items and
then to the 33 final items. These results demonstrate a continuing positive improvement
97
in the instrument’s reliability across each service area. These improvements are noted
with each successive iteration.
Table 5-4 Critical Success factors Questionnaire Refinement (*Alpha values)
TABLE of RESULTS: Planning Design Construction Management.
1.FIRST RUN QUESTIONS 0.4276 0.0190 0.1509 -0.6234
Number of Items (13) (19) (10) (10)
2.INITIAL REFINEMENT 0.6746 0.5898 0.5311 0.2428
Number of Items (11) (14) (9) (8)
3.FINAL ELIMINATION * 0.7292 0.7101 0.6454 0.5691
Number of Items (9) (10) (8) (6)
The results of the Questionnaire refinement are demonstrated in Table 5-4. There
is an overall improvement in the Reliability of the Questionnaire with the initial re-
ordering of the Questions within each group or factor. The first iteration (1. First Run
Questions) of the reliability analysis is for the test items as originally written (all 52) and
identified for the various factors (Planning, etc.).
As stated above, there is a subsequent attempt at improvement (2. Initial
Refinement) in the Reliability of the Questionnaire, with the elimination of the test items
(questions) that demonstrated low, or weak inter-correlation with the other items of each
particular factor or group. The third, and final trial, for the improvement in the
Questionnaire’s reliability (3. Final Elimination) is the most effective effort, with the
removal of the items of questionable reliability, as demonstrated in the pilot study inter-
correlation analysis. With alpha values ranging between 0.57 and 0.73 the instrument’s
ability to ensure reliability, based on the Pilot Study results, is established.
98
For the research to be effective, the Questionnaire needs to be Valid, Reliable and
offer Repeatable Measures that may be replicated through any of the standard means:
split sample, test/re-test and the like.
The overall Questionnaire is thus reduced from an initial group of 52 questions to
a final of 33 “reliable” test items. The Pearson Correlation Analysis of the Pilot Study
group (N=13), comparing the final Questionnaire Items with the MBTI® personality trait
scores is presented in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5 Pearson - Correlation of Refined Questionnaire (Q=33) and Pilot StudyArchitects, Engineers, Surveyors and Construction Administrators Sample N=13
Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
Thinking (-)Feeling (+)
Judging (-)Perceiving (+)
Planning - PearsonCorrelation
0.147 -0.133 0.683 * 0.177
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.632 0.664 0.010 0.563N 13 13 13 13
Design - PearsonCorrelation
0.481 -0.386 -0.100 -0.315
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.096 0.193 0.746 0.294N 13 13 13 13
Construction PearsonCorrelation
0.365 0.613 * 0.002 0.575 *
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.220 0.026 0.995 0.040N 13 13 13 13
Management PearsonCorrelation
0.105 -0.163 -0.226 -0.565 *
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.734 0.594 0.457 0.044N 13 13 13 13
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
This analysis presented in Table 5-4 shows a marked improvement in the CPSF
Questionnaire’s reliability, while removing 19 weak items (questions). The correlation
presented in Table 5-5 demonstrates no significant loss in the strength of the relationship
between performance measures and personality, using the final 33 item Questionnaire,
compared to the pilot study results, using all 52 original test items (Table 5-2). As an
example, it may be observed that in the Design category of performance measures, the
relationship between the Extraversion/Introversion dichotomy remains unchanged in the
99
52 item correlation and the 33 item correlation, (0.480, sig. = 0.096 versus 0.481, sig. =
0.097). As the Questionnaire’s reliability increases with its refinement, the Construction
phase questions revealed an improvement in the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy, (0.575,
sig. = 0.044). These examples demonstrate the consistency of the Questionnaire’s
correlation of personality and behaviors in the pilot study sample, while improving the
Questionnaire’s reliability.
The previous paragraph addresses the question of the relationship and impact of
improved reliability, with instrument validity. It is demonstrated that the questions offer
a positive and reliable relationship to internal consistency of the instrument. A
respondent, who answers in one direction on one of the grouped test items, is likely to
respond in a similar fashion on the other questions. The Questionnaire’s reliability is
improved through the elimination of the 19 “weak” questions. The questions that have
been removed from the original questionnaire are presented in Appendix C-2.
5.4.2 Validity
The validity of the Questionnaire is its ability to measure what is intended for
measurement (Thorndike, 1997). In this case, the measurement is the behavior or
performance of a respondent in a successful, or less successful manner. Reliability is the
consistency and precision of the Questionnaire. For valid research, the instruments used
must be statistically reliable (Glass and Hopkins, 1996). In the previous sub-section of
the Methodology, the effort to investigate, evaluate and improve the reliability of the
Questionnaire is demonstrated. This effort, however, does not examine the instrument’s
validity. The Literature Review, and the research of others, defines successful behaviors
in the design and construction industry. As presented in earlier sections, this research was
100
used in the formulation of the original 52 “critical incident” questions. While the data
presented in Table 5-4 demonstrated reliability, this does not address the instrument’s
validity. It is through the evaluation of the instrument (Questionnaire) by means of
correlation with the collected MBTI scores of the pilot study respondents, that the
existence of continuing validity can be detected. These results are presented in Table 5-5
above, and discussed previously.
In addition, the correlation test of the factored, or ranked responses to the test
items (Planning, etc.), and the “scaled” scores of the pilot study respondent’s MBTI data
is performed. This is presented in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6 Spearman Rho - Correlation of Questionnaire (Q=33) and Pilot StudyArchitects, Engineers, Surveyors and Construction Administrators Sample N=13
Spearman's rho Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
Thinking (-)Feeling (+)
Judging (-)Perceiving (+)
Planning - PearsonCorrelation
.083 -.077 .713 ** .254
Sig. (2-tailed) .788 .803 .006 .402N 13 13 13 13
Design - PearsonCorrelation
.405 -.399 -.083 -.180
Sig. (2-tailed) .170 .176 .788 .556N 13 13 13 13
Construction PearsonCorrelation
.280 .793 ** -.170 .501
Sig. (2-tailed) .354 .001 .580 .081N 13 13 13 13
Management PearsonCorrelation
.050 -.317 -.186 -.627 *
Sig. (2-tailed) .871 .291 .542 .022N 13 13 13 13
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
In this case, there is supplementary evidence of the pilot-test research hypothesis
validity. When subjected to the “scaled” scores in the Correlation analysis, both the
Pearson Correlation (0.683*, sig. = 0.010), from Table 5-5, and the Spearman Rho
Correlation (0.713**, sig. = 0.006), from Table 5-6; demonstrate a powerful connection
between the test items and the Feeling component of the MBTI.
101
The Construction group of questions provided broad based significant results. The
Pearson Coefficient favored both the Intuitive function (0.613*, sig. = 0.026) and the
Perceiving attitude (-0.575*, sig. = 0.040). The Spearman Rho of (0.793**, sig. = 0.001)
for Sensing/Intuition supported this finding; while the Judging/Perceiving measure of
Spearman Rho approaches significance, (0.501, sig. = 0.081).
For the Management factor, the Pearson Coefficient of (-0.565*, sig. = 0.044) and
the Spearman Rho of (-0.627*, sig. = 0.022), correlate with the MBTI Judging attitude.
Thus, the questionnaire finds support as both, a reliable and valid test instrument
when evaluated for the pilot study data. Its reduction, from the initial 52-item matrix to a
33 item Questionnaire, resulted in a substantial increase in internal consistency and
reliability, while maintaining the Questionnaire’s validity.
The final version of the “33 Item” Questionnaire is included in Appendix B of this
research study.
5.5 Focal Study
With the selected psychometric instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ®
Form M, and the finalized version of the Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire,
the focal study of the research work could be undertaken. The administration of these
two research instruments would provide the data for testing the research hypotheses.
5.6 Subjects
It is generally recognized that the suitability of the data collected for use in any
survey or questionnaire emerges from the choice of the people selected to respond
(McCormack and Hill, 1997). In the case of this research, the population of interest
comprises the entire group of professionals engaged in the performance of duties within
102
the planning, design and construction administration phase services of the general
building segment of the construction industry. It is clearly not practical that this entire, or
even the bulk of this population can be surveyed. The steps for conducting this research
involve the identification of a sampling pool, and the verification that this pool is
representative of the population of interest.
In order to set a global sampling frame, a list of firms, and professionals, drawn
from the population of interest was established. There are a number of national
organizations that comprise the population of interest. These organizations include The
American Consulting Engineers Council, The National Society of Professional
Engineers, The American Society of Civil Engineers and The American Institute of
Architects. These four national professional societies comprise the “sampling frame” for
our “population of interest”.
The method used in the sampling and application of the psychometric instrument
(MBTI, Form M) and CPSF Questionnaire is not a random method, but rather a non-
probability sampling approach (McCormack and Hill, 1997). The primary element that
limited the selection of the final sample, and the subsequent application of the
investigative instruments, was a decision of the management of each viable and invited
firm, for or against participation.
Member firms of the American Consulting Engineers Council were recruited for
participation in this research study. Representatives of five firms participated in the
study. The “compensation” for participation was feedback on the respondent’s
personality profiles, as measured with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The ethical use
of Type, and an essential aspect of the promotion of the Type theory, is the feedback
103
given to respondents. This feedback and individual counseling has been available to all
respondents, in strict accordance with the standards for the “Ethical Use of Type”, as
published and distributed by the Association for Psychological Type.
Five firms offering engineering, architectural and construction management
services agreed to participate in the study. The firms were located in the northeast, with
offices in Boston, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Utica and Syracuse. Four of the five firms had
branch offices, also primarily in the northeast.
According to Engineering News Record (April 10, 2000), 96 of the 100 Top
design firms in the United States provide planning, design and construction
administration in a full-service business format. These full-service activities encompass
planning, conceptual design, design development, detailed design (architecture, civil,
structural and MEP engineering), construction documents, bidding, negotiation,
construction administration and start-up supervision. This is in contrast to the sometimes
mistaken view that engineering and/or architectural design is predominantly provided by
firms with singular specialties. Seventy-one of the ENR Top 100 Construction
Management firms were engineering design firms, while less than 30% are reported to be
construction firms. Thus, a major component of the professional services offered by the
engineering design community includes construction administration in the form of
Construction Management.
As such, the sample selected for participation in this research was from the broad
market of full-service firms. It was a requirement that the participating firms offer
engineering and architectural planning and design services. In addition, each firm was
104
required to offer as a significant component of their services, the management of the
construction process, within an agency relationship with the projects’ owners.
The following Table presents the service offering of each of the firms who
participated in this research.
Table 5-7 Service Offerings by Research Sample Firms
ServicesPlanning and Detailed Design, Construction Construction
Firm Concept Design Plans & Specs Administration Contracting1 X X X X2 X X X3 X X X4 X X X X5 X X X
Planning and Civil & Structural M, E & P ConstructionFirm Architecture Engineering Engineering Management
1 X X X X2 X X X3 X X X4 X X X X5 X X X X
This population sample offers a somewhat homogeneous group of professionals.
In many respects, the sample’s cognitive abilities will offer some consistency, since all
study participants have achieved a similar level of professional attainment. This is also
true of education, both type (technical) and intensity (college). The design professionals
all work in the same industry, have achieved a similar level of responsibility, and are
architects, engineers, surveyors or construction administrators involved specifically in the
building process.
105
The suggestion of Jerry Burger has thus been addressed, to make the theory and
subsequent experiment parsimonious (Burger, 1997). Burger’s contention is that the
simplest theory to explain an outcome is the most appropriate.
With this in mind, the selection of professionals for the application of the MBTI®
psychometric instrument was based upon individual assignments within their respective
organizations, and their duties within project groups or teams. A randomly selected
sample, representing various project teams, was invited by the target firms’ management
to participate in the study. The sample necessarily included individuals who perform the
planning, design, construction administration and general managerial duties within the
sample firms.
The total number of employees of the participating businesses exceeded 500. The
number of technical employees of these firms is somewhat less than 300. Of those
employees, the internal criteria for the principals making the final selection of the
participants, within their respective businesses, was that the research sought project
managers and above. Within the design sector of the construction business, this
designation generally means those employees in responsible charge of the planning,
design or construction administration of public works. The principals identified, and
invited 136 project managers to complete the MBTI and the Questionnaire. Of those, 98
completed forms were returned. Of the 98 returned, 85 were completed adequately for
inclusion within the study. In the event that there was missing information, such as age,
education or sex, these items were verified and the information added by the researcher.
When questions were not answered, either in the MBTI, or in the CSF Questionnaire,
these responses were discarded, and not included in the sample. The average response
106
rate was 72%. Four firms ranged from 60% response to 100% response. One firm had a
35% participation rate. An inquiry was made of this firm, where the response rate was
lower than the others. The answer was that they, as a business, were extremely busy
during this period, and the low response rate was likely attributed to that. This firm was
also in the process of relocating their main office during the two-month period provided
to complete the instruments, attributing to the lower than expected response. The
principal in this firm declined the re-distribution of the Questionnaires to the non-
respondents.
The first step of the research effort had the engineers, architects and project
managers complete the Form M of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The second step of
the study’s data collection was for each of those respondents who completed the MBTI,
to then complete the Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire. Once completed,
each was placed in a sealed envelope by the respondent, and returned to Virginia Tech for
inclusion in the research.
The sample provided 85 subjects (86% male n = 73; 14% female n = 12). The
professional distribution was 22% architects (n=19) and 58% engineers (n = 49), 6%
surveyors (n = 5) and 14% construction administrators (n =12).
The age range of the respondents was 22 years to 72 years, with the average age
of 36.9 years. The average tenure (time in the current line of work) was reported to be
12.8 years, with a range of 1 year, to 41 years of experience.
107
Table 5-8 Research Sample Demographic Data
Research Sample DataNumber Percentage Range Average
Male 73 86%Female 12 14%Architects 19 22%Engineers 49 58%Surveyors 5 6%Construction Administrators 12 14%Age 22 to 72 36.9Tenure (years) 1 to 41 12.8
The question arises as to the size of the sample required for the research work.
This consideration is one of the “power” needed for the statistical procedures to be
employed in the study. The following summary outlines the considerations of sample
size, statistical procedures and assurances of discovery of significance where such exists.
The primary concern of most statistical procedures is to maintain a high
probability of avoiding an unsubstantiated finding of a “statistically significant result”
where none exists. This is commonly referred to as avoiding a Type I error. The Type I
error occurs when the experiment or research finds a positive result that is not true
(convicting the innocent).
The second statistical error, a Type II error, occurs when there is a relationship
between the elements being investigated, but no relationship is noted in the research
findings. This is akin to letting the guilty go free. While a situation may exist that a false
null should be rejected, it is possible that the statistical investigation may be unable to
detect this result, and present such a finding, if there is inadequate evidence. The
protection against this form of flawed research is to improve the experimental research
108
design, to ensure the investigation has adequate “Power” to detect the results if they do
exist.
The evaluation of the Power of this research is to ensure an appropriate sample
size. An adequate sample is needed to secure the detection of statistical significance
where it exists, or, in other words, to assure the research design is powerful enough to
reject a false null, Ho.
An essential consideration in determining the “Power” of an experiment, or
research investigation, is the effect size. This is a function of the standard error, which is
computed based on a particular sample size. This is, of course, the answer sought in the
investigation of power. As such, absent a fixed sample number, there are other
alternative methods of estimating the effect size.
Several methods to determine the Power of an experiment rely on data referred to
as special conventions. While one may choose to use the approach of a special
convention, one of the most reliable approaches is to use data from prior research. In this
case, where the primary statistical approach is a correlation study, (the fundamental
statistic of this research), the correlation coefficient, ρ, is the equivalent of the effect size,
d. In the case of personality research, correlation coefficients in the range of 0.20 to 0.50
are not uncommon. The work of Barrick and Mount, Tett, et al., Myers, et al., and
Ghiselli each offer numerous examples of such coefficients for “personality factors”
studies. Table 9.15 (Myers, et al., p. 194) presents a correlation of the MBTI® with the
Kirton Adaption and Innovation Inventory where the average ρ of 0.343 was significant.
This example, along with reference to the works of other researchers, has led to the
selection of a ρ of 0.35 for the sample size estimate.
109
The non-centrality parameter, δ, is a function of the effect size, d, and the sample
size. If both the non-centrality parameter and the effect size can be established, then the
recommended sample size can be estimated. The published “power” tables present the
non-centrality parameter for different levels of significance desired. In the case of this
research, an α level of 0.05 is selected for a two-tailed test. Additionally, the probability
of experiencing a Type II error may be selected by the researcher, which is then used to
determine δ, the non-centrality parameter. The minimum Power determined for this
research to be acceptable was 0.80, or an 80% probability of the discovery of an effect, if
one truly exists. In this case the parameter has been selected for this level of protection
against a Type II, 80% Power. This then yields a δ, non-centrality parameter of 2.80 for
a two tailed α of 0.05 (95% confidence).
The sample size is then estimated from the following formula: ____________
δ = ρ √ N-1___2.80 = .35 √N-1
or
(2.80/0.35)² + 1 = N = 65
Therefore, the minimum recommended sample size for the research being
conducted was 65 participants. Since it is now established that the total number of
responses to the MBTI® and the Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire is 85, this
response would present an experimental Power of approximately 89%. This analysis
indicates that the design of this research offers appropriate Power against the occurrence
of a Type II error. It also highlights the caution to avoid “splitting” the sample into sub-
categories (i.e. Architects vs. Engineers, etc.) since the categorical sample size is thus
110
decreased, increasing the probability of encountering a Type II error. Thus, the primary
evaluation of the data will be the simple correlation, comparing the entire set of responses
indicating preferred behaviors (Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire), with the
personality traits of the respondents (MBTI).
Evaluating the data within a categorical context is possible. This will offer insight
into data relationships, however, if the sample were split in half, the power of the
experiment then drops from 89% to approximately 63%, increasing the likelihood of a
Type II error. Continuing this example, if the respondent group were divided into four
groups for analysis, the Type I error would continue to be protected by the statistical
analysis chosen. However, the potential of a Type II error increases considerably, from
11% to over 65%.
5.7 Task
The MBTI Instrument and Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire are to
be completed by each of the invited participants. Specifically, the procedure is for each
respondent to receive the MBTI Questionnaire and Answer Form from the designated
source within each office, returning it completed in an envelope which is provided. Next,
the Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire is completed, and returned in a sealed
envelope. These responses are then forwarded to the author’s attention at Virginia Tech.
5.8 Comparative Study
This research attempts to address the performance issues in the design segment of
the construction industry. This is accomplished through a combination of applying the
standardized psychometric instrument, (MBTI), and an open-ended survey of the
measurement of Critical Project Success Factors (CPSFs). The MBTI®, however, offers
111
a multi-independent variable measure, through its investigation and identification of four
independent, self-reported, dimensions of personality.
One of the challenges of this work is the measurement of individual performance
through the research (dependent variable). The specific challenge is to achieve a non-
biased and balanced measure of actual behavior and achievement. The criterion for
measurement of performance is the individual rating, scored on the Critical Project
Success Factors Questionnaire, for each performance service area.
This scoring of the CPSF Questionnaire may be found in the data presented in
Appendix C-9. The respondents complete the CPSF Questionnaire’s answer sheet, by
indicating their preferred answer to each question. These answers are each rated on a
five-point Likert scale, with the value of each response entered in a data collection form
(answers are presented in Appendix C-9). The answer values for individual questions of
each category of service are added together. The total is then divided by the number of
questions in the respective service category, to form an average score for each respondent
and each service area (planning, design, etc.). These averages, as presented in Appendix
C-9, are the data to be correlated with personality measures of the MBTI®.
5.9 Independent Measures
5.9.1 Individual Profiling (MBTI ®)
This research study is based on the principles of hypothesis testing, investigating
key predictors of behaviors and the dimensions of personalities as defined through the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The subjects were administered the Form M of the
MBTI®, (Myers, et al., 1998) in order to determine their preference on the four
dichotomies of personality: Extraversion or Introversion, Sensing or Intuition, Thinking
112
or Feeling and Judging or Perceiving. The participants were asked to respond to 93
items, both phrase questions and word pairs. An example of the phrase question would
be (Myers et al., 1998, p. 141):
When you go somewhere for the day would you rather:
A – plan what you will do and when, or
B- just go?
Examples of the word pairs (Myers et al., 1998, p. 141) would be:
scheduled A B unplanned
gentle A B firm
The total score for each personality dimension is determined by the summation of
the respondent’s score for each preferred direction. While the results of the Form M were
hand scored for an indication of whole Type, they were also subjected to a weighted
computer scoring of the instrument that provides the highest degree of accuracy for Type
discrimination and preference clarity on individual dichotomies. The responses to this
study were scored with the CPP Software System distributed by the Consulting
Psychologist Press (CPP, 1999), and are presented in Appendix C-10.
Extensive testing of this personality instrument has been performed with measures
of internal consistency ranging from 0.86 to 0.95 (Myers et al., 1998, p. 161). The Form
M has been tested for consistency across gender, age and ethnicity with internal
consistency reliabilities ranging from 0.80 to 0.95 (Myers et al., 1998, p. 161).
113
5.10 Dependent Measures
5.10.1 Critical Project Success Factor Questionnaire
The CPSF Questionnaire was developed as an output of the literature review of
the construction industry research. This research establishes the criteria for determining
successful and less successful behaviors. The intent of establishing these success
standards is to develop a predictive test to assess performance in various job assignments.
In the case of this research, the assignments are within the domains of; Planning, Design,
Construction Administration and General Management duties within the firms providing
Architectural, Engineering and Construction Management services. It is through the
Questionnaire, that this research seizes the respondent’s preferred course of action on
various critical incidents. In this fashion, the research questionnaire captures the pattern
of behavior and performance within various service categories. With this concept, it is
the goal to capture a respondent’s demonstrated inclination towards a particular pattern of
behavior within a service category (Planning, Design, Construction Administration or
General Managerial activities). This pattern is then scored against researched success
profiles on a five-point Likert-type scale with ranges of: Prefer A, Tend Toward A,
Equally Split, Tend Toward B, Prefer B. Another example scale used was: Very
Important, Quite Important, Somewhat Important, Seldom Important, Minimally
Important. These scales were then scored by the five-point Likert-type method, with 5
points awarded to the “correct answer”, to be followed by 4, 3, 2 and finally 1 point for
the “incorrect answer.”
For example, a respondent might have answered the six (6) questions involving
General Management of the design firm in the following fashion. Question 1, answer B
114
(=2 points); Question 2, answer C (=3 points); Question 3, answer E (=5 points);
Question 4, answer B (=4 points); Question 5, answer A (=5 points); Question 6, answer
D (=4 points) with a total value of 23 points. The total score for this service category is
then divided by the number of questions, to establish the average score, on the five-point
scale, which in this case would be 3.83. The full answer profile, along with the
categorical averages, for the 85 respondents are presented in Appendix C-9.
The final Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire is presented in Appendix
B. The final items, included within the 33 questions, are those that endured the reliability
and internal consistency evaluation of the initial 52-item questionnaire. The internal
consistencies (alpha coefficient) of the four service categories of the final pilot study
questionnaire ranged from 0.57 to 0.73. These consistencies were the result of the
evaluation of the pilot study results (N= 13). The small sample may have limited the
reliability estimate.
Considerable improvement in the Questionnaire’s reliability and internal
consistency was found in the administration of the instrument to the full research sample.
With this increased sample size, and the subsequent reliability analysis, the
Questionnaire’s overall reliability and internal consistency has been documented.
The final reliability, with the full response sample completing the CPSF
Questionnaire is presented in the following summary.
Table 5-9 Refined Questionnaire Reliability Analysis
Reliability Analysis (*Alpha values)
TABLE of RESULTS: Planning Design Construction Management.
1.FINAL 33 QUESTIONS 0.8099 0.8740 0.9425 0.8783
115
The alpha coefficients for the internal consistency of the Critical Success Factors
Questionnaire, as administered, were 0.8099 for the Planning questions, 0.8740 for the
Design questions, 0.9425 for the Construction questions and 0.8783 for the General
Management questions. These results offer validity that the Final 33 Item Questionnaire,
as administered to the respondents, is highly reliable, with substantial internal
consistency.
5.11 Procedure
The subjects initially completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ®. The
subjects were instructed to complete the Indicator in a non-work environment, (preferably
at home). Once completed, the scoring sheet, and the question booklet were placed in an
envelope and returned to the researcher, through the corporate contact in each of the
participating firms.
Once the MBTI® scoring packets were received, they were template-scored by
the researcher, and checked for consistency and completeness. Following the template
scoring, the data from the responses was entered into the Consulting Psychologists Press,
Inc. (CPP) Software System for item-weighted computer scoring of the MBTI strengths
of the four personality dichotomies. The scoring range for each dichotomy was from
minus 30 points to plus 30 points. On a categorical basis, the scores of 0 to +/-5 are
classified as slight preference clarity. The scores of 5 to 15, either plus or minus were
classified as moderate in preference clarity. Fifteen to twenty-five classified as clear,
while 25 to 30 are classified as very clear.
116
The MBTI® Form M may be self-scored, template-scored, or computer scored.
The self-score and template-score options use a unit weight scoring method of one point
per each response count. Each of the instrument’s 93 items identifies a preference for
one of the four MBTI dichotomies. In the template-scored method, the respondent’s
preference on a given scale is the measure that it chosen most often (for example, Sensing
– S, or Intuition – N). While this method offers an instant indication of Type and
preference clarity, it lacks the overall balance of the item-weighted tabulation of the
computer scoring method. The template-scored method is generally limited to situations
of one on one counseling, where refinement of Type may be explored with expert input.
In the research and development of the Form M instrument, certain questions provided a
higher, or lower, power in the IRT (item response theory) evaluation. These questions are
thus weighted accordingly, and adjusted in the CPP Software scores. When the response
data is used in research, an item-weighted scoring afforded with the CPP Software offers
higher reliability for true Type measures. This data is presented in Appendix C-10.
The second phase of the research is the completion of the Critical Project Success
Factors Questionnaire. Each subject is provided a copy of the Questionnaire and asked to
complete it. The CPSF instrument is completed in the work environment. The responses
to the work related questions (critical incidents) were to be completed in the environment
in which the decisions being queried are normally made.
As before, these documents were then placed in an envelope, sealed and returned
to the researcher in the same fashion that the MBTI instruments were returned. Each
Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire is hand-scored, the data collated and
prepared for analysis. The procedure for scoring the CPSF Questionnaire is to cluster the
117
professional service phase questions, by category, planning, design, construction
administration, and management. The results for each respondent were then determined
by computing the average response value for the questions of the service category.
As presented previously, the Questionnaire was developed on a five-point Likert
scale scoring response. Each respondent indicates his or her choice of behavior. Each of
the five possible choices, to each question, is valued at 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. For example, the
respondent’s answers to the 9 final questions for planning service activities were then
averaged to determine his, or her, preferred behavior toward the planning critical
incidents. These scores for the 85 respondents are presented in Appendix C-9.
5.12 Analysis
The statistical technique commonly used in the analysis of continuous scale
measurements of behavioral science data, in particular personality research, is the
correlation coefficient. Therefore, the primary examination of the relationship between
the measured traits of personality, (MBTI Type), and the measured behavioral responses
to the Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire, is the Pearson Product-Moment
Correlation Coefficient. This examination allows the research to determine if there exists
a statistically significant relationship between the measure of successful performance
behaviors, in the areas of planning, design, construction and firm management; and the
measured dimensions of personality (MBTI®).
In addition, there is considerable support for the evaluation of MBTI measures of
personality, as dichotomous. The Association of Psychological Type, among others,
views the dimensions of the MBTI as categorical Types, rather than measured Traits of
personality. As such, a second statistical technique, the ANOVA, is used. This allows
118
the determination of the statistical significance of the variance in the mean scores
reported on the Critical Success Factors Questionnaire, by sub-category. These scores
are analyzed with the respondent’s MBTI reported Type (i.e.; Extravert or Introvert;
Thinker or Feeler, etc.). As shown in Table 5-9, the Simple Correlation Coefficient and
the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance), are the procedures utilized in over 79 % of
psychological research studies, as reported in the Journal of Personality Assessment,
during a five-year period.
Table 5–10 Common Statistical Procedures (Glass and Hopkins, 1996)
Use of Various Statistical Procedures in StudiesPublished in the
Journal of Personality Assessment from 1990 through1994
Procedure Percentage of Studies Employing Procedure
Descriptive statistics only 12.7%Analysis of variance 29.2%Analysis of covariance 5.1%Chi-squared 21.8%Cluster analysis 3.8%Discriminant analysis 6.8%Factor analysis 16.9%Multivariate analysis of variance 11.8%Multivariate analysis of covariance 2.4%Multiple linear regression 12.0%Simple correlation 50.1%Structural equation modeling 0.7%T test 24.5%
After completion of the MBTI®, and the Critical Project Success Factors
Questionnaire, the descriptive statistics are initially computed. For the subsequent
analysis of the research hypotheses, a series of Pearson Product Moment correlation
coefficients were computed.
119
In addition, since each of the dimensions of personality may be viewed as a
dichotomous classification, these traits, or characteristics of personality, then form
categorical independent variables (Type). While the grouping of each of the four
dimensions of personality is categorical, the scores on the Critical Project Success Factor
Questionnaire provide responses on a continuous scale. These data may then be analyzed
with an ANOVA. A reduced statistical power is a penalty for splitting the sample to
compare two independent means, and unequal sample sizes.
Of the thirteen common statistical procedures utilized in personality studies, it is
reported that over 50 percent employ as a primary statistic simple correlation. Another
29 percent rely on analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Glass, 1996, pg. 491). These results
are presented in Table 5-9. While two statistical methods were used in this research, it is
the degree of the relationship between variables which is the ultimate aim of this work
therefore, the primary statistical analysis is the Pearson Product Moment correlation, and
the test of significance.
120
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS
6.1 Descriptive Statistics and Personality Trait Effects
The means, standard deviations and the correlations for each of the variables
utilized in the analysis of the research findings, are presented in Table 6-1. These results
represent the 85-respondent sample of the research. In addition, Appendix C-10 presents
the full scoring results for the research sample. This appendix presents the respondents
MBTI Type, the computer scored intensity (clarity) of personality dimensions and the
scores to the Critical Project Success Factors Questionnaire by service category.
Table 6-1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation for Variables Sample N=85
Variable M SD 1E/I
2S/N
3T/F
4J/P
5P
6D
7C
8M
1 Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
-1.59 16.17 Corr. 1
2 Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
-7.22 12.79 Corr. -0.13 1
3 Thinking (-)Feeling (+)
-10.51 11.26 Corr. -0.04 0.06 1
4 Judging (-)Perceiving (+)
-10.81 14.16 Corr. 0.05 0.36 ** 0.29 ** 1
5 Planning-Concept Design
2.60 0.50 Corr. -0.04 0.23 * -0.01 0.24 * 1
6 Design- ContractDocuments
3.33 0.48 Corr. -0.07 -0.11 -0.13 -0.24 * -0.07 1
7 ConstructionAdministration
2.99 0.53 Corr. -0.11 0.37 ** 0.02 0.33 ** 0.35 ** -0.23 * 1
8 FirmManagement
3.25 0.53 Corr. -0.08 0.02 0.07 -0.13 0.12 0.04 0.08 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05level of significance** Correlation is significant at the 0.01level of significance
The relationships or inter-correlations across the independent variable (four
dimensions of personality) are largely non-significant with the exception of the (4) J/P
scale. The individuals with a preference for (2) Sensing were correlated with a
preference for (4) Judging, while (4) Perceiving were correlated with (2) Intuition (r =
0.36, p <0.01). Likewise, those with a preference for (4) Judging (or conversely
121
Perceiving), also had a preference for (3) Thinking, (or conversely Feeling), (r = 0.29, p <
0.01). These two findings are uncharacteristic of the research findings for the MBTI®,
since correlations between personality variables are not typically found (Myers, et. al.,
1998, pages 175-185).
The findings of this study, however, support those personality researchers who
question the interference of the non-Jungian J/P scale with the S/N and the T/F
dichotomies (McCrae and Costa, 1989). These researchers found that the J/P and the S/N
scales were inter-correlated, r = 0.38 in their 1989 study, as well as in the research
normative data. This inter-correlation also supports the theory of Type Dynamics (Hirsh
and Kummerow, 1998).
The core of the research hypotheses, being that the correlation between the
independent variables, (personality dimensions), and the dependent variables,
(performance measures), exhibits several significant relations. Individuals with higher
scores on the (5) Planning Phase had a significantly higher preference towards (2)
Intuition (r = 0.23, p < 0.05), as well as a preference for (4) Perceiving (r = 0.24, p
<0.05). This finding is consistent with prior research studies that demonstrated
Perceiving and Intuition were positively correlated with Openness to Experience (p <
0.001) (McCrae and Costa, 1989). It is also reported that Openness to Experience was
positively correlated with the generation of creative ideas (Costa, 1996, and Barron and
Harrington, 1981). Respondents with higher scores in the (7) Construction
Administration Phase, also showed a significantly higher preference for both (2) Intuition
and (4) Perceiving (r = 0.37, p < 0.01; and r = 0.33, p < 0.01) respectively. Once again,
this prediction of new ideas and Openness to Experience tracks with the Construction
122
Administration Phase challenges. It is here where conflicts in the Contract Documents
and the methods of construction can create a need to find alternative solutions to
problems in the building process, vis-à-vis, the poet Robert Burns “The best laid plans of
mice and men gang aft aglay (often go astray).”
The (6) Design Phase critical incident questions were positively correlated with
the (4) Judging dimension of personality (r = -0.24, p < 0.05). This result is consistent
with the hypotheses, and is supported in the theoretical rationale that compliance with
rules and regulations, and the desire for closure, would result in better Contract
Document preparation services.
The results also showed an emergence of a number of correlations among the
dependent variables. The (7) Construction Administration scores were positively
correlated with the (5) Planning scores, (r = 0.35, p< 0.01), while negatively correlated
with (7) Design – Contract Documents (r = -0.23, p < 0.05). The strong connections
between Planning and Construction services are supported by the research of others
where innovation and quantity of new ideas were positively related (West and Anderson,
1996).
Chapter 3 presented a Null Hypothesis, which states that in the population of
Architectural and Engineering Professionals practicing in the Design Services Division of
the Building Sector of the Construction Industry, based upon the measures of personality
captured in the MBTI®, there would be no performance differences measured for the
planning, design, construction administration and general firm management duties by
these professionals. The exploratory hypotheses were then presented. Those included a
projection of the relationship between each phase of service in the industry, and the
123
measures of personality, as captured in the MBTI®. These are graphically presented in
Table 6-2 – Exploratory Hypotheses and Research Findings. As indicated, the findings
of the research are also presented in this Table 6-2. It may be noted that of the fourteen
exploratory predictions, five were found to offer a significant relationship between the
performance measures (CPSF Questionnaire) of the respondent group, and dimensions of
personality (MBTI®).
This research found significant correlation between improved Planning
performance and levels of Intuition and Perception. In the Design service area a positive
correlation was found with the Judging dimension of personality. In Construction
Administration higher performance was positively correlated with Intuition and
Perception. No correlation was found between General Management performance and
personalities as measured by the CPSF Questionnaire and the MBTI®.
Table 6-2 Exploratory Hypotheses and Research Findings
X indicates significant correlation was predicted in the HypothesesHYPOTHESES E I S N T F J P
Planning (Conceptual Design) X X X
Design (Contract Documents) X X X X
Construction Administration X X X
General Management X X X X
RESEARCH FINDINGS E I S N T F J P
Planning (Conceptual Design) X O X
Design (Contract Documents) O O O X
Construction Administration X O X
General Management O O O O
X indicates significant correlation exists, O indicates no significance was detected
124
6.2 Personality Type Effects
The basic premise of MBTI® Type theory is that each person holds a preference
for each of the four dichotomies of personality. Type theorists suggest that this preference
is not a continuous scale trait, but rather a categorical identification of Type. The
combination of preferences forms a whole type, such as ESTJ: extraverted, sensor,
thinker, judger. As such, the data analyzed in the previous section, via correlation, have
been subjected to an ANOVA to confirm the relationship of performance and preferred
type in each of the four personality dichotomies. The respondent cases that measure
slight on the MBTI® preference clarity scales, (the range of –5 to +5), are recommended
to be excluded from any categorical analysis (Harvey, 2000, McCrae and Costa, 1989).
This is further supported by Myers, (1980) in that it is suggested that each individual
along with his counselor, explore the “true type” through a one on one evaluation. This is
particularly true where there is a significant chance of misclassification where individuals
are near the mid-point. The logic is that when a “preference clarity” is in the slight range
the likelihood of a test/retest repeatable result is between 22% and 52% (Ave. 41%)
(Myers, et al., 1998). Once the classification of “preference clarity” moves to the
moderate, clear and very clear ranges, the average test/retest repeatable results move to
81%, 93% and 99% respectively. Therefore, to increase the power of the analysis,
recognizing a split of the sample, the “preference clarity” range of slight has been
excluded.
125
Table 6-3 ANOVA Extraversion – Introversion Slight Cases Removed
SS df Mean Square F Sig.Planning Between Groups 0.0938 1 0.0938 0.369 0.546
Within Groups 17.545 69 0.254Total 17.639 70
Design Between Groups 0.02855 1 0.02855 0.119 0.731Within Groups 16.503 69 0.239
Total 16.532 70Construction Between Groups 0.204 1 0.204 0.753 0.388
Within Groups 18.678 69 0.271Total 18.882 70
Management Between Groups 0.008162 1 0.008162 0.027 0.87Within Groups 20.788 69 0.301
Total 20.797 70
In the (1) E-I – ANOVA there was agreement with the correlation evaluation. As
presented in Table 6-3, under the right hand column, Significance (Sig.), there is no result
observed that meets the threshold level for significance of p < 0.05. This analysis relates
the personality dimension of Extraversion – Introversion to success factors in the four
service categories: Planning, Design, Construction and Management. The number of
respondents whose MBTI® results indicated a “preference clarity” higher than “slight”
for the E-I dichotomy was 71.
Sixty-two respondents scored higher than “slight” on the Sensing – Intuition
dichotomy as shown in Table 6-4. Therefore, sixty-two respondents were “clear” in their
dichotomous preference for either sensing or intuition. The results obtained in the
Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between
the S/N dichotomy and both the (5) Planning and the (7) Construction service areas.
Similar results were found in the ANOVA. Statistical significance was detected in both
the Planning and the Construction Phase services, [F (1, 60) = 7.428, p <0.01 and F (1,
60) = 5.063, p < 0.05] respectively. This result indicates that there is not only a
126
difference in the intensity of ones preference for sensing or intuition, (scalar measure of
traits- Correlation), but that personality Type is also a discriminator of performance,
(categorical measure of Type- ANOVA).
Table 6-4 ANOVA Sensing – Intuition Slight Cases Removed
SS df Mean Square F Sig.Planning Between Groups 1.799 1 1.799 7.428 .008
Within Groups 14.535 60 .242Total 16.334 61
Design Between Groups .331 1 .331 1.487 .227Within Groups 13.338 60 .222
Total 13.668 61Construction Between Groups 1.545 1 1.545 5.063 .028
Within Groups 18.310 60 .305Total 19.856 61
Management Between Groups 7.022E-02 1 7.022E-02 .222 .640Within Groups 19.019 60 .317
Total 19.090 61
Agreement with the correlation analysis was also found in the (3) Thinking-
Feeling dimension of personality. As presented in Table 6-5, there were 62 respondents
with “moderate” through “very clear” preference clarity indices for this dichotomy.
Consistent with the correlation analysis, but contrary to the research hypothesis, no
statistically significant relationships were detected in Thinking-Feeling dichotomy of
personality. It had been predicted in the exploratory hypotheses that the T-F dimension
would be a discriminator of performance since this is the decision making function of
Type. No significant relationship was detected in this research.
Table 6-5 ANOVA Thinking – Feeling Slight Cases Removed
SS df Mean Square F Sig.Planning Between Groups .208 1 .208 .821 .369
Within Groups 15.214 60 .254Total 15.422 61
Design Between Groups 8.826E-02 1 8.826E-02 .334 .565Within Groups 15.836 60 .264
Total 15.925 61Construction Between Groups .285 1 .285 1.054 .309
Within Groups 16.212 60 .270Total 16.497 61
Management Between Groups .492 1 .492 1.673 .201Within Groups 17.650 60 .294
Total 18.142 61
127
Table 6-6 presents the findings of the dimension of (4) Judging – Perceiving
ANOVA results. These were found to be consistent with the correlation study, however,
not a complete agreement, vis-à-vis, statistical significance. While the correlation of the
“trend” in the J-P score as a trait was significantly correlated with the (5) Planning Phase
responses, when viewed as a categorical dimension the significance dropped to sig. =
0.091, or non-significant. This inconsistency may be the result of a Type II error since
the total sample of 85 is reduced by dropping the slight respondents. The “moderate to
very clear” preference clarity group numbered 67. This was further split to a distribution
of 10 perceivers and 57 judgers, thus reducing the Power of the inquiry. In fact, the
analysis of statistical power for this case clearly demonstrates the problem of sample
splitting, where the power of two independent means of unequal sample sizes of 57 and
10 will result in the probability of a Type II error of over 68%. Simply stated, under this
statistical condition there is only a 32% chance of actually rejecting the null if it is false.
This demonstration clarifies the use of the ANOVA as a supporting investigation only,
with the primary results found in the Pearson Product Moment Correlation statistic.
Table 6-6 ANOVA Judging – Perceiving Slight Cases Removed
SS df Mean Square F Sig.Planning Between Groups .604 1 .604 2.945 .091
Within Groups 13.340 65 .205Total 13.944 66
Design Between Groups 2.240 1 2.240 9.881 .003Within Groups 14.738 65 .227
Total 16.978 66Construction Between Groups 3.218 1 3.218 15.205 .000
Within Groups 13.755 65 .212Total 16.972 66
Management Between Groups .275 1 .275 .871 .354Within Groups 20.493 65 .315
Total 20.768 66
128
The box-plot of the results where significance was detected in the Judging –
Perceiving dichotomy is presented in Figure 6-1. This is a graphical demonstration of the
scoring pattern for the Design and Construction phases. The Design scores for those with
a preference for Perception (M = 2.85, S.D. 0.3866) are lower in contrast with those
preferring Judging (M =3.36, S.D. = 0.4890). The Construction scores favor those with a
preference for Perception (M = 3.50, S.D. 0.6397) when contrasted with those preferring
Judging (M =2.885, S.D. = 0.4241).
Figure 6-1 Box-Plots of Judging – Perceiving v. Design and Construction Phase
As shown above, the ANOVA supports the correlation findings in both Design
Documents and Construction Administration, yet offers only an “approaching
significance” finding in the Planning Phase. However, with the reduced experimental
power this result does not negate the correlation results; it simply cannot confirm the
result.
6.3 Analysis of Hypotheses
The null hypothesis that no relationship between the research sample’s personality
measures and the performance differences measured in the Critical Success Factors
Questionnaire is rejected. While this research discovered non-significant results in a
number of personality/performance categories, there were several significant correlations
5710N =
Perceiving=1
2.001.00
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ad
min
istr
atio
n
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
77
5710N =
Perceiving=1
2.001.00
De
sig
n -
Co
ntr
act
Do
cum
en
ts
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
35
67
129
detected, thus the null, that there is no relationship between performance and personality,
does not find support. These findings as they relate to the research hypotheses are
presented below.
For the hypotheses that a significant relationship would be found between
personality measures and performance in the planning, design, construction
administration and management duties of a design firm, a correlation was found. These
findings are repeated from Table 6-2, and presented in the Table 6-7.
Table 6-7 Correlation Research Findings and ANOVA Confirmation
CORRELATION FINDINGS E I S N T F J P
Planning (Conceptual Design) X X
Design (Contract Documents) X
Construction Administration X X
General Management
ANOVA FINDINGS E I S N T F J P
Planning (Conceptual Design) X
Design (Contract Documents) X
Construction Administration X X
General Management
X indicates significant correlation exists
6.4 Other Measures
The correlations of personality measures (MBTI) and behavioral preferences
measured in the Critical Project Success Factor Questionnaire were the primary elements
of this research. In addition, other measures evaluated that could potentially influence the
performance outcomes include professional affiliation (architect, engineer, surveyor or
construction administrator) and firm affiliation (firms n>3).
130
When subjected to an ANOVA, it was found that whether the respondent was a
professional architect, engineer, surveyor or construction administrator, there were no
performance differences detected. This finding is presented in Table 6-8, where it may be
observed that a significance of p < 0.05 was not achieved. Therefore, there is no evidence
from this research that would suggest that, for example, an architect would outperform an
engineer in any particular phase of service tested, or vice versa. This holds for each of the
other services areas and professional affiliations. This is not to say, with certainty, that
no relationship exists; it simply observes that this research offers no such finding.
Table 6-8 ANOVA of the Architects , Engineers, Surveyors and ConstructionAdministrators v. Performance Measures of the CPSF Questionnaire
SS df Mean Square F Sig.Planning Between Groups .874 3 .291 1.196 .317
Within Groups 19.740 81 .244Total 20.615 84
Design Between Groups .979 3 .326 1.416 .244Within Groups 18.669 81 .230
Total 19.648 84Construction Between Groups .590 3 .197 .691 .560
Within Groups 23.048 81 .285Total 23.638 84
Management Between Groups .821 3 .274 .963 .414Within Groups 23.012 81 .284
Total 23.832 84
There was a particular, interesting difference detected in the personality for the
respondents in the professional service categories of Architect, Engineer, Surveyor and
Construction Administrator. The difference, presented in Table 6-9, was found in the
intensity, or preference clarity within the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy, where the
Surveyors’ reported a mean score of –24.60, versus an overall mean of –7.22. The range
was +30.00 to –30.00.
Table 6-9 Descriptive Statistics of Sensing-Intuition Dichotomy
Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
N Mean Std.Deviation
Std. Error Min. Max.
Architect 19 -3.8947 15.2239 3.4926 -28.00 30.00Engineer 49 -6.6531 11.2297 1.6042 -30.00 13.00Surveyor 5 -24.6000 5.8138 2.6000 -30.00 -16.00
Const. Mngr. 12 -7.5833 12.2509 3.5365 -22.00 15.00Total 85 -7.2235 12.7936 1.3877 -30.00 30.00
131
The statistical results that a difference in the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy existed
between the service categories of the respondents were: [Sensing/Intuition- F (2, 77)
=3.906, p < 0.012], and is presented in Table 6-10.
Table 6-10 ANOVA of the Personality Results of the Four Service Categories
Sum ofSquares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
Between Groups 1176.171 3 392.057 1.527 .214
Within Groups 20792.418 81 256.697Total 21968.588 84
Sensing (-) Intuition (+) Between Groups 1737.745 3 579.248 3.906 .012Within Groups 12011.008 81 148.284
Total 13748.753 84Thinking (-) Feeling (+) Between Groups 519.769 3 173.256 1.386 .253
Within Groups 10127.478 81 125.031Total 10647.247 84
Judging (-) Perceiving (+) Between Groups 161.535 3 53.845 .261 .853Within Groups 16681.453 81 205.944
Total 16842.988 84
The results report that the Surveyors in this study differed significantly from the
other respondents in the Sensing - Intuition dichotomy. This difference is graphically
presented in the Box-Plot results in Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-2 Box-Plot of Sensing-Intuition Dichotomy
1254919N =
Arch=1 Eng=2 Surv=3 Const=4
4.003.002.001.00
Se
nsi
ng
(-)
Intu
itio
n (
+)
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
842852
132
Overall, these general findings of little or no difference in the various professional
service categories are in contradiction of earlier studies by others, which suggest
significant differences in personalities between architects, design engineers and
construction engineers. Hall and McKinnon (1969) found in a sample of 62 architects a
predominance of E, N and P. McCaully, MacDaid, and Walsh (1987) report the
predominant dichotomies for graduate civil engineers (N = 168) were reported to be I, S,
T and J.
The McCaully report findings are consistent with the findings of this research.
The sample respondents showed a consistent preference for Sensing, Thinking and
Judging, while the results reported an approximately equal split between Extraversion
and Introversion. As shown in the descriptive statistics of Table 6-11, the Architects and
Surveyors reported a Type preference for Introversion, while the Engineers and
Construction Administrators reported a Type preference for Extraversion.
The descriptive statistics for each of the service categories of the respondents in
this research are presented in Table 6-11. The group’s (architect, engineer, etc.) Type is
determined from the mean reported scores of the MBTI® by dichotomy. This result is
indicated in the Type sub-title block for reference to research studies by others.
Table 6-11 Descriptive Statistics for Each Service Category
Architects - ISTJDescriptive Statistics
N Mean TYPEExtraversion (-) Introversion (+) 19 3.0000 I
Sensing (-) Intuition (+) 19 -3.8947 SThinking (-) Feeling (+) 19 -10.4211 T
Judging (-) Perceiving (+) 19 -9.7368 J
133
Engineers - ESTJDescriptive Statistics
N Mean TYPEExtraversion (-) Introversion (+) 49 -3.2653 E
Sensing (-) Intuition (+) 49 -6.6531 SThinking (-) Feeling (+) 49 -9.0204 T
Judging (-) Perceiving (+) 49 -10.3469 J
Surveyors - ISTJDescriptive Statistics
N Mean TYPEExtraversion (-) Introversion (+) 5 7.6000 I
Sensing (-) Intuition (+) 5 -24.6000 SThinking (-) Feeling (+) 5 -11.4000 T
Judging (-) Perceiving (+) 5 -15.0000 J
Construction Administrators - ESTJDescriptive Statistics
N Mean TYPEExtraversion (-) Introversion (+) 12 -5.8333 E
Sensing (-) Intuition (+) 12 -7.5833 SThinking (-) Feeling (+) 12 -16.3333 T
Judging (-) Perceiving (+) 12 -12.6667 J
Overall, the research sample’s categorical preferences are as presented in Table 6-
12. The research sample’s reported preferences for the four dichotomies of personality,
are contrasted with the general population’s National Distribution of categorical
preferences (Myers, et al., 1998). The complete research distributions are presented in
Appendix C-7.
Table 6-12 Research Sample’s Distribution of Preferences v. National Sample
N Research Sample % National Sample %Extraversion 41 48.24% 49.30%Introversion 44 51.76% 50.70%
Sensing 67 78.82% 73.30%Intuition 18 21.18% 26.70%Thinking 69 81.18% 40.20%Feeling 16 18.82% 59.80%Judging 63 74.12% 54.10%
Perceiving 22 25.88% 45.90%
Of note in the above table is the strong preference within the research sample of
technically oriented respondents for Thinking, versus the general population’s preference
134
for Feeling. Additionally, 74% of the respondent group prefers Judging versus the
general population’s 54%. The dichotomies of Extraversion – Introversion, and Sensing
– Intuition track closely with the general population.
The results for firm affiliation were investigated. It was found that there was no
detected difference in the performance scores among participating firms. The results
were: [Planning - F (2, 77) = 1.371, sig. = 0.260; Design - F (2, 77) = 1.216, sig. = 0.302;
Construction - F (2, 77) = 0.641, sig. = 0.530 and Management - F (2, 77) = 0.090, sig. =
0.914]. Therefore, a consistency of performance across firms would suggest that
corporate culture was not a significant moderator in responses from the participating
firms’ respondents.
Likewise, the sample was evaluated across the reported levels of education. When
educational level was correlated with both performance (CPSF), and personality (MBTI),
no significant relationships were found.
Table 6-13 Correlation of Respondent’s Educational Level and Variables
EDUCATIONPlanning - Pearson Correlation .068
Conceptual Design Sig. (2-tailed) .538Design –Contract Pearson Correlation -.073
Documents Sig. (2-tailed) .509Construction Pearson Correlation .061
Administration Sig. (2-tailed) .579General Firm Pearson Correlation -.015Management Sig. (2-tailed) .891
Extraversion (-) Pearson Correlation -.094Introversion (+) Sig. (2-tailed) .390
Sensing (-) Pearson Correlation .160Intuition (+) Sig. (2-tailed) .143Thinking (-) Pearson Correlation .038Feeling (+) Sig. (2-tailed) .733Judging (-) Pearson Correlation -.080
Perceiving (+) Sig. (2-tailed) .465N 85
135
With the “other measures”, by and large, resulting in non-significant
relationships, the continuing analysis of the data focuses on the independent variable
(personality measures, i.e., MBTI TYPE) versus the dependent variable (performance
measures, CPSF Questionnaire). The basic research hypotheses were that the primary
influencing metric of performance, in critical incident behavior is attitude, or personality.
It was a premise of the research that the impact of education, firm and professional
affiliation would not significantly mediate performance. This position was due
principally to the homogeneity of the research sample. Based upon the review of the
literature, the one mediating factor that is reported to influence performance is tenure
(Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997; Tett et. al. 1991, Tizner, 1985; Maidique and Zirger, 1984;
Barrick and Mount, 1991; Day and Silverman, 1989).
Moreover, with the concern for the Power of the test minimizing the likelihood of
a Type II error, the Correlation of the data, rather than the Analysis of Variance provides
the focus of the evaluation for the research hypotheses. While the ANOVA supports the
correlation findings, evaluating the results on a Type basis does not find broad support in
the research (Costa and McCrae, 1989, Striker and Ross, 1964, and Mendelsohn, Weiss
and Feimer, 1982). The work of McCrae and Costa called into question the dichotomous
nature of the MBTI categories, and offers solid support in the utilization of the MBTI
scores on a continuous scale for research (1989). As such, the work of this research
continues to focus on the continuous scoring of the MBTI and the Critical Project
Success Factors through a simple correlation analysis. The simple correlation analysis is
utilized since each of the measures, MBTI and CPSF Questionnaire responses, were
continuous and represents random variables (Schulman, 1992).
136
6.5 Research Hypotheses Results
Table 6-1 is repeated in part within Table 6-14. This Table presents the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation value, and the Significance of the correlation.
Table 6-14 Correlation Results
Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
Thinking (-)Feeling (+)
Judging (-)Perceiving (+)
1 Planning -Conceptual Design
Pearson Correlation
-0.039 0.232 * -0.011 0.236 * Sig. (2-tailed) 0.723 0.033 0.919 0.030
2 Design -ContractDocuments
Pearson Correlation
-0.074 -0.106 -0.134 -0.239 * Sig. (2-tailed) 0.501 0.334 0.220 0.028
3 ConstructionAdministration
Pearson Correlation-0.112 0.366 ** 0.019 0.333 **
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.309 0.001 0.862 0.0024 Firm Management Pearson Correlation
-0.079 0.020 0.075 -0.133 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.474 0.857 0.496 0.226
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Research Hypothesis A focused on the Planning Phase of the design process; the
time when the conceptual design ideas are coalesced into a formal study and report,
forming the basis for all future phases of the project effort. The hypothesis predicted that
the better performers would be those with a preference for Intuition (N), Feeling (F) and
Perceiving (P). The results indicate that the respondent’s level of intuition (N)
significantly affected the planning score, (r = 0.232, p < 0.05). The respondent’s
preference for perceiving (P) was also significantly correlated with more successful
scoring in the Planning Phase services (r = 0.236, p < 0.05).
Contrary to the research hypothesis there was no finding of significance within
the subject’s thinking/feeling dimension of personality and Planning (r = 0.11, sig. =
0.919).
137
The projection that higher performance was expected with a balance in the
subject’s preference for introversion/extraversion also found no support in the research
results. This dimension, given the research hypothesis of moderate influence was
investigated with the non-linear regression. The alternative curve estimation techniques
resulted in a finding of non-significance (F = 0.32, sig. = 0.727).
Hypothesis B focuses on the Design Phase of an Architect’s and/or Engineer’s
services. This is the project phase where strict adherence to codes, rules and regulations
is highly important to ensure that the detailed Contract Documents comply with industry
and regulatory standards.
The hypothesis had projected that the dimensions of personality that would
positively impact performance of the work in the Design Phase of a project were E, S T
and J. There was no finding of significance in three of the four dimensions of
personality, with the exception being the Judging – Perceiving dichotomy. The non-
significant findings were: [Introversion / Extraversion - r = -0.074, sig. = 0.501; Sensing
/ Intuition- r = -0.106, sig. = 0.334; Thinking / Feeling- r = 0.134, sig. = 0.220].
Supporting the “imperative” of strict compliance with time and budget issues, as
well as code compliance matters, Hypothesis B is supported with a significant finding in
the correlation of performance improvement, with the increase in the clarity of preference
for Judging versus Perception, [Judging/Perceiving- r = -0.239, p < 0.05].
Hypothesis C was directed to the performance behaviors of the Construction
Administration project phase. Hypothesis C was partially supported, as the high
performing personality was predicted to present a preference for the MBTI factors of
Intuition, Thinking and Perception (N, T and P). The respondents possessing a
138
preference for Intuition (N) demonstrated a significantly higher level of performance than
those with a preference for Sensing (S) [Sensing/Intuition - r = 0.366, p < 0.01]. The
subjects with a preference for Perceiving also demonstrated a significantly higher
performance score than Judging [Judging/Perceiving- r = 0.333, p < 0.01].
The prediction of a preference for the MBTI dichotomy of Thinking, (T), was not
supported by the research findings. There was no hypothesis for the Extraversion /
Introversion personality dimension related to the Construction Phase.
Hypothesis D was directed to the General Management activities of the design
firm’s services. The correlation of the scores in this phase of service failed to support the
hypothesis that E, S, T and J would yield a higher performance than I, N, F and P
respectively. Superior performance did not differ significantly among the four preference
groups (p > 0.05), failing to support the hypothesis.
6.6 Other Measures and Predictors of Success
Although not formalized in the research hypotheses, several interesting measures
of performance mediation were noted in the analysis of the data. Tenure has been found
in earlier research to mediate performance in a number of studies (Kichuk and Wiesner,
1997; Tett et al. 1991, Tizner, 1985; Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Barrick and Mount,
1991; Day and Silverman, 1989). These researchers’ findings were of particular interest
in this study, once the responses were provided, and the profile of the subjects was
observed. The Architectural and Engineering professions require a minimum of four-
years of experience in an intern position prior to being qualified to sit for the national
licensing exam. This four-year internship period then became an element of interest,
when the number of subjects with less than five years tenure was observed. These
139
subjects were reported by their supervisors to be in project manager – decision-making
positions, therefore, these dimensions of personality/performance were explored. The
correlation matrix of performance (CPSF Questionnaire), with the MBTI dimensions for
those with four or less years of experience, is presented in Table 6-15.
Table 6-15 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation for Sample of Tenure < 5 Years
Variable M SD 1E/I
2S/N
3T/F
4J/P
5P
6D
7C
8M
1 Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
-1.44 15.60 1
2 Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
-5.88 11.01 -0.478 1
3 Thinking (-)Feeling (+)
-5.88 10.46 -0.431 0.497 1
4 Judging (-)Perceiving (+)
-12.19 12.97 -0.033 0.440 0.031 1
5 Planning-Concept Design
2.46 0.42 0.309 -0.024 -0.276 0.048 1
6 Design- ContractDocuments
3.37 0.27 -0.166 -0.104 -0.152 -0.353 -0.029 1
7 ConstructionAdministration
2.84 0.31 0.117 -0.294 0.105 0.048 0.031 -0.273 1
8 Firm Management 3.31 0.43 -0.145 0.005 -0.207 0.103 0.588 * 0.092 0.123 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05** Correlation is significant at the 0.01
N = 16
As noted, there are no significant findings of any relationship between
performance and personality for this sub-group of respondents. The implications of this
are addressed in the Discussion Chapter of this work. It is recognized, however, that with
a small sub-sample (N=16) the statistical power of the investigation is well below the
recommended N of 65, which does lead to the possibility of a Type II error. It is also
noted that within this group, there are no “approaching significance” findings either.
Consequently, the investigation of this data was subjected to a curve estimation, with a
relationship between performance and Extraversion/Introversion noted, and presented in
Figure 6-3, along with the ANOVA of Table 6-16.
140
Table 6-16 ANOVA Planning – Extraversion/Introversion - Tenure < 5 Years
Dependent variable.. PLANA Method.. QUADRATIMultiple R .87829R Square .77140Analysis of Variance:F = 21.93359 Signif F = .0001
Figure 6-3 Curve Estimation of Sample with Tenure < 5 Years
This interesting finding was observed only in the Extraversion / Introversion
personality dimension. The higher the non-tenured (less than 5 years experience)
respondents’ preference for either extraversion or introversion, the lower the score in the
Planning phase service questions of the CPSF Questionnaire. The implications are
considered in the Discussion Chapter.
The second area where other factors were investigated for their impact on the
personality – performance exploration was the impact of gender as a discriminator. The
sample was split male – female and the correlation performed. Even though the small
sample of females, N=12, might subject the investigation to a Type II error, a statistically
significant relationship was found (F = 6.798, sig. = 0.0262).
Planning - Conceptual Design
Extraversion (-) Introversion (+)
3020100-10-20-30
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
Observed
Quadratic
141
The graphical representation of the female only sample, with the design service
inquiry is presented below, with the implications addressed in the Discussion chapter:
Figure 6-4 Design Scores v. Sensing/Intuition Dichotomy Female Respondents N=12
The third finding, through the exploration of the data, that is considered material
to the investigations underway, is the education level versus service phases. When the
sample was split into those with graduate level education, (Masters Degree or more),
compared with those holding a Bachelors Degree or less, there was a significant finding
in the Planning Phase (F = 10.171, Sig. = 0.002). This is graphically presented in Figure
6-5.
Sensing (-) Intuition (+)
0-10-20-30
De
sig
n -
Co
ntr
act
Do
cum
en
ts
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 Rsq = 0.4047
142
Figure 6-5 Box-Plot of Graduate Education v. Planning Scores
No other significant findings were noted in the exploration of the data collected.
Implications of these three findings, which were beyond the stated research hypotheses,
are discussed in 7.2, the Future Research section of the Discussion chapter.
6817N =
Masters+=1
2.001.00
Pla
nn
ing
- C
on
ce
ptu
al D
esi
gn
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
42718
143
CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION
7.1 Critical Success Factors, Personality Traits and Performance
The findings that personality traits impact, and therefore, correlate with individual
performance, are not a unique discovery of this research (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997; Tett
et al. 1991, Tizner, 1985; Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Barrick and Mount, 1991; Day and
Silverman, 1989, Barry and Stewart, 1997). Many authors have shown that performance
is enhanced when teams are composed of members with appropriate personality
characteristics for the tasks to be accomplished. Various researchers have discovered that
the measures of personality found in Judging (Conscientiousness), Intuitiveness
(Openness to Experience), and Extraversion are related to positive performance in
individual tasks. The unique contribution to the body of knowledge of this particular
research study is not the connection of personality traits to broad areas of performance,
but rather specific connections of those dimensions of the dichotomous personality traits
of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® with industry specific performance.
7.1.1 Planning (Conceptual Design) Phase Services
The finding of the investigation of the first hypothesis, suggesting that individuals
with higher levels of Intuitive data gathering would outperform those with higher
preferences for a Sensing approach to data collection, seems logical and makes sense. In
the Planning Phase of a project, the service activities require a sensitivity to “complex
interactions” (McCaully, et al., 1987, p. 101), a uniquely Intuitive function. Furthermore,
the theoretical possibilities and the continuous flow of new implications are actions most
common to the planning process, a process in which the Intuitive is quite comfortable
144
(Myers, et al., 1998). The Sensor, on the other hand, looks for a “practical, hands-on,
common-sense view of events” (McCaully, et al., 1987, p. 101). This approach coupled
with the Judging preference to gather “only enough data to make a decision before setting
on a direct path to a goal”, (McCaully, et al., 1987, p. 102) would miss the many
opportunities that need to be discovered in the planning process for a project. With the
preference for Perceiving, supporting that of Intuition, an individual develops an optimal
pattern of personality, for optimal individual performance in the Planning Phase of the
designer’s service. These were the hypothesized predictors of higher individual
performance outcomes.
The prediction of Feeling as a positive Type preference for Planning Phase
performance did not find support in this research, as evidenced by the finding of
insignificant results among those with opposing personality preferences of the T/F scale.
The research suggests that persons with a preference for making judgments objectively
and analytically perform no better than those respondents who allow personal values to
be brought into the decision process. Clearly, the result would suggest that both personal
values and the need for making dispassionate decisions are of value in the planning of
public work construction projects.
Myers (1980) compares the preferences of Thinking and Feeling with tactfulness
and truthfulness. Clearly, in the Planning of a capital improvement project both
tactfulness and truthfulness would be needed for a successful outcome, albeit at different
times in the process and to differing degrees. It is here that once good alternatives are
discovered, considered and evaluated (within the S/N actions), the tactfulness and
145
truthfulness of the decision will not be a factor in performance; good data (from the S/N
functioning) will lead to good performance.
The research findings suggest that Planning services are influenced from a whole
type perspective as a result of the data gathering functions rather than the decision
making function. Type dynamics promote the theory of interaction and directional
preference between Perceiving and the Sensing/Intuition dichotomy. This research found
those with a preference for Perception, or a personality “finely tuned to changing
situations, alert to new developments which may require a change in strategy, or even a
change of goals” (McCaully, et al., 1987, p. 102) will outperform in project planning.
7.1.2 Design (Contract Documents) Phase Services
Contrary to the Hypothesis A, within Hypothesis B addressing the Design Phase
services, neither data gathering nor decision-making personality dimensions impacted
performance. This result is somewhat surprising given the strong inter-dimension
correlations of both the S/N and T/F dichotomies with the J/P MBTI scale. The research
results, however, only conveyed a connection of the J/P scale with the performance
improvements in the Design Phase services. While the personality pattern prediction of
the hypothesis was for the whole type ESTJ to outperform on the design phase services,
the conjecture that those with a preference for extraversion, sensing and thinking found
no basis for support within this research study.
The Design Phase preparation of detailed Contract Documents needs
professionals who are “decisive, not curious”, “live according to plans, standards, and
customs”, “make very definite choice(s)”, “take real pleasure in getting something
finished”, “aim to be right”, and “are self-regimented, purposeful and exacting” (Myers
146
and Myers, 1980, p. 75). These descriptions are those of a person whose personality
preference is for Judging (J).
According to Hypothesis B, and the findings of this research, Contract Documents
should not be prepared by those who “are more curious than decisive”, “live according to
the situation of the moment”, “like to keep decisions open as long as possible before
doing anything” (Myers and Myers, 1980, p. 67). This description is of one who has a
preference for Perception (P).
This finding is consistent with the literature in that high levels of a Judging
preference are connected with achievement and a focused discipline to the task at hand
(McCrae and Costa, 1987, Barry and Stewart, 1997, Buchanan, 1998). Superior
performance in the preparation of Contract Documents in the Design Phase of a project
was found in those subjects who demonstrated a preference for Judging (J).
7.1.3 Construction (Administration) Phase Services
The powerful effects of the data collection and life structure personality
dimensions, Intuition (N) and Perception (P), were detected in the research to be
connected to the third hypothesis, the Construction Phase services. The Construction
Phase services are those likely to need immediate attention in a “crisis” situation. As
more participants are involved in the process and its immediate implications, the more
complex the data collection and decision-making process becomes. As predicted in
Hypothesis C, the research found that the optimal personality pattern for the generation of
the best performance model included those who would not rush to judgment (P), and who
keep the options open until all possibilities for alternative solutions were considered (N).
This personality pattern offers the traits of Intuition and Perception, or Openness to
147
Experience. These personality characteristics have also been consistently shown in the
literature to be connected to the consideration of new ideas, as well as generating novel
methods to solve problems (Barry and Stewart, 1997, Costa and McCrae, 1987) which is
consistent with good planning results.
As discovered in the first hypothesis, for Planning Phase services, the decision-
making dimension of personality did not predict performance improvement in the
Construction Phase. A modified theory which one might promote, is a situation where too
much in the way of dispassionate logic (T), or too much in the way of value based
judgments (F), would be worse than those with a moderation of these two preferences.
However, the research did not support this either. The finding of insignificance is solid
in that the way the subjects prefer to arrive at their conclusions for action, the decision-
making process (T/F), did not impact the performance scores in the Construction Phase
services.
The implication of this result is that this research has found that the greatest
improvement in performance in the Construction Administration of a project is in the
way one is open to alternatives and the way options are thoroughly explored. Once
options and alternatives are fully considered, the individual’s Thinking/Feeling
personality dimension preference did not impact performance. The idea that “thinking is
not always first-class thinking” (Myers and Myers, 1980, p. 67) quite possibly offers the
reason for the high correlation of performance and data gathering. The product, or
decision, “is no better than the facts it started with” (Myers and Myers, 1980, p. 67), thus
for improved Construction Phase decisions, this research finds that an array of
alternatives and exploration of possible solutions is needed (N & P).
148
7.1.4 General Management of the Firm
The final hypothesis, which was associated with the Management of the Firm, did
not find any significant relationships between subjects’ performance and personality
preferences. This finding is somewhat surprising, in that, in the pilot study a strong
finding of significance was found on the Judging/Perceiving dimension. The expansion
of the full research study to a broad base of project managers, or decision-makers, yielded
results different from when only the partner level executives are investigated. The pilot
study was a group of executives from a single firm who formed the study respondents.
The homogeneity of the pilot group is a possible cause of this disparity, where there was
a hypothesized expectation of a significant relationship between performance and
personality, when according to this research none exists.
7.1.5 Individual Personality Traits and Personality Type
Considered as a whole, the result of this research study underscores the
consequences of placing the individual with the right personality traits in the right
assignment. As stared earlier in this study, Thomas Jefferson, in 1823, is credited with the
observation that one of management’s most difficult tasks was “to put the right person in
the right place” (Jefferson, 1823). With the support of this study, the strength of
individual personality dimensions in the prediction of optimal performance is solidified.
A number of researchers promote whole-type, or personality patterns, as the
predictor of behavior and a discriminator of performance measures. These whole types,
as well as a plethora of composite MBTI letter combinations were investigated. Forty
(40) personality dimension combinations designated by letter pairs and whole types (four
letter combinations) were investigated without significant findings of personality –
149
performance relationships beyond those found in single personality traits. These results
are presented in Appendix C-8, and demonstrate a lack of support for the MBTI
measurement claims of “qualitatively distinct Types”, and suggest that the “instrument
measures four relatively independent measures” (McCrae and Costa, 1989, p. 17). There
is some disagreement in the literature over this issue, in that Myers (1998) promotes the
view of whole-type, while Hirsh and Kummerow (1998) recognize combinations of
personality dimensions forming patterns. The temperament theory of Keirsey (Keirsey
and Bates, 1976, Keirsey, 1998) employs the discrimination of Temperaments within the
MBTI theory and Jungian psychology, to combine traits and predict behaviors.
While these combinations have been reported to support the behavior theories of
other researchers, there was no support found in this study for that finding, beyond that
found in single dimensions of personality. However, this does not suggest that the four
independent personality traits do not interact with one another in specific situations.
These interactions may then direct behavior patterns in these situations, however, further
industry specific study is required in order to offer any meaningful predictions (McCrae
and Costa, 1989).
Numerous studies have reported on the strength of the predictive power of
individual personality traits (Mendelson, Weiss, and Feimer, 1982, McCrae and Costa,
1989, Buchanan, 1998). The results of this research are in agreement with the findings of
these earlier studies namely that individual personality traits provide significant
predictive power for specific performance behaviors. In particular, the findings of
Buchanan (1998) held that individual traits are all that are needed for the prediction of
creative outcomes. This finding firmly supports the power of the creative task findings of
150
the Planning Services Phase and the Construction Administration Phase results, with
independent significant performance improvements from those with preferences for
Intuition (N) and Perceiving (P). In future research the quantity of creative solutions to
Planning and Construction problems, and the relationship to the J/P dimension, versus the
quality of creative solutions, along with a relationship to the S/N dimension, could serve
to clarify the relationship between intuition and perception.
The findings of this research also supported the earlier work of Jackson (1996) in
that the personality trait of Perceiving (P) required for open-ended and creative tasks,
(Planning and Construction) were contrasted with the personality trait of Judging (J)
which is needed for more structured tasks (Contract Documents-Design).
Table 7-1 Research Findings
“X” Indicates a Personality/Performance RelationshipRESEARCH FINDINGS E I S N T F J P
Planning (Conceptual Design) X X
Design (Contract Documents) X
Construction Administration X X
General Management
Overall, the findings of this research add to the broad array of literature reporting
the influences of personality traits on performance. This study’s results of an industry
specific performance measure open the way for future studies into the different phases of
the construction industry’s delivery of projects for public and private use.
151
7.2 Future Research: Gender, Educational Level and Tenure
The additional findings of this research, relating to sub-groups split by gender,
educational level and tenure as discriminators, uncovered significant results that are
considered here. The sub-groups where these findings were noted are generally offered
with the caveat that due to the small sample sizes, the study is of limited power. They are
presented to form a basis for consideration of future areas of research.
The first finding of significance noted is the result of dividing the sample into
male – female categories. This allowed the opportunity to investigate the correlation of
the personality – performance measures for men and women separately. The significant
correlation of design performance with the clarity of the Sensing dimension (r = -0.636, p
< 0.05) was found. It should be noted that there were no females in the sample reporting
a preference for intuition (N). This is not out of the ordinary, since the general
population of females is reported with Sensors outnumbering Intuitives, 3 to 1 (Myers et.
al., 1998, p. 298). In addition, when the male and female subjects were compared in the
ANOVA, investigating variance in performance within all categories of service, no
significant differences were detected. This data is somewhat confounding and may be
appropriate for further investigation in future research.
The second sub-group finding was the impact of graduate level education on the
performance measures in the Planning Phase service. The present research detected that
those with graduate degrees in architecture and engineering significantly outperformed in
the Planning Phase. The hypothesized results of this research concluded a significant
correlation of the Intuitive personality with Planning services. Numerous studies have
reported Intuitive personalities positively correlated with higher education, particularly
152
graduate work (McCrae and Costa, 1989, Myers et al., 1998). The finding of the literature
review suggests that since those with graduate educational experiences have a
significantly higher preference for an intuitive personality trait, (N), than that found in the
general population. This research has found that higher performance is expected in the
Planning Phase from those with a preference for intuition, (N). One might then conclude
that those with graduate degrees should perform the Planning function. This research
study offers no support for any cause and effect conclusion. A relationship between
intuition, (N), graduate education, and Planning performance, has been shown to exist,
and this offers fertile ground for further exploratory research.
The third, and possibly most interesting of the sub-group research findings is one
of tenure. A large collection of research work has demonstrated a relationship between
tenure and performance (Kichuk and Wiesner, 1997; Tett et al. 1991, Tizner, 1985;
Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Barrick and Mount, 1991; Day and Silverman, 1989). Much
of this work, however, has focused on tenure as a function of team interaction. With this
research, using professional architects and engineers as the sample, and the requirement
for an internship period prior to the issuance of a license to practice professionally, the
tenure variable takes on a potentially significant offering of data for further investigation.
It was discovered in this study, that those with less than 5 years experience, in
other words, those who do not yet have tenure equal to the mandatory period of
professional internship, showed no correlation of personality traits with performance
measures, with one exception. This suggests experience as a mediator of performance.
The one exception noted was in the Planning Phase activities, where there was a
curvilinear negative relationship between clarity of Extraversion and Introversion and
153
measures of performance. In other words, those with moderate levels of
extraversion/introversion significantly outperformed those with either higher levels of
extraversion, or higher levels of introversion.
The Planning Phase services are those where many of the critical incidents carry
an intimation of interaction with others. This one area, of a significant finding, suggests
that interaction and subsequent performance of persons without requisite professional
experience will revert to the core personality dimension in how we deal with others,
Introversion or Extraversion. Those who would participate in the Planning work, with
high Extraversion, might resort to a unique form of self-centeredness, through talkative
and gregarious behavior so intense, that people compete to voice their opinions and offer
ideas for consideration. Those with extreme levels of Introversion may prove so shy and
reserved, that even for a person with good ideas and creative solutions, it becomes
impossible for them to share openly. The implication of this finding for professional
mentors to these younger staff is that caution should be exercised in the intern’s
participation in “Planning” work sessions. An assessment of the intern’s preference for
introversion or extraversion should be made, and counsel offered to assist them in proper
participatory behavior.
Further research in this area may be warranted, since early career success or
failure can have a lasting impact on people. If further research into the personality
factors and professional development could enhance positive career growth, this potential
area of study should be considered.
154
7.3 Limitations and Future Research
Overall, the findings of this research work suggest a number of areas for future
study. First, a more detailed research study investigating the patterns of personality, or
whole-type personality, with performance could be undertaken. The sample size of the
present research work (N = 85) lacked sufficient power to reliably perform any analysis
splitting the sample into sub-groups. In the investigation of whole-type personality for
example, the sample size would need to be substantially increased to ensure sufficient
power to reliably avoid Type II errors. Even so, with the discrepant results of this and
other studies on type patterns versus single traits, further study in this area is needed.
Additionally, the personality traits utilized in this study were limited to the four
measured in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. While the validity, reliability and
widespread use and endorsement of this instrument make it one of the most recognized
psychometric tools, further investigation into performance and other measures may be of
value. A longitudinal study comparing the results of this research with other popular
psychometric tools, such as the NEO-PI or the Predictive Index, might make widespread
interpretation of the findings of this research available to firms already using instruments
other than the MBTI®.
Since this study focused on the primary work elements of the Design Firm’s
services in a very specific sector of the construction industry, a multitude of other service
sectors, both within the contractors’ organizations and the owners’ ranks might provide
valuable findings. Likewise, the team personality may provide territory for investigation,
both within individual organizations, and between organizations, which form co-
participation teams on construction projects.
155
In addition, short duration project teams versus longer tenured project teams,
along with the influences of personality traits, both of the team and the individuals, may
provide interesting investigations. With the changing nature of the construction industry
through consolidation of services and the current experiences with transitory professional
personnel, the direction of future project teams is difficult to predict. If the relationship
of personality traits to performance is established under different team forms, guidance to
executives responsible for personnel assignments and team tasks may prove of value.
As a whole, this research work contributes to the ever-expanding body of
knowledge demonstrating that individual personality characteristics influence
performance. The period of employment in any one firm is becoming less; this results in
the professional’s lack of job security, as well as his or her willingness to change jobs
frequently. These factors emphasize the increasing importance of capturing a measure of
a person’s personality preferences through psychometric instruments, as opposed to
expert managerial observation over time.
This research supports the possibility of predicting job performance based upon
the natural preferences of behavior, driven by individual personality traits. The research
suggests a utility for personality measures as a diagnostic tool for individual performance
interventions, rather than a tool for team selection or team-building. The essential need to
provide employees with positive work experiences, keeping staff satisfied and improving
the overall performance to clients, supports using all available tools and knowledge to
achieve this goal. It is to that end that this engineering research contributes to a design
firm’s better understanding of the natural abilities of staff, where improvements in
individual assignments can be enhanced, and overall firm performance optimized.
156
APPENDIX A
References and Bibliography
References:
Abdel-Razek, Refaat H., (1997) “How Construction Managers Would Like TheirPerformance to be Evaluated”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,Vol. 123, No. 3, September 1997
Ahmed, Syed M. and Kangari, Roozbeh, (1995) “Analysis of Client-Satisfaction Factorsin Construction Industry”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2,March/April 1995
Anastasi, Anne and Urbina, Susana (1997) Psychological Testing, Prentice-Hall, UpperSaddle River, NJ
Atanasov, Maria (1999) “Hiring with Confidence, Personality Testing is the Hottest trendin Hiring”, Business Vision, Spring 1999
Badawy, M. K., (1995) Developing Managerial Skills in Engineers and Scientists, VanNostrand Reinhold, New York, New York.
Baker, Michael (1997) “Reengineering an Engineering Consultant”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, March/April 1997
Barrick, Murray R. and Mount, Michael K. (1991) “The Big Five Personality Dimensionsand Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, 1-27, 1991
Barry, B. and Stewart, G.. (1997) “Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, 62-78,1997
Barron, F., and Harrington, D. (1981) “Creativity, Intelligence and Personality” AnnualReview of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Brown, Bernard H., (1999) President, Mach Architects and Engineers, P.C., PersonalInterview
Buchanan, L. B., (1998) “The impact of the big five personality characteristics on groupcohesion and creative task performance”, unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, VirginiaTech, 1998
Burger, Jerry M., (1997) Personality Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA
157
Childs, Auralee and Klimoski, Richard J., (1986) “Successfully Predicting CareerSuccess: An Application of the Biographical Inventory” Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 71, No. 1, 3-8, 1986
Clough, Russell G., (1999) Principal, Russell G. Clough, Co., Palo Alto, Ca., PersonalInterview
Construction Industry Institute, (1991) Organizing for Project Success, CII ProjectOrganization Task Force, Austin, Texas
Construction Industry Institute, (1994) Disputes Potential Index: A Cholesterol Test, CIIResearch Team Project, Austin, Texas
Consulting Psychologists Press, (1999) CCP Software System, Version 5.1, Palo Alto,CA.
Costa, P. T., Jr., and McCrae, R. R., (1988) “Personality in Adulthood: six-yearlongitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, 853-863
Costa, P. (1996) “Work and Personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R inIndustrial/Organizational Psychology” Applied Psychology: An International Review,Vol. 45, 225-241, 1996
Day, David V. and Silverman, Stanley B. (1989), “Personality and Job Performance:Evidence on Incremental Validity” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, 26-36, 1989
de la Garza, J. M. (1998) Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.,Personal Interview
Douglas, C. J., and Munger, E. L. (1969) Construction Management, Prentice-Hall, Inc.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Driskell, J., Hogan, R., and Silas, E. (1987) Personality and Group Performance, GroupProcesses and Intergroup Relations, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Engineering Times, National Society of Professional Engineers, Vol. 20, Number 9,November 1998
Fisher, Deborah, Miertschin, Susan and Pollack, David R., (1995) “Benchmarking in theConstruction Industry”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 1,January/February 1995
Franklin, J. R., (1995) “Managing Personalities” Handbook of Professional Practice,American Institute of Architects, New York, New York
158
Ghiselli, Edwin E. (1973) “ The Validity of Aptitude Tests in Personnel Selection”Personnel Psychology, Vol. 26, 461-477, 1973
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., and Donnelly, J. E. (1997) Organizations, Behavior,Structure Process, Irwin/McGraw Hill Companies, Boston, Massachusetts.
Glass, Gene V. and Hopkins, Kenneth D. (1996) Statistical Methods in Education andPsychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Mass.
Gleick, James (1987) Chaos: Making a New Science, Penguin Books, New York, NewYork
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1990) “An Alternative ‘Description of Personality’: The Big-FiveStructure” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 6, 1216-1229,1990
Groth-Marnat, Gary, (1997) Handbook of Psychological Assessment, John Wiley andSons, Inc. New York, New York
Guion R. M. and Gottier R. F., (1965) Validity of personality measures in personnelselection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164
Hall, Wallace B. and MacKinnon, Donald W. (1969) “Personality Inventory Correlates ofCreativity Among Architects” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 4, 322-326
Hall, Calvin S., and Nordby, Vernon J., (1973) A Primer of Jungian Psychology, AMeridian Book, New York, New York
Harvey, R. J., Murray, W. D., and Markham, S. E. (1994) “Evaluation of three short formversions of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” J. of Personality Assessment, 63(1), 181-184.
Harvey, R. J., (May, 2000) Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.,Personal Interview
Hecker, Patricia (1996) “Human Resources Strategies for Successful ConsultingEngineering Firms”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 5,September/October 1996
Hedlund, D. F. (1965) “A review of the MMPI industry”, Psychological Reports, No. 17,875-889, 1965
Helmreich, Robert L. (1984) “Cockpit Management Attitudes” Human Factors, 26(5),583-589, 1984
159
Hensey, Melville, (1992) “Thoughts on Management of Acquisitions”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1992
Hensey, Melville, (1991) “Essential Success Factors for Strategic Planning”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1991
Hirsh, S. K. and Kummerow, J., (1998) Introduction to Type in Organizations,Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Hopkins, Kenneth D. (1998) Educational and Psychological Evaluation andMeasurement, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA
Jackson, S., (1996) Handbook of work group psychology, Wiley Books, Chichester,England
Jain, Ravi K., (1997) “Metrics of Organization Effectiveness”, Journal of Management inEngineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, March/April 1997
Jefferson, Thomas, (1823) Letter to John Adams, http://etext.virginia.edu/ Jefferson/Quotations
Jensen, R. S. (1982) “Pilot Judgment: Training and Evaluation,” Human Factors, 24, 61-73
Johnson, D. A. (1995) “Measures of the Five Factor Model and Psychological Type, aconvergence of the research and theory”, Theory and Research Symposium. Xth BiennialInternational Conference, Kansas City: Association for Psychological Type
Johnson, H. M. and Singh, A. (1998) “The Personality of Civil Engineers”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 4, July/August 1998
Kaman, Vicki S. and McCambridge, James A. (1992) “Conflict Management TrainingFor Today’s Engineering Managers”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol.8, No.3, July 1992
Keirsey, D. and Bates, M., (1974) Please Understand Me, Prometheus Nemesis BookCompany, Del Mar, California.
Keirsey, D. (1998) Please Understand Me II, Prometheus Nemesis Book Company, DelMar, California.
Keller, Robert T., (1986) “Predictors of the Performance of Project Groups in R&DOrganizations,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, 715-726, 1986
Kezsbom, R. T. (1992) Re-opening Pandora’s Box: Sources of Project Conflict in the1990’s. Industrial Engineering, May 54-59
160
Kichuk, Susan L. and Wiesner, Willi H. (1997) “The Big Five personality factors andteam performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams,” Journalof Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 14, 195-221, 1997
Kline, Donald H. and Coleman, Gregory B. (1992) “Four Propositions for QualityManagement of Design Organizations”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 8,No. 1, January 1992
Lanyon, Richard I. And Goodstein, Leonard D. (1997) Personality Assessment, JohnWiley and Sons, New York, New York
Lester, Lewis F. and Bombaci, Deborah H. (1984) “The Relationship of Personality andIrrational Judgment in Civil Pilots,” Human Factors, 26(5), 565-572, 1984
Locke, E. A. and Hulin, C. L., (1962) “A review and evaluation of validity studies ofactivity vector analysis”, Personnel Psychology, No. 15, 25-42
Longo, Peter M., (1991) “Development of In-House Project Evaluation Checklist”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1990
Lord, Robert G., De Vader, Chirsty L. and Alliger, George M. (1986) “A Meta-Analysisof the Relation Between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An Applicationof Validity Generalization Procedures,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 3,402-410, 1986
Lutz, James D., Hancher, Donn E. and East, E. William, (1990) “Framework for Design-Quality-Review Data-Base System”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 6, No.3, July 1990
Maidique, Modesto A. and Zirger, Billie Jo (1984) “A Study of Success and Failure inthe Product Innovation: The Case of the US Electronics Industry,” IEEE Transactions inEngineering Management, Vol. EM-31, No. 4, November, 1984
McCaully, Mary H., MacDaid, G. P., Walsh, R., (1987) “Myers-Briggs Type Indicatorand retention in engineering,” International Journal of applied Engineering, 3,2, 99-109
McCormack, Brenda, and Hill, Elizabeth, (1997) Conducting a Survey, The SSPSWorkbook, International Thompson Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts
McCrae, Robert R. and Costa, Paul T. Jr., (1987) “Validation of the Five-Factor Model ofPersonality Across Instruments and Observers,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, 81-90, 1987
161
McCrae, Robert R. and Costa, Paul T. Jr., (1986) “Evaluating comprehensiveness inpersonality systems: The California Q-Set and the Five-Factor Model of PersonalityAcross Instruments and Observers,” Journal of Personality, Vol. 54, 430-446, 1986
McCrae, Robert R. and Costa, Paul T. Jr., (1989) “Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator From the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality,” Journal ofPersonality, Vol. 57, No. 1, 17-40, 1989
Mendelsohn, G. A., Weiss, D. S., and Feimer, N. R., (1982) “Conceptual and empiricalanalysis of typological implications of patterns of socialization and femininity”, Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42, 1157-1170, 1982
Munns, A. K., (1996) “Measuring Mutual Confidence in UK Construction Projects”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1, January/February 1996
Myers, Isabel Briggs, McCaully, Mary H., Quenk, Naomi L. and Hammer, Allen L.,(1998) MBTI Manual, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California
Myers, Isabel Briggs, (1980) Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type,Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California
Nadler, David A., (1998) Champions of Change, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco,California
Nelson, Carl E. (1988) “Engineering Management: Recognizing Potential EngineeringManagers”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, April, 1988
Nitsch, Judith, (1998 and 1999) President, Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. Boston, Mass.,Personal Interview
Parfitt, M. K. and Sanvido, V. E., (1993) “Checklist of Critical Success Factors forBuilding Projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 1993
Pedhazur, Elazar J. and Schmelkin, Liora (1991) Measurement Design and Analysis AnIntegrated Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ
Pocock, James B., Hyun, Chang T., Liu, Liang Y. and Kim, Michael K. (1996)“Relationship Between Project Interaction and Performance Indicators”, Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management”, Vol. 122, No. , June 1996
Post, N. M., (1998) “Most Owners Say ‘thumbs up’ to the Building Team,” EngineeringNews Record, Volume 240, Number 19, pp.32-39
Principal’s Report, Institute of Management and Administration, Vol. 99, Number 4,April 1999
162
Quenk, Naomi L. (1993) Beside Ourselves: Our Hidden Personality in Everyday Life,Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California
Riso, Don Richard, (1996) Personality Types; Using the Enneagram for Self-Discovery,Houghton Mifflen Company, Boston, Mass.
Robbins, H. A., and Finley, M., (1995) Why Teams Don’t Work, Peterson’s/PacesetterBooks, Princeton, New Jersey.
Robbins, M., (1998) “Building Teams with Temps,” Your Turn, KeyCorp, A ForbesSpecial Interest Publication, Volume 1, Issue 4, Winter 1998
Robbins, Stephen P., (1984) Essentials of Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, UpperSaddle River, New Jersey
Saarinen, Arthur W. and Hobel, Mariene A., (1990) “Setting and Meeting Requirementsfor Quality”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, April 1990
Sanders, Steve R. and Eskridge, W. Frank, (1993) “Managing the Implementation ofChange”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4, October 1993
Sanvido, V. E., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M. and Coyle, M. (1992) “CriticalSuccess Factors for Construction Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering andManagement, Vol. 118, No. 1, July 1992
Schulman, Robert S., (1992) Statistics in Plain English with Computer Applications,Chapman and Hall, London
Smith, Max (1934) The Relationship Between Item Validity and Test Validity, TeachersCollege, Columbia University, New York, New York
Sommer, Barbara and Sommer, Robert, (1997) A Practical Guide to BehavioralResearch, Oxford University Press, New York, New York
Songer, Anthony D. and Molenaar, Keith R., (1997) “Project Characteristics forSuccessful Public-Sector Design-Build”, Journal of Construction Engineering andManagement, Vol. 123, No. 1, March 1997
Spoto, Angelo, (1989) Jung’s Typology in Perspective, Chiron Publications, Wilmette,Illinois
Stevens, James D. (1996) “Blueprint for Measuring Project Quality”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2, March/April 1996
Stodola, Quentin and Stordahl, Kalmer (1967) Basic Educational Tests andMeasurements, Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago, Illinois
163
Stricker, L. J., and Ross, J., (1964) “An assessment of some structural properties of theJungian personality typology”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, 62-71, 1964
Stukhart, George, (1987) “Construction Management Responsibilities During Design”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 113, No. 1, March 1987
Stussman, H. B., (1998) “ACEC Members Cope With Plenty,” Engineering NewsRecord, Volume 240, Number 19: pg. 15
Tett, Robert P., Jackson, Douglas N. and Rothstein, Mitchell, (1991) “PersonalityMeasures as Predictors of Job Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review,” PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 44, 703-739, 1991
Thomas, L., (1996) Work Style Inventory (unpublished items), Consulting PsychologistsPress, Palo Alto CA.
Thorndike, Robert M., (1997) Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology andEducation, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
Tziner, Aharon, (1985) “How Team Composition Effects Task Performance: SomeTheoretical Insights”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 57, 1111-1119, 1985
Useem, Michael, (1998) The Leadership Moment, Random House, Inc., New York, NewYork
Vadum, Arlene C. and Rankin, Neil O. (1998) Psychological Research Methods forDiscovery and Validation, McGraw Hill, Boston, MA
Vorster, Michael C. (1998) Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.,Personal Interview
West, M. and Anderson, N. (1996) “Innovation in top management teams”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81, 680-693
Wuellner, William W. (1990) “Project Performance Evaluation Checklist for ConsultingEngineers”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1990
Bibliography
Assaf, Sadi A., Al-Khalil, Mohammed and Al-Hazmi, Muhammad (1995) “Causes ofDelay in Large Building Projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11, No.2, March/April 1995
164
Bennett, F. Lawrence (1996) The Management of Engineering, John Wiley and Sons,New York, New York
Birrell, George S. (1985) “General Contractors’ Management: How Subs Evaluate It”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 111, No. 5, September 1985
Borcherding, John D., Sebastian, Scott J. and Samelson, Nancy M. (1980) “ImprovingMotivation and Productivity on Large Projects,” Journal of Construction Division,Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 106, No. 1, March 1980
Borman, Walter C., Rosse, Rodney L. and Abrahams, Norman M., (1980) “An EmpiricalConstruct Validity Approach to Studying Predictor-Job Performance Links” Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 6, 662-671, 1980
Brase, Charles Henry and Brase, Corrinne Pellillo (1995) Understandable Statistics,Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass.
Bresnen, Michael J., Bryman, Alan E., Ford, Janet R., Beardsworth, Alan D. and Keil, E.Theresa, (1986) “Leader Orientation of Construction Site Managers”, Journal ofConstruction Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 3, September 1986
Carnegie, Dale (1936) How to Win Friends and Influence People, Simon and ShusterInc., New York, New York
Carr, Robert I., (1983) “Basic Research Needs in Construction Engineering”, Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management, Vol. 109, No. 2, June 1983
Carr, Robert I., (1997) “Engineering and Construction Management: Leadership andOpportunity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 123, No. 3,September 1997
Carr, P. G. (1999) Professor Lawrence Cross, unpublished Qualifier Exam – Evaluationof the Critical Success Factors Questionnaire for Reliability, Internal Consistency andRepeated Measures Validity
Carr, P. G. (1999) Professor Jesus de la Garza, unpublished Qualifier Exam – CriticalSuccess Factors (CSF) Questionnaire EXPLORATION of DICHOTOMIES
Crowley, Larry G. (1996) “Engineering Sales: Process of Understanding”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2, March/April 1996
Dallavalle, C. (1991) “Managing During Organizational Change”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, October 1991
Darke, Peter R. and Freedman, Jonathan L., (1997) “The Belief in Good Luck Scale”Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31, Article No. RP972197, 486-511, 1997
165
Dayton, C. Mitchell (1970) The Design of Educational Experiments, McGraw Hill BookCompany, New York, New York
Dias, W. P. S., (1990) “Circular Organizational Structure of Project Teams”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4, October 1990
Diekmann, James E. and Girard, Matthew J., (1995) “Are Contract Disputes Predictable”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management”, Vol. 121, No. 4, December,1995
Digman, John M. and Inouye, Jillian (1986) “Further Specification of the Five RobustFactors of Personality” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 1,116-123, 1986
Ferrett, Sharon K. (1994) Positive Attitudes at Work, Irwin Professional Publishing, BurrRidge, Illinois
Fitz-Gibbon, Carol Taylor and Morris, Lynn Lyons (1978) How to Calculate Statistics,Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California
Fraas, John W. (1983) Basic Concepts in Educational Research, University Press ofAmerica, Lanham, Maryland
Gialketsis, Michael P., (1991) “Integration Planning for Merger of Two ConsultingEngineering Firms”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1991
Hakim, A. and Wittenborn, W. H. (1998) Understanding and Managing, Victor O.Shinnerer and Company, Inc. , Chevy Chase, Maryland
Halpin, D. W., and Woodhead, R. W., (1998) Construction Management, John Wiley andSons, New York, New York
Hamilton, M. R. and Gibson, G. E. (1996) “Benchmarking Pre-project Planning Efforts”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2, March/April 1996
Hayes Bob E., (1991) Measuring Customer Satisfaction, ASQC Quality Press,Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Howard, Ann, (1986) “College Experiences and Managerial Performances,” Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 3, 530-552, 1986
Jahren, Charles T. and Dammeier, Bruce F. (1990) “Investigation into ConstructionDisputes”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1990
166
Kelly, Kevin, (1994) Out of Control, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading,Massachusetts
Kroeger, O. and Thuesen, J.M., (1992) Type Talk at Work, Dell Publishing, New York,New York.
Kroeger, O. and Thuesen, J.M., (1988) Type Talk, Dell Publishing, New York, New York
Langston, Christopher A., (1997) “Beliefs and the Big Five: Cognitive Bases of BroadIndividual Differences in Personality,” Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31,Article No. RP72178, 141-165, 1997
Laufer, Alexander (1982) “Motivating Construction Workers,” Journal of ConstructionDivision, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 108, No. 4, December 1982
Maloney, William F. and Federle, Mark O., (1991) “Organizational Culture andManagement”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1991
Maloney, William F. (1988) “New Engineer in Construction: Path to Management”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 1988
Martin, Charles (1997) Looking at Type: The Fundamentals, Center for Application ofPsychological Types, Gainesville, Florida
Myers, Jerome L. (1979) Fundamentals of Experimental Design, Allyn and Bacon,Boston, Mass.
Nee, P. A., (1996) ISO 9000 in Construction, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NewYork
Norman, W. T., (1963) Raters, ratees and randomness in personality structure. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology,4, 681-691
O’Reilly, Charles III and Chatman, Jennifer, (1986) “Organizational Commitment andPsychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification and Internalizationon Prosocial Behavior” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 3, 492-499, 1986
Payne, John L. (1990) “Entrepreneurs in Engineering Organizations”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, April, 1990
Pearce, John A. and Ravlin, Elizabeth C. (1987) “The Design and Activation of Self-Regulating Work Groups” Human Relations, Vol. 40, No. 11, 751-782, 1987
Petroski, H., (1992) To Engineer is Human, Vintage Books, Random House, Inc., NewYork, New York
167
Phillips, Donald T., (1992) Lincoln on Leadership, Warner Books Inc., New York, NewYork
Pierce, J. L., and Newstrom, J. W. (1996) The Manager’s Bookshelf, Harper-CollinsCollege Publishers, New York, New York
Pitcher, Pat, (1993) “Balancing Personality Types at the Top,” Business Quarterly, pp.47-57, Winter 1993
Pocock, James B., Liu, Liang Y. and Tang, Wilson H. (1997) “Prediction of ProjectPerformance Based on Degree of Interaction,” Journal of Management in Engineering,Vol. 13, No. 2, March/April 1997
Porter, James C. (1993) “Exploiting the Leadership Asset of the Engineer”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 1993
Russel, Jeffrey S. and Jaselskis, Edward J. (1992) “Predicting Construction ContractorFailure Prior to Contract Award”, Journal of Construction Engineering andManagement”, Vol.118, No. 4, December, 1992
Rwelamila, Pantaleo D. (1994) “Group Dynamics and the Construction ProjectManager”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120, No. 1,March 1994
Senge, Peter M., (1990) The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday Publishing, New York, NewYork
Senge, Peter M., (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Doubleday Publishing, NewYork, New York
Smith, Mike, (1991) “Situational Leadership Training”, Journal of Management inEngineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, October 1991
Smith, Patricia, Budzeika, Karen A., Edwards, Neville A., Johnson, Steven M. andBearse, Linda N., (1986) “Guidelines for Clean Data: Detection of Common Mistakes ”Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 3, 457-460, 1986
Solomon, Esther E., (1986) “Private and Public Sector Managers: An EmpiricalInvestigation of Job Characteristics and Organizational Climate,” Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 71, No. 2, 247-259, 1986
Tjosvold, Dean and Deemer, Deborah K. (1980) “Effects of Controversy Within aCooperative or Competitive Context on Organizational Decision Making,” Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 5, 590-595, 1980
Utts, Jessica M. (1999) Seeing Through Statistics, Duxberry Press, Pacific Grove, Ca.
168
Walsh, Kevin J. (1988) “Road to Effective Project Management”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 1988
Watson, David (1971) “Reinforcement Theory of Personality and Social System:Dominance and Position in a Group Power Structure,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 20, No. 2, 180-185, 1971
Wheatley, Margaret J. (1992) Leadership and the New Science, Berrett-KoehlerPublishers, Inc., San Francisco, California
Zeisset, Ray M., (1998) Statistic and Measurements, An Introduction for MBTI Users,Center for Applications of Psychological Types, Gainesville, Florida
169
APPENDIX BCHARACTERISTICS OF ENGINEERING and
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNPROFESSIONALS
Instructions for the Completion of this Form
1. The questionnaire will take about 20 minutes to complete.2. Please complete each question by circling or checking the appropriate
answer as follows:Prefer A Tend
Toward AEqually
SplitTend
Toward BPrefer B
3. In the case of most questions your opinion or preferred action is beingsought, so for individuals there are no “right or wrong” answers.
4. The answers to the questions will be analyzed collectively. Thisparticipation is entirely optional. If for any reason you choose not toparticipate please place the instruments back in the envelope, seal andreturn it. An individual’s responses will not be disclosed. Your firm willnot have access to the source data – so please feel free to answer withoutinhibition. You help through honest and forthright answering is critical tothe study. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS TO HOW YOUWOULD ACT, NOT WHAT YOU THINK IS THE RIGHT ACTION(in the event they are different).
5. If you make a mistake, or change an answer please make any changesclear.
6. The purpose of this research is to analyze the relationship between thepreferred actions and responses to project situations with the individualstrengths associated with different personality types. The personalityquestionnaire (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) that measures normalpersonality differences, has been previously completed by you, or isincluded in this packet. Feedback and a “training” session on yourPersonalityType will be provided. Indicated your interest in a feedbacksession at the end of the questionnaire.
7. THANK YOU.
Paul G. Carr, P.E.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Construction Engineering and Management ProgramThe Charles Edward Via, Jr. Department of Civil Engineering200 Patton HallBlacksburg, Virginia 24016-0105
170
I AM INTERESTED IN ESTABLISHING PROFILES OF THE VARIOUSDESIGN SPECIALTIES. WE NEED YOUR HELP IN THIS STUDY, PLEASEINDICATE IN THE QUESTIONS BELOW YOUR PREFERRED COURSE OFACTION UNDER VARIOUS SITUATIONS. PLEASE CIRCLE THE ANSWERTHAT BEST IDENTIFIES YOUR PREFERENCE. PLEASE IGNORE OTHERASPECTS OF YOUR JOB (i.e. personnel matters, continuing education,etc.) AND ANSWER ONLY WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PRIMARY DUTIES.
NAME: DATE:
Engineering and ArchitecturalDesign Services Behavior
Assessment
Section-A: Listed below are incidents describing some situations that may beassociated with the Architectural and Engineering Design Services process. Althoughyou may, or may not have experience firsthand with each of these situations, pleaseindicate the response that most closely reflects your likely action, or opinion of thecorrect action, based on the information provided. The response categories are asfollows:
Prefer A - I would prefer the approach describedas A Tend Toward A - I would tend toward theapproach of A Equally Split - I am evenly split on A and B
Tend Toward B - I would tend toward theapproach of B Prefer B - I would prefer the approach describedas B
(Circle one)1. When invited to submit a proposal to get hired to handle a new project, areyou most effective when:
A) You refer to work previously successful and follow that procedure (i.e.: the winning team goes to theinterview, and the outline that worked before is the script to follow): using the standard approach?
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Are you more successful “clearing the decks” and looking at the proposal as a newadventure, open to responding with a new approach?
171
2. When presenting your plan to the client and the public are youmost effective when:
A) You anticipate all possible questions before the presentation and are prepared to give the audienceyour answers?
Or: are you most effective at a public presentation, Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) When “in the heat of the battle” you are confronted with new, and sometimes hostile questions that“blind side” you, forcing you to think quickly “on your feet”?
3. When doing a Study and Report how would you rate your effectiveness(value) to the firm under the two scenarios:
A) I am effective when the plan that is developed is prepared the first time to be on budget, as you hadoriginally envisioned, without a need to continually rework the project due to scope and budgetadjustments.
Or: Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) I am effective when the plan undergoes various changes requiring me to check the scope, estimateand re-estimate the budget, re-work the plan to keep it and/or get it back on track.
4. In preparing to present a project plan to the Owner, are you most effective:
A) When you wrap things up for this Phase of the project with your ideas being primarily shown on a setof drawings that you can talk through with the client?
Or: Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) When the drawings of your preliminary plans form only a part to your overall presentation of theproject’s ideas, with the budgeted cost and schedule, taking at least an equal, and maybe primary role?
172
5. Since teamwork is required for effective business operations, are you atyour best when:
A) The interactions with other professionals and executives, either in-house or external, are planned andscheduled,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) If the interactions with others are a reaction to business crisis, emergency situations andcircumstances?
6. To what degree do you consider your role as a project leader on the Designteam?
A) Seldom the Team Leader
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Frequent Team Leader
7. Given the experience you have had, do you feel you can handle just aboutany problem thrown at you?
A) Not confident that “any and all” problems could be handled
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Quite confident that I could figure out almost any problem assigned
8. When confronted with a problem during the Design Phase of the project whatposition appeals to you more:
A) “Sliding down the pole jumping in the truck and going to put out the fire”
Or: Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) “Taking your time, looking into the problem and being positive that yoursolution is right before taking any action?
173
9. When you are faced with a tight time schedule for a project:
A) Do you postpone the start of “Design” until the owner is able to provide you with an unequivocalunderstanding of what he wants,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Do you just get started and help him work it out as you move through design?
10. If you are not clear on the objectives of the Design Phase Task, areyou more apt to:
A) Stop the process and question the Team Leader,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Continue to move forward the best you can, knowing the goals willbecome clearer with time and project development?
11. Once you and your team have “standards” in place, are you morecomfortable with:
A) “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Do you firmly believe there is always a betterway?
174
Section B: The following statements and questions ask for your opinion as to the best way tohandle a particular aspect of the Engineering and Architectural Design Process. Please indicateyour preference by circling, or placing a check mark next to the answer that most accuratelyreflects your opinion or approach.
12. Since teamwork is required for an effective Design, what is the ideal number of persons youare in continuous contact with to work effectively in the performance of your duties:
1 2 3 4 5+
13. If we accept that Construction expertise and input to the Design has some value, (labor andmaterial availability, subcontracting plan, construction sequence, etc.) in your opinion andexperience, at what point in the process is that input optimal?
Planning 35% Complete
Planning 90% Complete
Design Documents Begun
Design Documents 35% Complete
Design Documents 90% Complete
14. At what point in the process is Vendor data and input of highest value?
Planning 35% Complete
Planning 90% Complete
Design Documents Begun
Design Documents 35% Complete
Design Documents 90% Complete
15. When assigned to a project, as you have communications, what percentage of the time doyou record activities of who, when, information exchanged, decisions made and directionsgiven; and then file the report in the job files?
10%
25%
50%
75%
90%
175
16. When the project moves through the Design Phase at what intervals do youactually perform an estimate of probable cost?
Continuously(15%, 35%, 65% & 90%)
15%, 65% & 90%
65% & 90%
90%
Pre-Bid
Section C: The following questions are general in nature and ask for youropinion on certain circumstances. Please indicate you opinion on these mattersby placing a check next to the answer that best reflects your position on theissue.
17. In the project’s planning phase how important is your professional fulfillment that the work isto “your standards,” when contrasted with the owner’s needs and the need to meet profit and feeexpectations?
VeryImportant
QuiteImportant
SomewhatImportant
SeldomImportant
MinimallyImportant
18. If the project design is under severe time constraints (beyond your control) to be completed,with a goal to “wrap it up and get it out”, how strongly do you feel that you, the contractor andyour field manager can avoid failure through field re-design where, and if needed?
High Probability
Acceptable Approach
Neutral
Not a good approach
Unlikely without problems
19. Would you favor the inclusion of a copy of you’re A/E Contract’s terms, conditions andresponsibilities in the Construction Contract Bid Documents?
Very Good Idea
Acceptable
Neutral
Not a good idea
Very bad idea
176
Section D: This set of questions asks your opinion on the importance of various aspects of theprocess on project success. Please indicate your view of the importance of the choices bycircling your appropriate answer.
A - Very Important
A -Somewhat Important
NEUTRAL
E - Somewhat Important
E - Very Important
20. From what data source is the most valuable information received to impact the success ofthe project?
A) Owner’s input is the most important
Or; A -Very
Important
A -SomewhatImportant
Neutral B -SomewhatImportant
B -Very
Important
B) Designer’s experience the most important
21. What is more important in the success of a project?
A) Project Planning (Pre-Design) Effort
Or; A -Very
Important
A -SomewhatImportant
Neutral B -SomewhatImportant
B -Very
Important
B) Owner Experience
22. From your experience, who has the highest impact on the success or failure of aproject?
A) Owner
Or; A -Very
Important
A -SomewhatImportant
Neutral B -SomewhatImportant
B -Very
Important
B) Contractor
177
23. What is the most important factor during the Construction Phase, to avoid claims anddisputes on a project?
A) Concise Documents
Or; A -Very
Important
A -SomewhatImportant
Neutral B -SomewhatImportant
B -Very
Important
B) Communication
24. In the Planning Phase of the project both the Owner and the A/E develop basic projectrequirements and data. In your view what is the relative importance of the two sources of projectprogramming?
A) A/E Develops the Program
Or; A -Very
Important
A -SomewhatImportant
Neutral B -SomewhatImportant
B -Very
Important
B) Owner develops a Written Program
178
Section-E: Listed below are some final incidents describing some situations that may beassociated with the Architectural and Engineering Design Services process. Although you may, ormay not have experience firsthand with each of these situations, please indicate the response thatmost closely reflects your likely action, or opinion of the correct action based on the informationprovided. The response categories are as follows:
Prefer A - I would prefer the approach describedas A Tend Toward A - I would tend toward theapproach of A Equally Split - I am evenly split on A and B
Tend Toward B - I would tend toward theapproach of B Prefer B - I would prefer the approach describedas B
25. Do you view your role in the Design Phase process as:
A) As being responsible for performance outcomes
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Do you view your role as one of “simultaneous responsibilities with others” and performanceoutcomes are out of your control?
26. When approaching the Administration duties on a project to what extent do you view theowner, the contractor and your employees as your partners?
A) Not really as partners
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Complete and equal partners
27. When a problem arises on a job site is your initial personal reaction to:
A) Have your field representative investigate the situation and solve it together in due and appropriatetime,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Do you prefer to jump in your car and go figure it out yourself, then and there?
179
28. During the Construction Phase, when you are assigned to work with others, apart from andoutside of staff within your own firm, would you prefer to:
A) Work with a diverse group of professionals with varied input to the process,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Work with persons with backgrounds similar and equal to your own?
29. If the owner during the planning (Study and Report) phase of the project is demanding thatyou simultaneously tie down budget, scope and schedule, and is unresponsive anduncooperative in giving in on any of these issues, what tendency would you most likely follow?
A) Withdraw from the project,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Continue, because the owner’s attitude willchange when he/she gains experience in theprocess?
30. Recognizing the need to check the design documents for accuracy would your approach beto:
A) Turn them over to another member of the firm (or team) to provide the side by sideSpecification/Drawing and coordination review,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Perform the review yourself, with confidence?
31. When called upon to receive a contractor’s safety plan are you more comfortable :
A) Reviewing the program for it’s content and nature,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Merely receiving it to verify its existence?
180
32. Do you view the bidding phase as an opportunity to:
A) Set the tone for the relationships between the owner, designer and contractors,
Or; Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Function in a “controlled” period only to let themarket determine who the contractor will be?
33. The situation is the discovery of work that is not in conformance with the documents, and isrejected, with a dispute likely to follow. Is the best way to resolve the problem and comply withthe contract requirements to:
A) Participate in a free-flow of alternatives and ideas (brainstorming), then selecting an answer that willsuit all parties,
Or: Prefer A TendToward
A
EquallySplit
TendToward
B
Prefer B
B) Consider the circumstances, refer to the specifications and drawings and proceedto determine the correct course of action?
181
PLEASE COMPLETE THE SECTION BELOW TO HELP ME CONTACT YOU IF THERE AREANY QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RESPONSES:
MBTI ® Feedback Requested ______ Yes ______ No, or ______ PreviouslyReceivedOr, If you have any questions relative to this research please contact me at:[email protected]
Name:
Contact Telephone:
E-Mail:
Correspondence Address:
MANY THANKS FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, IT IS VERY MUCHAPPRECIATED
Now please place your completed Questionnaire into the envelope provided,along with the MBTI® Questionnaire and Answer sheet if provided to you,seal the envelope and return to the source from which you received thispacket. Thank you again.
182
APPENDIX C-1
Critical Success FactorsQuestionnaire Mapping
(Initial 52 Item Questionnaire)
Planning QuestionsDesign Questions
Construction Administration QuestionsGeneral Management Questions
“Unreliable Questions”
[This Appendix contains the complete listing of the 52 original questionsdeveloped for the Critical Success Factors questionnaire. The supplementalinformation contained in this Appendix is a mapping of the questionnaire withinformation on which is the corrected answer, the service category of the questions(planning, design, etc.) and the dimensions of personality that the question is moststrongly correlated with. This information is derived from the literature review(correct answer), expert judgment (service category) and the results of the pilotstudy (personality dimension).]
183
QUESTIONS
1. P. When invited to submit a proposal to get hired to handle a new project, are you mosteffective when:
A) You refer to work previously successful and follow that procedure (ie: the
winning team goes to the interview, and the outline that worked before is the script to
follow): using the standard approach?
; orE) Are you more successful “clearing the decks” and looking at the proposal as a
new adventure, open to responding with a new approach?
A B C D E *Use a standard
approachMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Open to a new
approach
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
2. P. When performing a Study and Report as you conduct your investigation into a projectbeing considered for design and construction:
A) are you most effective when you plan out the meeting schedule, meet with all thenecessary departments and committees and then put your ideas in solid form:or:
E) are you most effective when you meet only with key participants and use yourown ideas to create the plan for the client?
A B C D E *Planning w/ alldepartments
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Planning onlyw/ key people
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
184
3. P. When presenting your plan to the client and the public are you most effective when:
A) you anticipate all possible questions before the presentation and be prepared youto give them your answers?or:
E) or, are you most effective at a public presentation, “in the heat of the battle”when you are confronted with new and sometimes hostile questions that “blind side” you,forcing you to think quickly “on your feet”?
A B C D E *Have prepared
answersMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Enjoy thinking
on your feet
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
4. P. When confronted with a problem during the Planning Phase of the project whatposition appeals to you more:
A) “knowing there is another way to do it out there its just a matter of continuing tolook until we find it”
Or:E) “Relying on your experience to know what the solution is”
A * B C D ELook until youfind the answer
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Rely heavily onyour experience
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
185
5. P. When doing a Study and Report how would you rate your effectiveness (value) to thefirm under the two senerios A and B:
A) The plan that is developed is prepared the first time to be on budget, as you hadoriginally envisioned, without a need to continually rework the project due to scope andbudget adjustments?or:
E) When the plan undergoes various changes requiring you to check the scope,estimate and re-estimate the budget, re-work the plan to keep it and/or get it back on track?
A B C D E *Being on Budgetfrom beginning
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Estimate, re-work and re-
estimate
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
6. P. In preparing to present a project plan to the owner are you more most effective when:
A) you wrap things up for this Phase of the project with your ideas being primarilyshown on a set of drawings that you can talk through with the client?or:
E) when the drawings of your preliminary plans form only a part to your overallpresentation of the project’s ideas, with the budgeted cost and schedule showing how youwill get all of the project elements completed in a rational sequence, taking at least an equal,and maybe primary role?
A B C D E *Set of Drawings(Preliminary)
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Report, budget,schedule and
Drawings
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
7. P. When preparing the Study and Report are you most effective when the interactionswith other teams members are:
A) a reaction to design situations, circumstances and new discoveries? (Pocock)Or:E) planned and scheduled,
A * B C D EUnplanned and
able to reactMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Planned andScheduled
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
186
8. C. Since teamwork is required for the effective design what is the ideal number ofpersons you are in continuous contact with to work effectively in the performance of yourduties: (Pocock)
A B C D E *1 2 3 4 5+
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract ObservationsJ/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
9. D. When such interactions occur during the Design Phase of the project are you mosteffective when the interactions with other teams members, either in-house or external, areplanned and scheduled, or if they are a reaction to design situations and circumstances?(Pocock)
A B C D E *Unplanned and
able to reactMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Planned andScheduled
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
10. D. To what degree do you consider your role that of a project leader on the Designteam?
A) Seldom the Team LeaderOr:E) Frequent team Leader
A B C D E *InfrequentLeadership
Duties
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
ActiveLeadership
Duties
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
11. D. In your participation on a Design team would you rather work on your own task, orwould your prefered method of participation be through active interaction with the otherintegrated tasks of the design effort? (Lutz)
A B C D E *Minimal
InteractionMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Very Interactive
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
187
12. G. Do you see the project manager or team leader’s role more as a facilitator or that ofa director? (Dias)
A * B C D EFacilitator Most of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Director
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
13. D. When a problem is identified during the Design Phase of a project please rate theeffectiveness of the following two approaches: (Dias, Pocock)
A). The project manager (architect, director, supervisor) discusses the problem withthe consultant (structural, site, landscape, M/E/P, etc.) and reports back to the design team:Or:
E). The design team professionals (any one of the members most directly impactedby the problem) interacts directly with the consultant, reporting the results to andcoordinating the answer with the other team members:
A B C D E *Project
Manager LeadMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Direct Team
MemberContact
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
14. D. When completing the Design on a project how important is it that it be reviewed by,and input received from suppliers and contractors, and will its impact actually improve thefinal design product? (Dias)
A B C D E *Minimal
ImportanceMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Great
Importance
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
15. D. How important is cohesion of the design team in improving the final design product?(Pocock)
A B C D E *MinimallyImportant
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Very Important
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and OpennessS/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
188
16. D. If you are under severe time constraints to complete the design of a project howimportant is it that rules, regulations, procedures and policies are strictly followed even if itmeans delivering the project late?
A B C D E *Least Important Most of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Very Important
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based DecisionsS/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
17. C. If the project design is under severe time constraints (beyond your control) to becompleted with an option to “wrap it up and get it out”, how strongly do you feel you, thecontractor and your field manager can avoid failure through field re-design where needed?(Saarinem)
A * B C D EVery Bad Idea Most of the time
– A)Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Very Possible
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
18. G. Given the experience you have had do you feel you can handle just about anyproblem thrown at you? (Lester)
A B C D E *Not confidentthat “any andall” problems
could behandled
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Quite confidentthat I couldfigure outalmost any
problemassigned
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
19. D. Do you feel that you are in control of the tasks on the design projects, or do you feelthat the outcome of your effort is controlled primarily by others on your team and/or theproject manager? (Lester)
A B C D E *I have very little
controlMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)I have
significantcontrol
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract ObservationsT/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
189
20. G. How important is your professional fulfillment in the design effort when contrastedwith the owner’s needs?
A * B C D ELeast Important Most of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Very Important
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
21. G. How important is professional fulfillment when contrasted with the need to meetprofit and fee expectations?
A * B C D ELeast Important Most of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Very Important
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
22. D. When confronted with a problem during the Design Phase of the project whatposition appeals to you more:
A) “Sliding down the pole jumping in the truck and going to put out the fire” Or:E) “Taking your time, looking into the problem and being positive that your solution isright before taking any action?
A B C D E *Solving it on the
runMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Develop a
logical and suresolution before
action
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
23. P. From what data source is the most valuable design data received to impact thesuccess of the project? (CII)
A * B C D EOwner data
most importantMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Designer’s
experience mostimportant
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
190
24. D. If we accept that construction expertise (labor and material availability,subcontracting plan, construction sequence, etc.) and input to the design has some value, inyour opinion and experience at what point in the process is that input optimal? (CII)
A * B C D EPlanning 35%
CompletePlanning 90%
CompleteDesign
DocumentsBegun
DesignDocuments 35%
Complete
DesignDocuments 90%
Complete
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
25. P. At what point in the process is vendor data and input of highest value? (CII)
A * B C D EPlanning 35%
CompletePlanning 90%
CompleteDesign
DocumentsBegun
DesignDocuments 35%
Complete
DesignDocuments 90%
Complete
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
26. P. What is more important in the success of a project?(CII)
A) Clear and Accurate Scope DefinitionOr:E) Accurate Basic Design Data
A * B C D EAccurate Scope
DefinitionMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Accurate Basic
Design Data
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based DecisionsJ/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and OpennessE/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and ReflectionS/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
27. G. What is more important in the success of a project?(CII)
A * B C D EOwner Profile
and ExperienceMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Construction/Vendor Input
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and OpennessS/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
191
28. P. What is more important in the success of a project?(CII)
A B C D E *Project Pre-
Planning EffortMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Owner
Experience
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
29. G. What is your estimate of the number of manhours of Design worth for each hour ofPlanning effort?
A * B C D E9+ 7-8 5-6 3-4 1-2
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
30. C. From your experience who has the highest impact on the success or failure of aproject?What is more important in the success of a project?(CII)
A * B C D EOwner Most of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Contractor
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract ObservationsT/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based DecisionsJ/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
31. D. When you are faced with a tight time schedule for a project, do you postpone thestart of “design” until the owner is able to provide you with an uequvical understanding ofwhat he wants, or do you just get started and help him work it out as you move throughdesign? (CII)
A * B C D EPostpone andwait for the
Owner
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Get Moving w/Design
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
192
32. D. If you are not clear on the objectives of the Design Task are you more apt to stop theprocess and to question the team leader, or continue to move forward the best you canknowing the goals will become clear with time and project development? (CII)
A * B C D EStop the job toestablish your
personalunderstanding
of the goal
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Continue towork in the
Team and awaitthe goal
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
33. C. Once you and your team have “standards” in place are you more comortable with “ifit ain’t broke don’t fix it” or, do you firmly believe there is always a better way?(CNA)
A B C D E *“Ain’t broke,don’t change”
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
There is alwaysa better way
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
34. D. Do you view your role in the Design Phase process as being responsible forperformance outcomes, or do you view your role as one of “simutaneous responsibilitieswith others” and performance outcomes are out of your control?(CNA)
A B C D E *Simultaneous
responsibilitiesw/ others
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Significantcontrol ofoutcomes
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
35. G. When approaching the Administration duties on a project to what extent do youhonestly view the owner and the contractor as your partners?
A B C D E *Not really as
partnersMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Complete andequal partners
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
193
36. C. What is the most important factor during the Construction Phase process to avoidclaims and disputes on a project?
A B C D E *Concise
DocumentsMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Communication
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
37. C. When a problem arises on a job site is your initial personal reaction to have yourfield representative investigate the situation and solve it together in due and appropriatetime, or do you prefer to jump in your car and go figure it out yourself then and there?
A B C D E *Investigate
thoroughly w/staff
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Go to the Job-site yourself
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based DecisionsS/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract ObservationsJ/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
38. D. When you are involved in a project, honestly when you have a communication whatpercentage of the time do you record activities of who, when, information exchanged,decisions made and directions given and then file the report in the job files?
A B C D E *10% 25% 50% 75% 90%
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
39. P. Once a project moves from the Planning Phase (which you worked on) to the DesignPhase (which is assigned to another group), how long do you continue to “check-up” on thescope accuracy of the subsequent team? (CNA)
A B C D E *5% DesignComplete
25% 50% 75% 95% DesignComplete
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
194
40. P. In the Planning Phase of the project how important do you view the clients providingyou with a written project program or is this the responsibility of the design professional todevelop the data, program and report with limited owner input? (CNA)
A B C D E *A/E Developsthe Program
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Owner developsa writtenprogram
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based DecisionsS/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
41. D. When the project moves through the Design Phase at what intervals do you perform(not should you, but do you) an estimate of probable cost for the project to effectivelycontrol the budget?
A * B C D EContinuously(15%, 35%,
65% & 90%)
35%, 50%,65% & 90%
50%, 65%& 90%
65% & 90% Pre-Bid
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
42. G. If the responsibility is retained by the owner to provide survey, soils and othertechnical services, to what degree do you believe it is the A/E’s responsibility toindependently re-check and verify the accuracy of this information?
A B C D E *Accept data anduse as provided
Most of the time– A)
Spot check foraccuracy
Most of the time– E)
Thorough, in-depth review
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
43. P. When you are assigned to work on a project Study and Report would you prefer towork with a diverse group of professionals, within your own firm, with varied input to theprocess or with trained professionals with backgrounds similar and equal to your own?
A B C D E *Similar Group
of TalentsMost of the time
– A)Spot check for
accuracyMost of the time
– E)Diverse and
Varied Talents
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and ReflectionT/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based DecisionsJ/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
195
44. D. When you are assigned to work on a project’s Detailed Design Phase would youprefer to work with a diverse group of professionals, within your own firm, with variedinput to the process or with trained professionals with backgrounds similar and equal toyour own?
A B C D E *Similar Group
of TalentsMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Diverse and
Varied Talents
S/N: Factual and Detailed Perceptions vs. Possibilities and Abstract Observations
45. C. When you are assigned to work on a project’s Construction Phase would you preferto work with a diverse group of professionals, within your own firm, with varied input tothe process or with trained professionals with backgrounds similar and equal to your own?
A B C D E *Similar Group
of TalentsMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Diverse and
Varied Talents
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
46. G. If faced with the prospect of an increase in workload would you prefer to extend thedeadlines and/or not accept as much work, or arrange for a prolonged period of extendedovertime?
A B C D E *Extended
overtime tobetter service
clients
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Cut back tobetter service
clients
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
47. G. Would you favor the inclusion of a copy of you’re A/E in the Construction ContractBid Documents?
A * B C D EVery good idea Most of the time
– A)May be
beneficialMost of the time
– E)Very bad idea
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
196
48. P. If the owner during the planning (study and report) phase of the project isdemanding that you simultaneously tie down budget, scope and schedule, and isunreponsive and uncooperative in giving in on any of these issues what tendency would youmost likely follow?
A * B C D EWithdraw from
the projectMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Continue, that
owner’s attitudewill change
when they gainexperience inthe process
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
49. D. Recognizing the need to check the design documents for accuracy would yourapproach be to turn them over to another member of the firm (or team) to provide the sideby side Spec/Drawing and coordination review, or would you feel more confident doing ityourself?
A * B C D EReview them
myselfMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Have another
review
E/I: Action and Participation vs. Ideas and Reflection
50. G. When called upon to receive a contractor’s safety plan are you more comfortablereviewing the program for it’s content and nature, or merely receiving it to verify it’sexistence?
A * B C D EReview it for
contentMost of the time
– A)Some of the
time – A)Most of the time
– E)Verify itsexistence
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
197
51. C. Do you view the bidding phase as an opportunity to set the tone for the relationshipsbetween the owner, designer and contractors, or is this a “controlled” period only to let themarket determine who the contractor will be?
A * B C D ETime to
integrate theteam
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Explicit periodof strict rules
T/F Scale: Objective Decision vs. Interpersonally Based Decisions
52. C. In the event of the discovery of work that is not in conformance with the documents,and is rejected, a dispute will likely follow. Is the best way to resolve the problem andcomply with the contract requirements to:
A) participate in a free-flow of alternatives and ideas (brainstorming) then selectingan answer that will suit all parties?
Or:E) consider the circumstances, refer to the specifications and drawings and proceed
to determine the correct course of action;
A * B C D ETry to satisfy all
parties tobrainstorm a
solution
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Evaluate thedocuments and
meet therequirements,as contracted
J/P: Systematic Discipline vs. Receptivity and Openness
198
APPENDIX C-2
Critical Success Factors(Removed Items)
From the Initial 52 Item Questionnairethose questions found to be
“Unreliable Questions”
2. When performing a Study and Report as you conduct your investigation into a projectbeing considered for design and construction:
A) are you most effective when you plan out the meeting schedule, meet with all thenecessary departments and committees and then put your ideas in solid form:or:
E) are you most effective when you meet only with key participants and use yourown ideas to create the plan for the client?
4. When confronted with a problem during the Planning Phase of the project what positionappeals to you more:
A) “knowing there is another way to do it out there its just a matter of continuing tolook until we find it”
Or:E) “Relying on your experience to know what the solution is”
7. When preparing the Study and Report are you most effective when the interactions withother teams members are:
A) a reaction to design situations, circumstances and new discoveries?Or:E) planned and scheduled,
11. In your participation on a Design team would you rather work on your own task, orwould your prefered method of participation be through active interaction with the otherintegrated tasks of the design effort?
12. Do you see the project manager or team leader’s role more as a facilitator or that of adirector?
199
13. When a problem is identified during the Design Phase of a project please rate theeffectiveness of the following two approaches
A). The project manager (architect, director, supervisor) discusses the problem withthe consultant (structural, site, landscape, M/E/P, etc.) and reports back to the design team:Or:
E). The design team professionals (any one of the members most directly impactedby the problem) interacts directly with the consultant, reporting the results to andcoordinating the answer with the other team members:
14. When completing the Design on a project how important is it that it be reviewed by, andinput received from suppliers and contractors, and will its impact actually improve the finaldesign product?
15. How important is cohesion of the design team in improving the final design product?
16. If you are under severe time constraints to complete the design of a project howimportant is it that rules, regulations, procedures and policies are strictly followed even if itmeans delivering the project late?
19. Do you feel that you are in control of the tasks on the design projects, or do you feel thatthe outcome of your effort is controlled primarily by others on your team and/or the projectmanager?
21. How important is professional fulfillment when contrasted with the need to meet profitand fee expectations?
Least Important Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Very Important
26. What is more important in the success of a project?
A) Clear and Accurate Scope DefinitionOr:E) Accurate Basic Design Data
27. What is more important in the success of a project?
Owner Profileand Experience
Most of the time– A)
Some of thetime – A)
Most of the time– E)
Construction/Vendor Input
29. What is your estimate of the number of manhours of Design worth for each hour ofPlanning effort?
9+ 7-8 5-6 3-4 1-2
200
39. Once a project moves from the Planning Phase (which you worked on) to the DesignPhase (which is assigned to another group), how long do you continue to “check-up” on thescope accuracy of the subsequent team?
5% DesignComplete
25% 50% 75% 95% DesignComplete
41. When the project moves through the Design Phase at what intervals do you perform(not should you, but do you) an estimate of probable cost for the project to effectivelycontrol the budget?
Continuously(15%, 35%,
65% & 90%)
35%, 50%, 65%& 90%
50%, 65% &90%
65% & 90% Pre-Bid
42. If the responsibility is retained by the owner to provide survey, soils and other technicalservices, to what degree do you believe it is the A/E’s responsibility to independently re-check and verify the accuracy of this information?
43. When you are assigned to work on a project Study and Report would you prefer towork with a diverse group of professionals, within your own firm, with varied input to theprocess or with trained professionals with backgrounds similar and equal to your own?
46. If faced with the prospect of an increase in workload would you prefer to extend thedeadlines and/or not accept as much work, or arrange for a prolonged period of extendedovertime?
201
APPENDIX C-3
MBTI Dichotomies and
Raw Point Range[In order to determine if the CPSF questionnaire is balanced, both within andbetween personality dichotomies, the results of the pilot study are investigated. ThisAppendix maps each of the original 52 questions with the personality dichotomywith which it is most strongly correlated, and the direction of that correlation. Thisinformation then allowed the theoretical scoring of the questionnaire to determine ifthe instrument was in balance.]
202
APPENDIX C-3Raw Score Range: With each Question answered with the correct "Implied Dichotomy" receiving 5 Points,and the wrong "Implied Dichotomy" scored with 1 Point.
Question Number MBTI Personality
E I S N T F J P1 1 52 1 53 1 54 5 15 1 56 1 57 5 18 5 19 5 110 5 111 5 112 1 513 5 114 5 115 5 116 1 517 1 518 5 119 1 520 5 121 5 122 5 123 1 524 5 125 5 126 5 127 1 528 1 529 5 130 1 531 5 132 1 533 1 534 1 535 5 136 1 537 5 138 5 139 5 140 1 541 1 542 5 143 1 544 5 145 1 546 5 147 1 548 1 549 1 550 5 151 1 552 1 5
Grand Total Predicted 32 40 38 22 37 41 49 53
Extravert Introvert Sensor Intuitive Thinker Feeler Judger Perceiver
% of Total Predicted 44.4% 55.6% 63.3% 36.7% 47.4% 52.6% 48.0% 52.0%
National Sample % 49.3% 50.7% 73.3% 26.7% 40.2% 59.8% 54.1% 45.9%
RAW SCORE RANGE E/I 12 to 60 S/N 10 to 55 T/F 13 to 65 J/P 17 to 85
203
APPENDIX C-4
Factor Analysis
[This Appendix presents a Factor Analysis, through inter-correlation of theMBTI dichotomies with each of the original 52 questions. This allowed the mappingof both the dimension of personality most closely associated with each question,along with the associated performance direction of each dichotomy (i.e. E v. I, S v.N, etc.).]
204
Factor Analysis Correlations - Pilot StudyEXTINT SENSINTN THNKFEEL JUDGPERC
EXTINT PearsonCorrelation
1.000 0.021 0.243 (0.207)
Sig. (2-tailed) . 0.945 0.424 0.497
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
SENSINTN PearsonCorrelation
0.021 1.000 (0.383) 0.324
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.945 . 0.197 0.280
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
THNKFEEL PearsonCorrelation
0.243 (0.383) 1.000 (0.092)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.424 0.197 . 0.765
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
JUDGPERC PearsonCorrelation
(0.207) 0.324 (0.092) 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.497 0.280 0.765 .
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00001 PearsonCorrelation
(0.142) 0.103 (0.491) 0.030 VAR00027 PearsonCorrelation
(0.305) (0.368) 0.272 (0.435)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.644 0.738 0.088 0.922 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.311 0.216 0.368 0.137
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00002 PearsonCorrelation
(0.054) (0.247) 0.218 (0.519) VAR00028 PearsonCorrelation
(0.259) 0.167 (0.195) (0.572)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.861 0.415 0.473 0.069 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.394 0.585 0.522 0.041
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00003 PearsonCorrelation
0.032 (0.255) (0.597) (0.228) VAR00029 PearsonCorrelation
0.045 0.406 0.053 (0.091)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.917 0.400 0.031 0.454 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.885 0.169 0.863 0.767
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00004 PearsonCorrelation
(0.063) 0.106 0.333 0.151 VAR00030 PearsonCorrelation
(0.226) (0.641) 0.535 (0.482)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.838 0.731 0.266 0.622 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.458 0.018 0.060 0.095
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00005 PearsonCorrelation
(0.071) 0.270 (0.288) 0.123 VAR00031 PearsonCorrelation
0.061 0.490 0.007 0.146
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.817 0.372 0.340 0.689 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.843 0.089 0.983 0.634
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00006 PearsonCorrelation
(0.150) 0.268 (0.771) 0.245 VAR00032 PearsonCorrelation
(0.006) 0.302 (0.034) (0.534)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.626 0.377 0.002 0.420 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.984 0.316 0.913 0.060
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00007 PearsonCorrelation
0.425 (0.178) 0.007 (0.565) VAR00033 PearsonCorrelation
(0.367) 0.132 (0.247) 0.140
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.148 0.561 0.982 0.044 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.218 0.667 0.416 0.647
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00008 PearsonCorrelation
(0.171) 0.496 (0.040) 0.425 VAR00034 PearsonCorrelation
0.107 0.098 0.014 0.559
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.578 0.085 0.897 0.148 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.727 0.749 0.963 0.047
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00009 PearsonCorrelation
(0.320) 0.006 0.285 0.416 VAR00035 PearsonCorrelation
0.156 (0.085) 0.505 0.285
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.286 0.984 0.345 0.157 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.612 0.782 0.079 0.345
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00010 PearsonCorrelation
(0.008) 0.197 0.357 0.639 VAR00036 PearsonCorrelation
(0.040) (0.590) (0.037) (0.126)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.979 0.519 0.231 0.019 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.898 0.034 0.904 0.683
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00011 PearsonCorrelation
0.327 0.075 (0.132) (0.082) VAR00037 PearsonCorrelation
(0.099) (0.397) 0.416 (0.366)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.276 0.808 0.667 0.789 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.749 0.180 0.157 0.219
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
205
VAR00012 PearsonCorrelation
(0.228) (0.189) (0.175) (0.433) VAR00038 PearsonCorrelation
(0.193) 0.215 0.112 0.688
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.454 0.536 0.568 0.139 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.527 0.481 0.716 0.009
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00013 PearsonCorrelation
0.359 (0.073) (0.091) 0.004 VAR00039 PearsonCorrelation
(0.198) 0.090 0.122 0.241
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.229 0.812 0.768 0.989 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.517 0.770 0.691 0.428
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00014 PearsonCorrelation
(0.072) (0.211) (0.025) 0.348 VAR00040 PearsonCorrelation
(0.122) 0.469 (0.609) 0.246
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.815 0.490 0.936 0.244 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.692 0.106 0.027 0.418
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00015 PearsonCorrelation
0.080 (0.185) 0.077 0.187 VAR00041 PearsonCorrelation
(0.572) 0.167 (0.021) (0.026)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.796 0.545 0.802 0.540 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041 0.585 0.945 0.934
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00016 PearsonCorrelation
0.065 0.376 (0.393) (0.120) VAR00042 PearsonCorrelation
(0.155) 0.390 (0.008) (0.216)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.834 0.206 0.184 0.697 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.614 0.187 0.980 0.478
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00017 PearsonCorrelation
(0.330) 0.116 (0.077) (0.242) VAR00043 PearsonCorrelation
(0.368) (0.052) (0.368) (0.366)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.271 0.706 0.802 0.425 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.217 0.867 0.216 0.218
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00018 PearsonCorrelation
0.135 0.374 (0.005) 0.107 VAR00044 PearsonCorrelation
(0.222) 0.308 0.074 0.256
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.660 0.208 0.988 0.727 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.467 0.305 0.810 0.399
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00019 PearsonCorrelation
(0.226) (0.533) 0.467 (0.187) VAR00045 PearsonCorrelation
(0.161) (0.364) 0.188 (0.544)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.458 0.061 0.107 0.541 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.599 0.222 0.538 0.054
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00020 PearsonCorrelation
0.316 (0.301) (0.110) (0.161) VAR00046 PearsonCorrelation
(0.196) (0.246) 0.408 0.362
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.294 0.318 0.720 0.599 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.522 0.417 0.166 0.225
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00021 PearsonCorrelation
0.487 (0.091) (0.180) 0.353 VAR00047 PearsonCorrelation
(0.520) (0.113) (0.100) (0.102)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.091 0.767 0.556 0.237 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.069 0.712 0.745 0.741
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00022 PearsonCorrelation
(0.164) 0.341 (0.067) 0.732 VAR00048 PearsonCorrelation
(0.266) 0.211 (0.242) (0.215)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.592 0.254 0.829 0.004 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.380 0.490 0.426 0.480
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00023 PearsonCorrelation
(0.191) (0.000) (0.210) (0.331) VAR00049 PearsonCorrelation
(0.312) (0.014) 0.159 (0.028)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.533 0.999 0.492 0.269 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.299 0.965 0.603 0.927
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00024 PearsonCorrelation
0.060 (0.206) 0.380 0.243 VAR00050 PearsonCorrelation
(0.195) (0.012) 0.149 0.517
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.846 0.499 0.200 0.423 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.524 0.969 0.627 0.071
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00025 PearsonCorrelation
(0.024) 0.286 0.036 0.079 VAR00051 PearsonCorrelation
(0.363) (0.071) (0.646) (0.077)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.937 0.343 0.908 0.798 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.222 0.819 0.017 0.803
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
VAR00026 PearsonCorrelation
0.380 (0.375) 0.438 (0.419) VAR00052 PearsonCorrelation
(0.020) (0.205) (0.250) (0.620)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.200 0.207 0.134 0.154 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.947 0.503 0.410 0.024
N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000 N 13.000 13.000 13.000 13.000
206
APPENDIX C-5 Reliability Analysis
Final 33-Item
Critical Success Factors Questionnaire
9-Planning Questions10- Design Questions
8-Construction Questions6-General Management Questions
[Once the Questionnaire’s 19 weakest items were removed, the instrument wasadministered to the full research sample. The Reliability Analysis was performed onthe full sample responses, verifying that the questionnaire’s reliability did notweaken from that projected by the pilot study. ]
207
Reliability Planning ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for thisanalysis ****** R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E(A L P H A)Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 88.0
Alpha = .8099
Reliability Design – Contract Documents ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for thisanalysis ****** R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E(A L P H A)Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 88.0
Alpha = .8740
Reliability Construction Administration ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for thisanalysis ****** R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E(A L P H A)Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 88.0
Alpha = .9425
Reliability General Management ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for thisanalysis ******R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E(A L P H A)Reliability Coefficients
N of Cases = 88.0
Alpha = .8783
208
APPENDIX C-6
Descriptive Statistics and CorrelationScores of the Respondent Results
209
Descriptive Statistics, Correlation and Significancefor Individual Level Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Extraversion (-)Introversion (+)
-1.59 16.17 Corr. 1
Sig. .
2 Sensing (-)Intuition (+)
-7.22 12.79 Corr. -0.13 1
Sig. 0.25 .
3 Thinking (-)Feeling (+)
-10.51 11.26 Corr. -0.04 0.06 1
Sig. 0.70 0.57 .
4 Judging (-)Perceiving (+)
-10.81 14.16 Corr. 0.05 0.36 ** 0.29 ** 1
Sig. 0.62 0.00 0.01 .
5 Planning-Concept Design
2.60 0.50 Corr. -0.04 0.23 * -0.01 0.24 * 1
Sig. 0.72 0.03 0.92 0.03 .
6 Design- ContractDocuments
3.33 0.48 Corr. -0.07 -0.11 -0.13 -0.24 * -0.07 1
Sig. 0.50 0.33 0.22 0.03 0.53 .
7 ConstructionAdministration
2.99 0.53 Corr. -0.11 0.37 ** 0.02 0.33 ** 0.35 ** -0.23 * 1
Sig. 0.31 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.03 .
8 FirmManagement
3.25 0.53 Corr. -0.08 0.02 0.07 -0.13 0.12 0.04 0.08 1
Sig. 0.47 0.86 0.50 0.23 0.26 0.70 0.49 .
* Correlation is significant at the0.01 Level** Correlation is significant at the 0.05
N = 85
210
APPENDIX C-7
TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF THERESEARCH SAMPLE AND THENATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE (Base Population)
[This Appendix allows the comparison of the Research Sample’s reportedpersonality preferences with those of the general population. This summary coverssingle dimensions, pairs and whole-type combinations of personality dichotomies.]
211
TYPE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH SAMPLE AND THE NATIONALREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE (Base Population)
N Sample % National %
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E 41 48.24% 49.30%
N 23 5 1 2 I 44 51.76% 50.70%
% of the Research Sample 27.06% 5.88% 1.18% 2.35% S 67 78.82% 73.30%
% of the National Sample * 11.60% 13.80% 1.50% 2.10% N 18 21.18% 26.70%
2.33 0.43 0.78 1.12 T 69 81.18% 40.20%
F 16 18.82% 59.80%
J 63 74.12% 54.10%
P 22 25.88% 45.90%
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP IJ 31 36.47% 28.90%
N 5 1 0 7 IP 13 15.29% 21.80%
% of the Research Sample 5.88% 1.18% 0.00% 8.24% EP 9 10.59% 24.10%
% of the National Sample * 5.40% 8.80% 4.40% 3.30% EJ 32 37.65% 25.20%
1.09 0.13 0 2.50 ST 54 63.53% 29.90%
SF 13 15.29% 43.40%
NF 3 3.53% 16.40%
NT 15 17.65% 10.30%
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP SJ 54 63.53% 46.40%
N 6 1 0 2 SP 13 15.29% 27.00%
% of the Research Sample 7.06% 1.18% 0.00% 2.35% NP 9 10.59% 18.90%
% of the National Sample * 4.30% 8.50% 8.10% 3.20% NJ 9 10.59% 7.80%
1.64 0.14 0 0.74 TJ 49 57.65% 24.10%
TP 20 23.53% 16.10%
FP 2 2.35% 29.70%
FJ 14 16.47% 30.00%
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ IN 10 11.76% 11.20%
N 20 6 2 4 EN 8 9.41% 15.50%
% of the Research Sample 23.53% 7.06% 2.35% 4.71% IS 34 40.00% 39.50%
% of the National Sample * 8.70% 12.30% 2.50% 1.80% ES 33 38.82% 33.80%
2.70 0.57 0.94 2.61 ET 32 37.65% 17.90%
EF 9 10.59% 31.30%
IF 7 8.24% 28.40%
IT 37 43.53% 22.30%
ISTJ 23 27.06% 11.60%
(* Myers, et. Al, 1998, p. 298) ISTP 5 5.88% 5.40%
ESTP 6 7.06% 4.30%
ESTJ 20 23.53% 8.70%
ISFJ 5 5.88% 13.80%
ISFP 1 1.18% 8.80%
ESFP 1 1.18% 8.50%
ESFJ 6 7.06% 12.30%
INFJ 1 1.18% 1.50%
INFP 0 0.00% 4.40%
ENFP 0 0.00% 8.10%
ENFJ 2 2.35% 2.50%
INTJ 2 2.35% 2.10%
INTP 7 8.24% 3.30%
ENTP 2 2.35% 3.20%
ENTJ 4 4.71% 1.80%
212
APPENDIX C-8
ANOVA Results of Whole Type andCombination Influence v. Independent
Dimensions of Personality
[There is a theory that combinations of dichotomy pairs and whole-type
influence behavior, hence performance. This Appendix investigated the Attitude,
Function, Temperament, Quadrant, Data Judging and Decision Judging dichotomy
pairs. In addition, whole-type personalities were compared. This investigation found
little support beyond the relationship observed between the construction phase
questions and the perceiving (P) dimension of personality.]
213
1. ATTITUDE PAIRS IJ=1, IP=2, EP=3, EJ=4 ONEWAY ANOVA
Sum ofSquares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Planning - ConceptualDesign
Between Groups 1.003 3 .334 1.381 .254
Within Groups 19.611 81 .242Total 20.615 84
Design -ContractDocuments
Between Groups .910 3 .303 1.311 .276
Within Groups 18.738 81 .231Total 19.648 84
ConstructionAdministration
Between Groups 4.644 3 1.548 6.602 .000
Within Groups 18.994 81 .234Total 23.638 84
Firm Management Between Groups .226 3 7.536E-02 .259 .855Within Groups 23.606 81 .291
Total 23.832 84
Case Processing SummaryConstruction
AdministrationCases Missing Total
IJ=1,IP=2,EP=3,EJ=4
N Percent N Percent N Percent
1 30 100.0% 0 .0% 30 100.0%2 13 100.0% 0 .0% 13 100.0%3 9 100.0% 0 .0% 9 100.0%4 33 100.0% 0 .0% 33 100.0%
Construction Administration
3391330N =
IJ=1,IP=2,EP=3,EJ=4
4321
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ad
min
istr
atio
n
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
77
52
214
2. FUNCTION PAIRS ST=1, SF=2, NF=3, NT=4 ONEWAY ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Planning -Conceptual
Design
Between Groups 1.414 3 .471 1.989 .122
Within Groups 19.200 81 .237Total 20.615 84
Design -ContractDocuments
Between Groups .586 3 .195 .830 .481
Within Groups 19.062 81 .235Total 19.648 84
ConstructionAdministration
Between Groups 1.598 3 .533 1.958 .127
Within Groups 22.040 81 .272Total 23.638 84
FirmManagement
Between Groups .529 3 .176 .613 .608
Within Groups 23.303 81 .288Total 23.832 84
215
3. TEMPERAMENT PAIRS (KEIRSEY and BATES) SJ=1, SP=2, NF=3, NT=4ONEWAY ANOVA
Sum ofSquares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Planning - ConceptualDesign
Between Groups .967 3 .322 1.329 .271
Within Groups 19.648 81 .243Total 20.615 84
Design -ContractDocuments
Between Groups .513 3 .171 .723 .541
Within Groups 19.135 81 .236Total 19.648 84
ConstructionAdministration
Between Groups 3.162 3 1.054 4.169 .008
Within Groups 20.476 81 .253Total 23.638 84
Firm Management Between Groups .101 3 3.373E-02 .115 .951Within Groups 23.731 81 .293
Total 23.832 84
Case Processing SummaryConstruction
AdministrationCases Missing Total
TEMPPAIR N Percent N Percent N Percent1.00 54 100.0% 0 .0% 54 100.0%2.00 13 100.0% 0 .0% 13 100.0%3.00 3 100.0% 0 .0% 3 100.0%4.00 15 100.0% 0 .0% 15 100.0%
Construction Administration
1531354N =
TEMPPAIR
4.003.002.001.00
Const
ruct
ion A
dm
inis
tratio
n
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
52
216
4. QUADRANT PAIRS IS=1, ES=2, IN=3, EN=4 ONEWAY ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Planning -Conceptual
Design
Between Groups 1.104 3 .368 1.528 .214
Within Groups 19.511 81 .241Total 20.615 84
Design -ContractDocuments
Between Groups .944 3 .315 1.363 .260
Within Groups 18.704 81 .231Total 19.648 84
ConstructionAdministration
Between Groups 1.920 3 .640 2.387 .075
Within Groups 21.718 81 .268Total 23.638 84
FirmManagement
Between Groups 7.028E-02 3 2.343E-02 .080 .971
Within Groups 23.762 81 .293Total 23.832 84
217
5. DATA JUDGING SJ=1, SP=2, NJ=3, NP=4 One-way ANOVA
Sum ofSquares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Planning - ConceptualDesign
Between Groups 1.625 3 .542 2.311 .082
Within Groups 18.989 81 .234Total 20.615 84
Design -ContractDocuments
Between Groups .592 3 .197 .839 .476
Within Groups 19.056 81 .235Total 19.648 84
ConstructionAdministration
Between Groups 4.243 3 1.414 5.906 .001
Within Groups 19.395 81 .239Total 23.638 84
Firm Management Between Groups .245 3 8.173E-02 .281 .839Within Groups 23.587 81 .291
Total 23.832 84
Case Processing SummaryConstruction
AdministrationCases Missing Total
DATAJUDG N Percent N Percent N Percent1.00 54 100.0% 0 .0% 54 100.0%2.00 13 100.0% 0 .0% 13 100.0%3.00 9 100.0% 0 .0% 9 100.0%4.00 9 100.0% 0 .0% 9 100.0%
Construction Administration
991354N =
DATAJUDG
4.003.002.001.00
Const
ruct
ion A
dm
inis
tratio
n
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
66
52
218
6. DECISION JUDGING TJ=1, TP=2, FJ=3, FP=4 One-way ANOVA
Sum ofSquares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Planning - ConceptualDesign
Between Groups 1.416 3 .472 1.991 .122
Within Groups 19.199 81 .237Total 20.615 84
Design -ContractDocuments
Between Groups 1.038 3 .346 1.505 .219
Within Groups 18.610 81 .230Total 19.648 84
ConstructionAdministration
Between Groups 5.274 3 1.758 7.754 .000
Within Groups 18.364 81 .227Total 23.638 84
Firm Management Between Groups .539 3 .180 .625 .601Within Groups 23.294 81 .288
Total 23.832 84
Case Processing SummaryConstruction
AdministrationCases Missing Total
DECSJUDG N Percent N Percent N Percent1.00 49 100.0% 0 .0% 49 100.0%2.00 20 100.0% 0 .0% 20 100.0%3.00 14 100.0% 0 .0% 14 100.0%4.00 2 100.0% 0 .0% 2 100.0%
Construction Administration
2142049N =
DECSJUDG
4.003.002.001.00
Const
ruct
ion A
dm
inis
tratio
n
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
52
219
7. Whole Type ANOVA(Cases where there are at least 3 or more respondents in each Type Category)
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Planning - Conceptual
DesignBetween Groups .922 6 .154 .810 .568
Within Groups 8.730 46 .190Total 9.652 52
Design -ContractDocuments
Between Groups 1.434 6 .239 .977 .452
Within Groups 11.249 46 .245Total 12.683 52
ConstructionAdministration
Between Groups 1.425 6 .238 1.001 .436
Within Groups 10.914 46 .237Total 12.340 52
Firm Management Between Groups 2.248 6 .375 1.451 .216Within Groups 11.879 46 .258
Total 14.127 52
220
APPENDIX C-9
Critical Project Success FactorsQuestionnaire Results
For the 85 Survey Respondents
[This Appendix provides a compilation of all of the answers to the finalquestionnaire’s 33 items, listed by each of the 85 respondents.]
221
Question Service Category(P=Planning, D=Design,
P P P P C D G D D D C D
C=Construction, G=GeneralManagement
Questions 1 through 33; Plus the Averages by Service Category
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121 2 3 1 4 1 4 4 4 5 3 1 32 3 2 2 3 2 5 4 4 2 3 3 53 1 1 3 3 3 1 5 5 1 5 3 54 5 3 4 5 4 1 5 2 2 4 3 55 3 2 3 5 2 4 4 5 2 3 4 46 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 5 3 4 4 37 4 2 5 1 3 1 3 1 1 5 3 58 1 1 3 4 2 2 5 4 2 5 2 59 3 1 1 4 1 3 3 4 2 5 1 510 2 1 1 4 3 5 5 5 1 5 4 511 4 3 2 5 1 2 4 4 4 4 3 312 4 2 2 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 3 413 2 2 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 4 2 414 3 1 2 3 1 4 5 5 1 1 3 315 1 1 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 1 316 2 2 3 1 3 1 5 4 1 1 4 217 2 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 2 4 3 418 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 119 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 4 5 1 520 4 2 4 4 2 1 4 4 2 4 4 321 4 1 2 4 1 4 4 4 4 5 3 222 4 1 3 4 3 5 5 5 2 5 3 523 4 1 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 324 3 1 2 4 3 5 5 4 2 3 3 425 4 2 1 1 3 2 4 4 2 5 3 326 3 3 4 2 2 2 4 3 1 3 3 427 2 4 5 4 5 4 5 2 3 4 4 328 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 229 4 3 5 2 1 3 5 5 2 5 3 330 1 1 4 4 1 5 5 1 1 5 4 131 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 4 5 232 4 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 2 2 5 533 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 4 4 334 3 2 2 4 2 4 3 2 2 4 2 335 2 1 2 2 4 2 3 4 2 4 2 236 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 4 1 1 2 437 2 1 1 4 3 2 3 4 1 4 5 338 5 1 2 3 3 3 5 5 2 4 4 339 4 2 2 3 2 5 5 5 4 3 3 540 2 2 2 1 5 3 2 3 1 4 4 441 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 542 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 3 443 2 3 3 5 3 5 5 4 2 4 4 544 5 2 4 2 1 3 4 4 2 4 3 345 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 4 2 3 3 5
222
Question Service Category(P=Planning, D=Design,
P P P P C D G D D D C D
C=Construction, G=GeneralManagement
Questions 1 through 33; Plus the Averages by Service Category
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1246 4 1 2 2 3 5 4 4 2 4 4 447 2 3 4 1 4 2 5 4 2 5 5 348 2 1 4 1 1 5 2 5 1 5 4 349 2 5 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 2 2 350 2 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 551 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 4 5 3 2 252 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 353 2 2 2 4 1 5 4 3 2 3 4 354 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 4 2 3 2 355 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 2 256 2 4 2 2 1 4 5 1 2 1 5 557 2 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 4 3 4 458 2 2 1 1 1 5 4 3 3 5 4 359 2 3 3 2 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 160 1 1 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 361 2 4 3 4 1 5 5 1 3 4 4 262 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 363 3 3 1 1 2 4 3 5 4 5 3 364 3 1 3 4 3 5 5 4 2 4 4 465 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 266 3 4 2 4 2 1 5 2 2 4 4 267 3 1 1 3 1 5 5 2 4 4 4 468 1 2 4 4 1 5 4 4 2 4 4 469 2 3 2 3 3 5 4 4 2 5 3 570 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 271 4 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 372 3 1 4 5 5 1 2 1 1 2 4 473 4 1 3 4 3 5 5 2 5 4 4 374 2 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 4 2 375 4 1 1 4 1 5 5 5 5 3 2 376 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 2 377 1 1 1 5 1 2 5 4 2 2 4 478 5 2 2 5 3 2 2 5 2 4 2 579 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 5 3 4 2 280 3 1 3 5 4 3 3 5 2 4 3 381 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 4 3 5 4 582 2 4 1 4 4 1 5 4 1 3 2 383 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 584 5 4 2 4 1 2 5 5 2 3 3 485 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 1 3 5 5
223
D P D D G C G P P C C P D G C
Case 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 3 2 5 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 4 2 12 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 23 4 5 4 3 1 4 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 1 14 4 4 4 3 2 1 3 5 1 5 5 3 5 3 45 4 4 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 3 5 2 3 4 26 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 1 2 1 4 4 4 47 1 4 5 5 4 5 3 1 1 3 5 1 2 4 18 3 3 5 5 4 1 2 1 1 4 5 2 5 4 49 2 5 5 4 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 110 4 2 3 5 4 2 1 5 1 1 5 5 5 4 111 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 1 1 5 2 4 2 212 5 4 5 3 4 1 4 2 3 4 5 3 5 4 413 2 3 3 5 2 1 3 4 1 5 3 3 5 2 414 2 5 1 5 3 4 2 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 115 4 2 5 5 2 3 2 5 1 1 3 2 4 1 516 5 3 2 4 2 4 2 1 1 3 5 5 4 3 117 1 5 3 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 318 4 3 3 1 1 4 4 4 4 5 5 1 5 5 519 3 2 1 5 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 1 120 2 2 4 4 2 3 5 3 1 1 3 2 4 4 221 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 3 5 3 4 322 5 3 5 2 1 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 5 2 123 5 5 2 3 1 4 5 5 2 4 3 3 4 4 224 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 1 3 4 4 4 5 125 2 1 4 5 3 3 3 4 2 2 5 2 4 3 226 4 2 5 4 3 1 3 5 2 3 1 1 4 3 227 2 4 2 5 4 1 4 4 3 5 5 3 5 4 528 3 5 1 2 3 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 229 5 2 3 5 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 3 5 4 430 5 2 3 3 2 4 5 1 1 5 5 1 5 5 131 5 3 5 5 5 1 3 5 1 1 5 1 4 3 132 2 4 1 3 2 5 2 5 2 4 4 3 4 4 233 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 434 4 3 3 1 3 2 2 4 1 4 5 4 3 2 235 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 4 5 5 2 3 2 436 4 5 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 3 3 1 5 3 137 3 4 1 5 1 4 2 2 2 2 5 3 4 2 238 5 5 1 5 4 5 2 3 1 1 3 3 5 5 339 5 3 4 5 3 4 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 240 2 3 4 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 4 2 5 3 141 3 3 5 5 1 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 242 5 2 5 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 5 1 5 1 543 5 1 5 3 1 4 3 3 3 1 3 2 4 4 244 5 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 2 2 5 1 4 4 145 4 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 1
224
D P D D G C G P P C C P D G C
Case 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2746 3 4 5 5 3 4 3 3 1 4 1 2 4 3 247 2 1 5 4 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 5 4 248 2 1 4 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 5 1 4 4 149 3 2 5 4 2 2 4 2 1 4 5 4 2 4 250 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 251 2 2 1 4 3 2 4 5 3 2 3 2 2 4 152 5 5 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 153 5 5 5 2 2 4 2 3 1 5 5 2 4 2 154 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 255 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 256 4 2 4 5 3 1 5 2 2 1 5 2 1 4 257 3 2 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 4 3 458 4 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 259 4 2 4 4 1 3 4 3 2 2 4 3 5 2 360 5 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 461 5 2 5 4 3 2 2 5 1 4 5 4 4 4 262 5 4 4 5 2 2 5 3 2 2 4 2 4 4 263 2 3 1 4 1 4 5 1 1 3 1 1 5 3 264 2 1 2 5 1 5 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 365 2 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 2 266 5 4 2 3 1 2 5 1 1 5 5 5 3 4 167 2 1 3 5 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 268 5 5 5 5 2 3 3 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 269 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 370 4 2 4 3 3 3 4 2 1 4 5 3 4 3 471 5 5 5 5 2 3 2 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 272 3 2 4 4 4 1 5 2 2 5 5 1 4 2 373 2 1 5 2 2 4 3 1 1 2 3 3 5 4 174 4 5 3 5 2 3 3 2 2 2 4 3 3 4 275 5 3 2 5 3 3 3 4 2 4 5 2 2 2 276 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 1 4 5 2 4 3 377 4 4 5 3 5 2 1 5 1 1 1 4 2 4 178 4 5 5 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 5 1 179 3 2 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 280 4 5 1 4 2 4 2 1 1 1 5 4 3 5 281 5 4 2 5 2 2 4 5 1 4 3 4 5 4 282 4 4 2 2 4 2 1 3 4 3 5 2 3 4 183 5 5 4 2 2 4 2 5 1 5 5 4 4 4 284 3 3 2 5 4 2 3 5 1 5 5 5 4 5 185 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 5 1 2 5 3 4 4 5
225
C P D G C C Service Category Average Scores
Case 28 29 30 31 32 33 PLAN DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
1 2 1 4 2 5 2 1.778 3.900 2.111 2.6002 2 2 3 4 4 2 2.556 3.800 2.667 3.0003 4 2 5 5 4 1 2.222 3.800 2.778 2.8004 4 3 2 3 4 5 3.667 3.200 3.889 3.2005 5 4 3 4 4 3 3.333 3.400 3.222 3.4006 4 3 2 4 4 4 2.778 3.500 3.222 3.2007 4 2 1 4 2 1 2.333 2.700 3.000 3.6008 2 2 4 5 3 3 2.000 4.000 2.889 4.0009 3 3 2 3 3 4 2.667 3.400 2.222 2.40010 4 4 2 2 4 1 2.778 4.000 2.778 3.20011 5 2 1 4 3 2 2.778 3.400 2.889 2.80012 4 2 2 2 2 3 2.889 3.500 3.111 3.80013 2 4 4 1 2 2 2.778 3.400 2.667 2.40014 4 2 3 4 4 1 2.778 3.000 2.222 3.80015 3 2 2 3 5 1 2.444 4.300 2.556 2.60016 4 5 2 4 2 4 2.556 2.600 3.333 3.20017 2 2 2 5 5 1 2.778 3.100 2.778 4.00018 5 5 1 5 5 5 3.889 2.700 4.444 4.00019 5 4 1 4 3 2 1.889 3.300 2.556 2.20020 4 2 2 4 4 2 2.667 3.000 2.778 3.80021 4 1 2 2 2 1 2.667 3.400 2.556 3.20022 3 1 1 5 5 1 2.556 4.000 2.889 3.20023 3 3 2 4 4 2 3.000 3.100 3.111 3.60024 4 3 2 2 4 2 2.889 3.200 2.889 3.20025 4 2 2 4 3 3 2.111 3.300 3.111 3.40026 4 1 1 4 4 3 2.556 3.100 2.556 3.40027 5 5 2 4 5 5 3.778 3.200 4.444 4.20028 2 4 2 2 2 2 2.556 2.500 2.333 2.20029 4 4 1 4 4 2 3.000 3.700 2.667 3.40030 5 2 2 5 2 2 1.889 3.100 3.222 4.40031 5 1 3 5 2 1 3.222 3.700 2.889 4.20032 4 3 2 2 3 4 3.333 2.900 3.667 2.80033 5 2 4 2 4 4 2.111 3.000 3.556 2.80034 3 2 2 2 4 2 2.778 2.800 2.889 2.40035 4 3 1 2 4 4 2.222 2.100 4.000 2.20036 5 2 4 5 2 3 2.667 3.500 2.556 3.20037 4 2 1 4 5 4 2.333 2.800 3.778 2.40038 3 4 5 1 4 1 3.000 3.800 3.000 3.40039 4 2 5 4 4 3 2.333 4.400 3.111 3.20040 5 2 2 5 5 3 2.000 3.200 3.556 3.00041 4 2 1 4 3 1 2.444 3.500 2.667 3.00042 5 1 5 5 3 1 1.778 4.400 3.111 3.40043 4 4 4 4 4 2 2.889 4.100 3.000 3.40044 4 3 2 5 2 5 2.778 3.700 2.889 4.20045 3 2 3 4 2 4 2.667 3.400 2.889 3.400
226
C P D G C C Service Category Average Scores
Case 28 29 30 31 32 33 PLAN DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
46 4 4 2 3 2 2 2.556 3.800 2.889 3.20047 4 2 3 4 4 1 2.000 3.500 3.000 3.40048 2 2 2 4 5 2 1.556 3.200 2.556 3.20049 5 4 1 1 2 4 2.778 2.600 3.333 2.60050 4 2 3 4 4 2 2.667 3.000 2.889 3.60051 5 3 2 5 2 1 2.333 2.600 2.111 4.20052 1 3 2 2 2 1 1.778 3.400 1.556 2.60053 5 2 1 1 4 5 2.556 3.300 3.778 2.20054 4 4 4 2 4 4 2.778 3.000 3.222 2.60055 4 3 3 3 3 3 2.222 2.400 2.667 3.00056 5 2 1 5 5 5 2.222 2.800 3.333 4.40057 2 4 1 5 4 5 1.778 2.700 3.000 3.40058 3 4 4 4 3 2 2.444 3.900 2.444 3.40059 4 2 4 4 4 3 2.444 3.800 3.444 3.20060 3 4 3 3 4 4 2.667 3.400 3.000 3.40061 4 2 2 3 4 3 3.000 3.500 3.222 3.40062 4 3 2 4 3 2 2.778 3.600 2.889 3.80063 3 2 5 4 2 1 1.778 3.800 2.333 3.20064 5 4 3 4 5 2 2.556 3.500 3.444 3.20065 2 3 1 3 4 2 2.556 2.800 2.333 2.60066 5 4 1 5 5 4 3.111 2.500 3.667 4.00067 3 4 3 2 4 2 2.333 3.600 2.667 3.20068 3 2 2 4 4 4 2.333 4.000 3.222 3.40069 4 3 3 3 4 4 3.000 3.900 3.333 3.40070 2 4 2 4 3 4 2.000 3.000 3.333 3.40071 3 4 2 3 2 2 3.111 3.600 2.778 2.80072 4 4 1 3 4 2 2.667 2.500 3.667 3.20073 3 4 1 5 3 2 2.444 3.400 2.778 3.80074 2 3 2 4 3 4 2.333 3.300 2.556 3.40075 4 2 1 4 4 3 2.556 3.600 3.111 3.40076 4 2 2 4 4 4 1.778 3.400 3.778 3.40077 2 2 4 5 1 3 2.667 3.200 1.778 4.00078 5 2 4 5 5 5 3.000 3.900 2.667 2.40079 3 2 2 5 4 2 1.778 3.400 3.000 3.40080 4 2 1 4 2 2 2.778 3.000 3.000 3.20081 3 2 2 4 4 2 2.667 3.800 2.778 3.60082 4 2 4 1 2 3 2.889 2.700 2.889 3.00083 4 3 2 2 2 2 3.667 3.700 3.222 2.80084 3 2 2 1 2 2 3.444 3.200 2.667 3.60085 5 4 4 2 5 5 3.556 3.100 4.333 3.000
227
APPENDIX C-10
Respondent MBTI® TYPEIntensity (Clarity)of Personality Dimensions
andCritical Project Success Factors
Questionnaire Results by Service AreaFor the 85 Survey Respondents
[This Appendix presents the “answers” to the CPSF questionnaire and the MBTIForm M personality test for each of the 85 respondents. This is the average scoreraw data, by category of personality and performance, used in the researchanalysis.]
228
Case TYPE E/I S/N T/F J/P PLAN DESIGN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
1 ISTJ 7 -13 -3 -22 1.778 3.900 2.111 2.6002 ESTJ -19 -14 -17 -30 2.556 3.800 2.667 3.0003 ESTJ -12 -2 -16 -21 2.222 3.800 2.778 2.8004 ENTP -23 12 -10 4 3.667 3.200 3.889 3.2005 ISFJ 26 -7 4 -6 3.333 3.400 3.222 3.4006 ESTJ -7 -1 -9 -14 2.778 3.500 3.222 3.2007 ISTP 15 -1 -3 12 2.333 2.700 3.000 3.6008 ESTJ -8 -12 -18 -26 2.000 4.000 2.889 4.0009 ESTJ -4 -24 -13 -7 2.667 3.400 2.222 2.40010 ISTP 4 -16 -26 5 2.778 4.000 2.778 3.20011 ESTP -24 -1 -6 2 2.778 3.400 2.889 2.80012 ISTP 6 -5 -21 3 2.889 3.500 3.111 3.80013 ISTJ 11 -16 -24 -17 2.778 3.400 2.667 2.40014 ISFJ 21 -2 2 -24 2.778 3.000 2.222 3.80015 ESTJ -4 -21 -27 -30 2.444 4.300 2.556 2.60016 INTJ 25 30 -30 -26 2.556 2.600 3.333 3.20017 ESFJ -21 -14 2 -23 2.778 3.100 2.778 4.00018 ESFP -1 -13 11 17 3.889 2.700 4.444 4.00019 ISTJ 26 -21 -21 -24 1.889 3.300 2.556 2.20020 INTP 3 15 -8 10 2.667 3.000 2.778 3.80021 ISTJ 3 -3 -3 -16 2.667 3.400 2.556 3.20022 ESTJ -17 -8 -15 -29 2.556 4.000 2.889 3.20023 ISTJ 9 -23 -12 -12 3.000 3.100 3.111 3.60024 ENFJ -16 4 12 -4 2.889 3.200 2.889 3.20025 ESFJ -19 -4 10 -27 2.111 3.300 3.111 3.40026 ESFJ -12 -5 4 -7 2.556 3.100 2.556 3.40027 INTP 7 15 -15 5 3.778 3.200 4.444 4.20028 ISFJ 30 -30 1 -10 2.556 2.500 2.333 2.20029 ISTJ 19 -30 -2 -11 3.000 3.700 2.667 3.40030 ISTJ 6 -30 -24 -30 1.889 3.100 3.222 4.40031 ISTJ 11 -28 -30 -29 3.222 3.700 2.889 4.20032 INTP 3 17 -14 30 3.333 2.900 3.667 2.80033 INTP 4 3 -15 5 2.111 3.000 3.556 2.80034 ISTJ 12 -11 -8 -8 2.778 2.800 2.889 2.40035 ESTP -30 -4 -24 12 2.222 2.100 4.000 2.20036 INTP 7 9 -7 3 2.667 3.500 2.556 3.20037 ISFP 7 -8 4 8 2.333 2.800 3.778 2.40038 ENTJ -16 10 -18 -16 3.000 3.800 3.000 3.40039 ISTP 9 -1 -7 2 2.333 4.400 3.111 3.20040 ISFJ 18 -17 5 -10 2.000 3.200 3.556 3.00041 ENFJ -18 6 7 -23 2.444 3.500 2.667 3.00042 ISFJ 14 -16 9 -17 1.778 4.400 3.111 3.40043 ISTJ 17 -20 -24 -25 2.889 4.100 3.000 3.40044 ESFJ -18 -8 3 -14 2.778 3.700 2.889 4.20045 ENTJ -5 15 -25 -19 2.667 3.400 2.889 3.400
229
Case TYPE E/I S/N T/F J/P PLAN DESIGN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
46 ISTJ 7 -8 -27 -18 2.556 3.800 2.889 3.20047 ISTJ 14 -8 -5 -23 2.000 3.500 3.000 3.40048 ISTJ 8 -6 -11 -5 1.556 3.200 2.556 3.20049 INTP 10 9 -2 21 2.778 2.600 3.333 2.60050 ISTJ 11 -13 -13 -21 2.667 3.000 2.889 3.60051 ISTJ 8 -16 -6 -15 2.333 2.600 2.111 4.20052 ISTJ 9 -30 -5 -4 1.778 3.400 1.556 2.60053 ESTJ -30 -12 -25 -24 2.556 3.300 3.778 2.20054 ISTJ 18 -1 -3 -6 2.778 3.000 3.222 2.60055 ISTJ 25 -27 -26 -21 2.222 2.400 2.667 3.00056 ESTJ -22 -20 -29 -30 2.222 2.800 3.333 4.40057 ISTJ 8 -3 -11 -6 1.778 2.700 3.000 3.40058 ISTJ 12 -27 -22 -30 2.444 3.900 2.444 3.40059 ISTJ 7 -8 -24 -9 2.444 3.800 3.444 3.20060 ESTJ -4 -6 -2 -23 2.667 3.400 3.000 3.40061 ESTJ -19 -3 -30 -30 3.000 3.500 3.222 3.40062 ISTP 8 -3 -9 5 2.778 3.600 2.889 3.80063 ENTJ -24 1 -1 -21 1.778 3.800 2.333 3.20064 ESTJ -3 -9 -14 -23 2.556 3.500 3.444 3.20065 ESTJ -7 -4 -16 -16 2.556 2.800 2.333 2.60066 INFJ 1 13 7 -16 3.111 2.500 3.667 4.00067 INTP 4 6 -8 14 2.333 3.600 2.667 3.20068 ESTJ -22 -5 -18 -25 2.333 4.000 3.222 3.40069 ESFJ -30 -2 2 -3 3.000 3.900 3.333 3.40070 ESTJ -6 -25 -4 -14 2.000 3.000 3.333 3.40071 ESTP -16 -22 -11 5 3.111 3.600 2.778 2.80072 ESTJ -11 -9 -8 -29 2.667 2.500 3.667 3.20073 ENTJ -30 11 -6 -4 2.444 3.400 2.778 3.80074 ESTJ -11 -17 -4 -19 2.333 3.300 2.556 3.40075 INTJ 6 10 -15 -6 2.556 3.600 3.111 3.40076 ESTP -10 -11 -1 5 1.778 3.400 3.778 3.40077 ESTJ -18 -16 -30 -20 2.667 3.200 1.778 4.00078 ESTJ -13 -3 -17 -14 3.000 3.900 2.667 2.40079 ESTP -28 -7 -15 4 1.778 3.400 3.000 3.40080 ESTP -1 -8 -5 8 2.778 3.000 3.000 3.20081 ISTJ 11 -12 -6 -5 2.667 3.800 2.778 3.60082 ESTJ -28 -15 -16 -29 2.889 2.700 2.889 3.00083 ISTJ 30 -1 -29 -17 3.667 3.700 3.222 2.80084 ESFJ -30 -29 6 -8 3.444 3.200 2.667 3.60085 ENTP -15 15 -13 12 3.556 3.100 4.333 3.000
230
APPENDIX C-11
Inter-Correlation of the Original 52Questionnaire Items Evaluated in the
Reliability Test[This Appendix presents the complete inter-correlation results of the original 52-item questionnaire completed by the 13 respondents of the pilot study. These inter-correlation results were investigated by direct observation to select the items toremain for an instrument of improved reliability and internal consistency.]
231
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q1 Pearson Correlation 1.00 (0.40) 0.19 0.27 0.16 0.45 (0.29) (0.22) 0.08
Sig. (2-tailed) . 0.18 0.53 0.38 0.60 0.12 0.33 0.47 0.79 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q2 Pearson Correlation (0.40) 1.00 0.05 (0.17) (0.20) (0.37) 0.21 (0.27) (0.45) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.18 . 0.88 0.59 0.51 0.21 0.49 0.38 0.12 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q3 Pearson Correlation 0.19 0.05 1.00 (0.30) 0.41 0.55 0.19 (0.50) (0.38) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.53 0.88 . 0.32 0.17 0.05 0.54 0.08 0.20 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q4 Pearson Correlation 0.27 (0.17) (0.30) 1.00 0.41 (0.24) (0.43) (0.05) 0.37 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.38 0.59 0.32 . 0.17 0.42 0.14 0.86 0.21 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q5 Pearson Correlation 0.16 (0.20) 0.41 0.41 1.00 0.16 (0.51) (0.19) 0.18 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.60 0.51 0.17 0.17 . 0.60 0.08 0.53 0.56 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q6 Pearson Correlation 0.45 (0.37) 0.55 (0.24) 0.16 1.00 0.29 0.13 (0.28) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.12 0.21 0.05 0.42 0.60 . 0.34 0.67 0.36 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q7 Pearson Correlation (0.29) 0.21 0.19 (0.43) (0.51) 0.29 1.00 0.32 (0.46) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.33 0.49 0.54 0.14 0.08 0.34 . 0.29 0.11 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q8 Pearson Correlation (0.22) (0.27) (0.50) (0.05) (0.19) 0.13 0.32 1.00 0.21 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.47 0.38 0.08 0.86 0.53 0.67 0.29 . 0.49 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q9 Pearson Correlation 0.08 (0.45) (0.38) 0.37 0.18 (0.28) (0.46) 0.21 1.00 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.79 0.12 0.20 0.21 0.56 0.36 0.11 0.49 . N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q10 Pearson Correlation (0.55) (0.33) (0.47) 0.05 0.03 (0.30) (0.10) 0.42 0.58 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.05 0.26 0.10 0.88 0.93 0.32 0.75 0.15 0.04 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q11 Pearson Correlation (0.16) 0.30 (0.01) (0.37) (0.01) 0.05 0.13 0.02 (0.48) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.61 0.32 0.98 0.22 0.97 0.86 0.67 0.95 0.10 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q12 Pearson Correlation 0.53 0.15 0.01 0.24 0.11 0.02 (0.25) (0.04) (0.01) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.06 0.62 0.96 0.43 0.72 0.95 0.41 0.90 0.98 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q13 Pearson Correlation (0.29) 0.21 0.19 (0.43) (0.51) 0.29 1.00 0.32 (0.46) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.33 0.49 0.54 0.14 0.08 0.34 - 0.29 0.11 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q14 Pearson Correlation 0.51 (0.51) (0.10) (0.08) (0.25) 0.22 (0.09) 0.03 0.11 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.07 0.07 0.74 0.81 0.41 0.47 0.77 0.92 0.73 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q15 Pearson Correlation (0.21) 0.25 (0.24) (0.34) (0.32) (0.17) 0.18 0.15 (0.33) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.49 0.42 0.42 0.25 0.29 0.57 0.57 0.61 0.27 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q16 Pearson Correlation 0.07 0.34 0.39 (0.15) 0.31 0.44 0.36 0.14 (0.34) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.83 0.26 0.18 0.62 0.30 0.14 0.22 0.64 0.25 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q17 Pearson Correlation 0.32 0.14 (0.07) 0.49 0.26 (0.11) (0.21) 0.12 0.42 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.29 0.66 0.81 0.09 0.38 0.71 0.48 0.69 0.15 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
232
Q18 Pearson Correlation (0.06) (0.12) (0.11) 0.11 0.05 (0.05) 0.15 0.30 (0.26) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.85 0.69 0.72 0.71 0.88 0.87 0.63 0.32 0.39 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q19 Pearson Correlation (0.22) 0.44 (0.27) (0.10) (0.32) (0.34) (0.27) (0.30) (0.08) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.48 0.13 0.38 0.74 0.29 0.26 0.38 0.32 0.81 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q20 Pearson Correlation 0.03 (0.18) 0.51 (0.04) 0.04 0.44 0.27 (0.34) (0.16) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.93 0.56 0.07 0.89 0.89 0.13 0.37 0.25 0.61 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q21 Pearson Correlation (0.10) (0.33) 0.34 (0.32) 0.03 0.43 0.35 (0.09) (0.27) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.75 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.91 0.14 0.24 0.77 0.38 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q22 Pearson Correlation 0.31 (0.51) (0.29) 0.03 0.04 0.23 (0.15) 0.33 0.61 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.30 0.07 0.33 0.93 0.89 0.44 0.62 0.27 0.03 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q23 Pearson Correlation 0.76 0.12 0.07 0.34 0.24 0.06 (0.49) (0.37) (0.11) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.70 0.81 0.26 0.43 0.83 0.09 0.21 0.71 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q24 Pearson Correlation 0.36 (0.42) (0.46) 0.25 (0.45) (0.09) 0.07 0.25 0.32 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.23 0.15 0.11 0.41 0.12 0.77 0.81 0.40 0.28 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q25 Pearson Correlation 0.04 0.14 (0.36) (0.07) (0.50) 0.07 0.57 0.63 (0.00) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.90 0.65 0.23 0.81 0.08 0.81 0.04 0.02 0.99 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q26 Pearson Correlation 0.00 (0.26) 0.02 0.39 0.21 (0.41) (0.29) (0.32) 0.33 Sig. (2-tailed) 1.00 0.39 0.94 0.19 0.50 0.16 0.33 0.29 0.27 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q27 Pearson Correlation (0.09) 0.75 (0.14) (0.14) (0.39) (0.39) (0.18) (0.46) (0.26) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.77 0.00 0.64 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.55 0.12 0.40 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q28 Pearson Correlation 0.08 0.16 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.19 (0.22) (0.11) (0.10) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.79 0.59 0.47 0.50 0.39 0.53 0.48 0.72 0.75 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q29 Pearson Correlation (0.54) 0.46 (0.38) (0.27) (0.27) (0.13) 0.42 0.64 (0.37) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.06 0.11 0.20 0.37 0.38 0.68 0.15 0.02 0.21 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q30 Pearson Correlation 0.04 0.09 (0.17) 0.23 (0.13) (0.49) (0.51) (0.41) 0.35 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.90 0.77 0.58 0.45 0.67 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.23 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q31 Pearson Correlation 0.49 (0.24) (0.51) 0.50 (0.23) 0.03 0.04 0.35 0.08 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.09 0.43 0.07 0.08 0.45 0.94 0.90 0.23 0.80 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q32 Pearson Correlation (0.00) (0.30) 0.05 (0.43) (0.23) 0.23 0.10 (0.04) 0.08 Sig. (2-tailed) 1.00 0.32 0.88 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.75 0.90 0.81 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q33 Pearson Correlation 0.26 0.03 (0.12) 0.18 0.11 (0.23) (0.13) 0.24 0.28 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.39 0.92 0.70 0.55 0.71 0.44 0.68 0.43 0.36 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q34 Pearson Correlation 0.05 (0.01) (0.12) (0.10) (0.35) 0.27 0.40 0.09 (0.32) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.88 0.97 0.70 0.74 0.24 0.37 0.17 0.78 0.29 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
233
Q35 Pearson Correlation (0.16) (0.23) (0.46) 0.50 0.18 (0.52) (0.26) 0.18 0.71 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.60 0.45 0.11 0.08 0.55 0.07 0.39 0.56 0.01 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q36 Pearson Correlation (0.23) (0.10) 0.48 (0.36) (0.03) 0.32 0.13 (0.23) (0.26) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.45 0.74 0.09 0.22 0.92 0.29 0.66 0.45 0.39 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q37 Pearson Correlation (0.08) 0.16 0.02 0.19 (0.29) (0.28) 0.01 (0.32) 0.02 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.78 0.60 0.95 0.53 0.34 0.35 0.96 0.29 0.95 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q38 Pearson Correlation (0.08) (0.34) (0.42) 0.01 (0.43) 0.32 0.28 0.51 0.13 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.80 0.26 0.15 0.96 0.14 0.29 0.35 0.07 0.67 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q39 Pearson Correlation (0.06) 0.39 (0.14) 0.12 (0.02) 0.22 0.22 0.22 (0.08) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.84 0.19 0.66 0.69 0.95 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.79 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q40 Pearson Correlation 0.61 (0.29) (0.02) (0.11) (0.04) 0.49 0.16 0.45 (0.16) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.03 0.33 0.94 0.72 0.90 0.09 0.61 0.12 0.59 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q41 Pearson Correlation 0.24 0.28 (0.11) 0.54 0.19 (0.13) (0.30) (0.06) 0.36 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.43 0.35 0.71 0.06 0.54 0.68 0.32 0.85 0.23 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q42 Pearson Correlation (0.17) 0.47 (0.07) 0.17 (0.02) (0.14) (0.02) (0.14) (0.14) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.58 0.10 0.82 0.59 0.94 0.65 0.95 0.64 0.64 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q43 Pearson Correlation (0.09) 0.63 0.29 (0.52) 0.04 (0.03) (0.11) (0.24) (0.22) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.77 0.02 0.34 0.07 0.90 0.93 0.73 0.43 0.46 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q44 Pearson Correlation (0.62) 0.40 (0.30) (0.39) (0.10) (0.18) 0.22 0.55 (0.01) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.02 0.17 0.32 0.18 0.75 0.55 0.47 0.05 0.98 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q45 Pearson Correlation 0.14 0.45 (0.12) 0.37 (0.06) (0.54) (0.29) (0.35) 0.00 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.64 0.12 0.70 0.21 0.83 0.05 0.34 0.24 0.99 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q46 Pearson Correlation (0.04) (0.05) (0.32) 0.31 0.07 (0.55) (0.46) (0.22) 0.75 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.91 0.88 0.28 0.31 0.82 0.05 0.12 0.47 0.00 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q47 Pearson Correlation 0.32 (0.17) 0.15 0.31 0.59 (0.08) (0.91) (0.41) 0.42 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.29 0.58 0.62 0.30 0.03 0.79 0.00 0.17 0.16 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q48 Pearson Correlation 0.51 (0.36) (0.02) 0.35 (0.05) 0.28 (0.17) 0.06 0.07 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.08 0.22 0.94 0.24 0.86 0.35 0.57 0.84 0.82 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q49 Pearson Correlation 0.06 0.08 0.16 0.56 0.60 (0.15) (0.63) (0.50) 0.37 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.84 0.79 0.61 0.05 0.03 0.63 0.02 0.08 0.22 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q50 Pearson Correlation 0.19 (0.26) (0.13) 0.36 0.04 (0.21) (0.18) (0.12) 0.59 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.53 0.38 0.68 0.23 0.89 0.50 0.56 0.70 0.03 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q51 Pearson Correlation 0.35 (0.42) 0.60 (0.07) 0.46 0.42 (0.32) (0.20) 0.07 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.24 0.16 0.03 0.82 0.12 0.16 0.29 0.52 0.82 N 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q52 Pearson Correlation 0.09 0.60 0.35 (0.44) (0.36) 0.18 0.28 (0.35) (0.82) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.76 0.03 0.25 0.13 0.23 0.56 0.36 0.24 0.00
234
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q1 (0.55) (0.16) 0.53 (0.29) 0.51 (0.21) 0.07 0.32 (0.06) (0.22) 0.03 (0.10)
0.05 0.61 0.06 0.33 0.07 0.49 0.83 0.29 0.85 0.48 0.93 0.75 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q2 (0.33) 0.30 0.15 0.21 (0.51) 0.25 0.34 0.14 (0.12) 0.44 (0.18) (0.33) 0.26 0.32 0.62 0.49 0.07 0.42 0.26 0.66 0.69 0.13 0.56 0.28 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q3 (0.47) (0.01) 0.01 0.19 (0.10) (0.24) 0.39 (0.07) (0.11) (0.27) 0.51 0.34 0.10 0.98 0.96 0.54 0.74 0.42 0.18 0.81 0.72 0.38 0.07 0.26 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q4 0.05 (0.37) 0.24 (0.43) (0.08) (0.34) (0.15) 0.49 0.11 (0.10) (0.04) (0.32) 0.88 0.22 0.43 0.14 0.81 0.25 0.62 0.09 0.71 0.74 0.89 0.28 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q5 0.03 (0.01) 0.11 (0.51) (0.25) (0.32) 0.31 0.26 0.05 (0.32) 0.04 0.03 0.93 0.97 0.72 0.08 0.41 0.29 0.30 0.38 0.88 0.29 0.89 0.91 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q6 (0.30) 0.05 0.02 0.29 0.22 (0.17) 0.44 (0.11) (0.05) (0.34) 0.44 0.43 0.32 0.86 0.95 0.34 0.47 0.57 0.14 0.71 0.87 0.26 0.13 0.14 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q7 (0.10) 0.13 (0.25) 1.00 (0.09) 0.18 0.36 (0.21) 0.15 (0.27) 0.27 0.35 0.75 0.67 0.41 - 0.77 0.57 0.22 0.48 0.63 0.38 0.37 0.24 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q8 0.42 0.02 (0.04) 0.32 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.30 (0.30) (0.34) (0.09) 0.15 0.95 0.90 0.29 0.92 0.61 0.64 0.69 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.77 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q9 0.58 (0.48) (0.01) (0.46) 0.11 (0.33) (0.34) 0.42 (0.26) (0.08) (0.16) (0.27) 0.04 0.10 0.98 0.11 0.73 0.27 0.25 0.15 0.39 0.81 0.61 0.38 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q10 1.00 (0.03) (0.57) (0.10) (0.13) 0.12 (0.41) (0.22) (0.09) (0.00) (0.09) 0.24 . 0.92 0.04 0.75 0.68 0.71 0.17 0.47 0.77 0.99 0.78 0.43 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q11 (0.03) 1.00 0.22 0.13 (0.13) 0.75 0.18 (0.31) (0.30) 0.38 0.03 0.49 0.92 . 0.46 0.67 0.68 0.00 0.56 0.30 0.31 0.21 0.92 0.09 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q12 (0.57) 0.22 1.00 (0.25) 0.05 0.12 0.11 0.63 (0.30) 0.19 (0.09) (0.35) 0.04 0.46 . 0.41 0.86 0.71 0.73 0.02 0.32 0.54 0.78 0.23 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q13 (0.10) 0.13 (0.25) 1.00 (0.09) 0.18 0.36 (0.21) 0.15 (0.27) 0.27 0.35 0.75 0.67 0.41 . 0.77 0.57 0.22 0.48 0.63 0.38 0.37 0.24 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q14 (0.13) (0.13) 0.05 (0.09) 1.00 0.26 (0.28) (0.38) 0.21 0.11 (0.20) 0.16 0.68 0.68 0.86 0.77 . 0.39 0.36 0.21 0.48 0.71 0.52 0.60 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q15 0.12 0.75 0.12 0.18 0.26 1.00 (0.18) (0.46) (0.06) 0.50 (0.31) 0.35 0.71 0.00 0.71 0.57 0.39 . 0.56 0.12 0.84 0.08 0.29 0.25 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q16 (0.41) 0.18 0.11 0.36 (0.28) (0.18) 1.00 0.26 0.17 (0.36) (0.04) (0.06) 0.17 0.56 0.73 0.22 0.36 0.56 . 0.39 0.58 0.23 0.91 0.85 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q17 (0.22) (0.31) 0.63 (0.21) (0.38) (0.46) 0.26 1.00 (0.20) (0.25) (0.12) (0.66) 0.47 0.30 0.02 0.48 0.21 0.12 0.39 . 0.51 0.40 0.69 0.01 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
235
Q18 (0.09) (0.30) (0.30) 0.15 0.21 (0.06) 0.17 (0.20) 1.00 (0.49) (0.51) (0.25) 0.77 0.31 0.32 0.63 0.48 0.84 0.58 0.51 . 0.09 0.07 0.42 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q19 (0.00) 0.38 0.19 (0.27) 0.11 0.50 (0.36) (0.25) (0.49) 1.00 (0.02) 0.01 0.99 0.21 0.54 0.38 0.71 0.08 0.23 0.40 0.09 . 0.96 0.98 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q20 (0.09) 0.03 (0.09) 0.27 (0.20) (0.31) (0.04) (0.12) (0.51) (0.02) 1.00 0.60 0.78 0.92 0.78 0.37 0.52 0.29 0.91 0.69 0.07 0.96 . 0.03 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q21 0.24 0.49 (0.35) 0.35 0.16 0.35 (0.06) (0.66) (0.25) 0.01 0.60 1.00 0.43 0.09 0.23 0.24 0.60 0.25 0.85 0.01 0.42 0.98 0.03 . 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q22 0.42 (0.12) (0.20) (0.15) 0.48 (0.03) 0.06 (0.01) (0.10) (0.13) (0.22) 0.13 0.15 0.70 0.52 0.62 0.10 0.92 0.84 0.98 0.75 0.67 0.48 0.68 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q23 (0.73) 0.04 0.72 (0.49) 0.29 (0.05) 0.19 0.39 0.01 0.14 (0.26) (0.42) 0.00 0.90 0.01 0.09 0.33 0.88 0.54 0.18 0.97 0.64 0.38 0.15 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q24 (0.01) (0.36) 0.10 0.07 0.77 0.04 (0.31) (0.02) 0.24 0.02 (0.19) (0.12) 0.97 0.23 0.74 0.81 0.00 0.89 0.30 0.95 0.44 0.95 0.53 0.71 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q25 (0.12) (0.19) 0.04 0.57 0.09 (0.04) 0.43 0.29 0.34 (0.31) (0.35) (0.36) 0.69 0.53 0.89 0.04 0.76 0.90 0.15 0.34 0.25 0.31 0.24 0.23 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q26 0.02 (0.34) 0.15 (0.29) (0.09) (0.45) (0.39) 0.24 (0.08) (0.10) 0.33 (0.10) 0.95 0.25 0.63 0.33 0.76 0.13 0.19 0.44 0.80 0.74 0.27 0.74 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q27 (0.34) 0.12 0.17 (0.18) (0.08) 0.25 (0.11) (0.02) (0.24) 0.74 (0.25) (0.41) 0.25 0.69 0.57 0.55 0.80 0.42 0.72 0.95 0.43 0.00 0.42 0.16 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q28 (0.37) (0.23) 0.31 (0.22) (0.55) (0.65) 0.24 0.51 (0.15) (0.08) 0.31 (0.41) 0.21 0.44 0.30 0.48 0.05 0.02 0.43 0.07 0.63 0.79 0.29 0.16 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q29 0.11 0.47 0.00 0.42 (0.40) 0.41 0.37 (0.00) 0.25 0.03 (0.38) (0.14) 0.71 0.11 0.99 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.99 0.40 0.92 0.20 0.64 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q30 (0.12) (0.33) 0.34 (0.51) 0.11 (0.21) (0.52) 0.23 (0.34) 0.55 0.06 (0.42) 0.69 0.27 0.25 0.07 0.71 0.49 0.07 0.46 0.26 0.05 0.84 0.15 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q31 (0.17) (0.29) 0.18 0.04 0.22 (0.19) 0.02 0.34 0.41 (0.37) (0.29) (0.37) 0.59 0.34 0.56 0.90 0.47 0.53 0.96 0.26 0.16 0.21 0.33 0.21 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q32 0.29 0.22 (0.35) 0.10 0.67 0.48 (0.23) (0.70) (0.19) 0.36 0.08 0.62 0.34 0.46 0.25 0.75 0.01 0.10 0.45 0.01 0.54 0.23 0.80 0.02 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q33 (0.05) (0.22) 0.35 (0.13) 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.53 0.28 (0.36) (0.66) (0.54) 0.86 0.47 0.24 0.68 0.89 0.76 0.97 0.06 0.36 0.23 0.01 0.06 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q34 0.04 0.13 (0.44) 0.40 0.47 0.40 0.08 (0.59) 0.28 0.10 (0.09) 0.40 0.89 0.67 0.13 0.17 0.10 0.17 0.79 0.03 0.35 0.74 0.76 0.18 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
236
Q35 0.62 (0.01) 0.10 (0.26) (0.16) 0.04 (0.38) 0.34 (0.32) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 0.98 0.74 0.39 0.61 0.89 0.20 0.25 0.29 0.95 0.95 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q36 (0.04) 0.14 (0.08) 0.13 0.15 0.15 (0.23) (0.50) (0.29) 0.37 0.60 0.90 0.64 0.79 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.45 0.08 0.34 0.21 0.03 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q37 (0.24) (0.76) (0.21) 0.01 0.05 (0.53) (0.22) 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.48 0.96 0.88 0.07 0.48 0.89 0.34 0.90 0.86 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q38 0.43 (0.12) (0.43) 0.28 0.36 0.14 (0.17) (0.36) 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.14 0.71 0.14 0.35 0.23 0.65 0.57 0.22 0.82 0.76 0.87 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q39 (0.05) 0.28 0.11 0.22 (0.06) 0.19 0.54 0.12 (0.21) 0.33 (0.02) 0.87 0.35 0.71 0.46 0.84 0.53 0.05 0.70 0.50 0.27 0.94 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q40 (0.35) 0.12 0.34 0.16 0.48 0.20 0.35 0.12 0.39 (0.42) (0.41) 0.25 0.70 0.26 0.61 0.10 0.51 0.24 0.70 0.18 0.15 0.16 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q41 (0.14) (0.51) 0.25 (0.30) (0.34) (0.50) 0.18 0.77 (0.08) (0.09) (0.23) 0.64 0.07 0.42 0.32 0.25 0.08 0.56 0.00 0.80 0.76 0.44 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q42 (0.08) (0.28) (0.26) (0.02) (0.63) (0.45) 0.23 0.27 0.11 (0.12) (0.08) 0.79 0.35 0.39 0.95 0.02 0.12 0.45 0.37 0.72 0.69 0.80 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q43 (0.26) 0.39 0.26 (0.11) (0.37) 0.23 0.30 0.16 (0.38) 0.31 (0.21) 0.39 0.19 0.38 0.73 0.21 0.46 0.32 0.60 0.20 0.31 0.49 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q44 0.41 0.32 (0.26) 0.22 (0.26) 0.42 0.34 (0.10) 0.15 0.11 (0.56) 0.16 0.28 0.39 0.47 0.40 0.15 0.25 0.74 0.62 0.71 0.05 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q45 (0.35) (0.05) 0.62 (0.29) (0.28) 0.04 (0.29) 0.55 (0.20) 0.25 (0.16) 0.23 0.86 0.02 0.34 0.35 0.90 0.33 0.05 0.52 0.40 0.60 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q46 0.53 (0.22) (0.10) (0.46) 0.03 0.03 (0.48) 0.19 (0.38) 0.24 (0.21) 0.06 0.47 0.74 0.12 0.92 0.93 0.10 0.54 0.20 0.43 0.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q47 (0.05) (0.22) 0.33 (0.91) 0.03 (0.29) (0.25) 0.29 (0.27) 0.23 (0.08) 0.87 0.48 0.27 0.00 0.92 0.33 0.41 0.33 0.37 0.45 0.81 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q48 (0.35) (0.60) 0.24 (0.17) 0.09 (0.63) (0.14) 0.38 0.20 (0.34) 0.14 0.24 0.03 0.44 0.57 0.78 0.02 0.64 0.20 0.51 0.26 0.65 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q49 0.04 (0.43) (0.07) (0.63) (0.32) (0.60) 0.01 0.33 (0.19) 0.09 0.12 0.88 0.14 0.83 0.02 0.28 0.03 0.98 0.27 0.54 0.77 0.70 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q50 0.31 (0.68) (0.37) (0.18) 0.24 (0.32) (0.25) 0.13 0.17 (0.28) (0.24) 0.30 0.01 0.21 0.56 0.42 0.29 0.41 0.66 0.58 0.35 0.43 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q51 (0.18) (0.22) 0.22 (0.32) 0.03 (0.30) (0.15) 0.14 (0.10) (0.30) 0.26 0.57 0.46 0.47 0.29 0.93 0.32 0.61 0.65 0.74 0.33 0.39 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q52 (0.78) 0.23 0.20 0.28 0.01 0.18 0.29 (0.20) 0.11 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.51 0.36 0.97 0.56 0.34 0.52 0.72 0.36 0.99
237
Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q33 Q1 0.31 0.76 0.36 0.04 0.00 (0.09) 0.08 (0.54) 0.04 0.49 (0.00) 0.26
0.30 0.00 0.23 0.90 1.00 0.77 0.79 0.06 0.90 0.09 1.00 0.39 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q2 (0.51) 0.12 (0.42) 0.14 (0.26) 0.75 0.16 0.46 0.09 (0.24) (0.30) 0.03 0.07 0.70 0.15 0.65 0.39 0.00 0.59 0.11 0.77 0.43 0.32 0.92 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q3 (0.29) 0.07 (0.46) (0.36) 0.02 (0.14) 0.22 (0.38) (0.17) (0.51) 0.05 (0.12) 0.33 0.81 0.11 0.23 0.94 0.64 0.47 0.20 0.58 0.07 0.88 0.70 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q4 0.03 0.34 0.25 (0.07) 0.39 (0.14) 0.21 (0.27) 0.23 0.50 (0.43) 0.18 0.93 0.26 0.41 0.81 0.19 0.66 0.50 0.37 0.45 0.08 0.14 0.55 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q5 0.04 0.24 (0.45) (0.50) 0.21 (0.39) 0.26 (0.27) (0.13) (0.23) (0.23) 0.11 0.89 0.43 0.12 0.08 0.50 0.19 0.39 0.38 0.67 0.45 0.44 0.71 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q6 0.23 0.06 (0.09) 0.07 (0.41) (0.39) 0.19 (0.13) (0.49) 0.03 0.23 (0.23) 0.44 0.83 0.77 0.81 0.16 0.19 0.53 0.68 0.09 0.94 0.44 0.44 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q7 (0.15) (0.49) 0.07 0.57 (0.29) (0.18) (0.22) 0.42 (0.51) 0.04 0.10 (0.13) 0.62 0.09 0.81 0.04 0.33 0.55 0.48 0.15 0.07 0.90 0.75 0.68 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q8 0.33 (0.37) 0.25 0.63 (0.32) (0.46) (0.11) 0.64 (0.41) 0.35 (0.04) 0.24 0.27 0.21 0.40 0.02 0.29 0.12 0.72 0.02 0.17 0.23 0.90 0.43 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q9 0.61 (0.11) 0.32 (0.00) 0.33 (0.26) (0.10) (0.37) 0.35 0.08 0.08 0.28 0.03 0.71 0.28 0.99 0.27 0.40 0.75 0.21 0.23 0.80 0.81 0.36 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q10 0.42 (0.73) (0.01) (0.12) 0.02 (0.34) (0.37) 0.11 (0.12) (0.17) 0.29 (0.05) 0.15 0.00 0.97 0.69 0.95 0.25 0.21 0.71 0.69 0.59 0.34 0.86 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q11 (0.12) 0.04 (0.36) (0.19) (0.34) 0.12 (0.23) 0.47 (0.33) (0.29) 0.22 (0.22) 0.70 0.90 0.23 0.53 0.25 0.69 0.44 0.11 0.27 0.34 0.46 0.47 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q12 (0.20) 0.72 0.10 0.04 0.15 0.17 0.31 0.00 0.34 0.18 (0.35) 0.35 0.52 0.01 0.74 0.89 0.63 0.57 0.30 0.99 0.25 0.56 0.25 0.24 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q13 (0.15) (0.49) 0.07 0.57 (0.29) (0.18) (0.22) 0.42 (0.51) 0.04 0.10 (0.13) 0.62 0.09 0.81 0.04 0.33 0.55 0.48 0.15 0.07 0.90 0.75 0.68 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q14 0.48 0.29 0.77 0.09 (0.09) (0.08) (0.55) (0.40) 0.11 0.22 0.67 0.04 0.10 0.33 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.80 0.05 0.17 0.71 0.47 0.01 0.89 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q15 (0.03) (0.05) 0.04 (0.04) (0.45) 0.25 (0.65) 0.41 (0.21) (0.19) 0.48 0.09 0.92 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.13 0.42 0.02 0.16 0.49 0.53 0.10 0.76 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q16 0.06 0.19 (0.31) 0.43 (0.39) (0.11) 0.24 0.37 (0.52) 0.02 (0.23) 0.01 0.84 0.54 0.30 0.15 0.19 0.72 0.43 0.22 0.07 0.96 0.45 0.97 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q17 (0.01) 0.39 (0.02) 0.29 0.24 (0.02) 0.51 (0.00) 0.23 0.34 (0.70) 0.53 0.98 0.18 0.95 0.34 0.44 0.95 0.07 0.99 0.46 0.26 0.01 0.06 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
238
Q18 (0.10) 0.01 0.24 0.34 (0.08) (0.24) (0.15) 0.25 (0.34) 0.41 (0.19) 0.28 0.75 0.97 0.44 0.25 0.80 0.43 0.63 0.40 0.26 0.16 0.54 0.36 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q19 (0.13) 0.14 0.02 (0.31) (0.10) 0.74 (0.08) 0.03 0.55 (0.37) 0.36 (0.36) 0.67 0.64 0.95 0.31 0.74 0.00 0.79 0.92 0.05 0.21 0.23 0.23 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q20 (0.22) (0.26) (0.19) (0.35) 0.33 (0.25) 0.31 (0.38) 0.06 (0.29) 0.08 (0.66) 0.48 0.38 0.53 0.24 0.27 0.42 0.29 0.20 0.84 0.33 0.80 0.01 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q21 0.13 (0.42) (0.12) (0.36) (0.10) (0.41) (0.41) (0.14) (0.42) (0.37) 0.62 (0.54) 0.68 0.15 0.71 0.23 0.74 0.16 0.16 0.64 0.15 0.21 0.02 0.06 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q22 1.00 (0.02) 0.42 0.26 (0.30) (0.30) (0.44) (0.21) (0.23) 0.23 0.53 0.07 . 0.96 0.16 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.13 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.06 0.81 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q23 (0.02) 1.00 0.16 (0.04) 0.01 0.35 0.23 (0.26) 0.27 0.34 (0.23) 0.27 0.96 . 0.60 0.91 0.97 0.25 0.45 0.39 0.37 0.25 0.45 0.37 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q24 0.42 0.16 1.00 0.45 0.18 (0.12) (0.42) (0.24) 0.26 0.55 0.31 0.10 0.16 0.60 . 0.12 0.56 0.68 0.16 0.43 0.39 0.05 0.29 0.75 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q25 0.26 (0.04) 0.45 1.00 (0.35) (0.04) (0.09) 0.50 (0.31) 0.60 (0.16) 0.29 0.39 0.91 0.12 . 0.24 0.88 0.76 0.08 0.31 0.03 0.60 0.34 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q26 (0.30) 0.01 0.18 (0.35) 1.00 (0.24) 0.24 (0.46) 0.62 (0.06) (0.31) (0.12) 0.32 0.97 0.56 0.24 . 0.42 0.42 0.12 0.02 0.84 0.30 0.70 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q27 (0.30) 0.35 (0.12) (0.04) (0.24) 1.00 0.11 0.09 0.45 (0.13) (0.02) (0.04) 0.32 0.25 0.68 0.88 0.42 . 0.73 0.77 0.12 0.66 0.94 0.89 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q28 (0.44) 0.23 (0.42) (0.09) 0.24 0.11 1.00 0.04 0.28 0.03 (0.71) (0.19) 0.13 0.45 0.16 0.76 0.42 0.73 . 0.89 0.35 0.91 0.01 0.53 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q29 (0.21) (0.26) (0.24) 0.50 (0.46) 0.09 0.04 1.00 (0.42) 0.10 (0.27) 0.07 0.49 0.39 0.43 0.08 0.12 0.77 0.89 . 0.15 0.74 0.37 0.82 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q30 (0.23) 0.27 0.26 (0.31) 0.62 0.45 0.28 (0.42) 1.00 (0.17) (0.09) (0.11) 0.45 0.37 0.39 0.31 0.02 0.12 0.35 0.15 . 0.58 0.78 0.71 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q31 0.23 0.34 0.55 0.60 (0.06) (0.13) 0.03 0.10 (0.17) 1.00 (0.36) 0.32 0.45 0.25 0.05 0.03 0.84 0.66 0.91 0.74 0.58 . 0.23 0.29 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q32 0.53 (0.23) 0.31 (0.16) (0.31) (0.02) (0.71) (0.27) (0.09) (0.36) 1.00 (0.31) 0.06 0.45 0.29 0.60 0.30 0.94 0.01 0.37 0.78 0.23 . 0.30 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q33 0.07 0.27 0.10 0.29 (0.12) (0.04) (0.19) 0.07 (0.11) 0.32 (0.31) 1.00 0.81 0.37 0.75 0.34 0.70 0.89 0.53 0.82 0.71 0.29 0.30 . 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q34 0.36 (0.10) 0.34 0.29 (0.63) 0.09 (0.60) 0.07 (0.49) 0.25 0.59 (0.19) 0.23 0.75 0.26 0.34 0.02 0.78 0.03 0.81 0.09 0.42 0.04 0.54 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
239
Q35 0.26 (0.21) 0.19 (0.12) 0.48 (0.31) (0.25) (0.11) 0.22 0.05 (0.06) 0.20 0.40 0.48 0.53 0.69 0.10 0.30 0.42 0.72 0.47 0.88 0.85 0.51 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q36 (0.32) (0.29) (0.14) (0.51) 0.14 (0.03) 0.07 (0.23) 0.25 (0.69) 0.44 (0.57) 0.28 0.34 0.66 0.08 0.64 0.92 0.82 0.46 0.41 0.01 0.13 0.04 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q37 (0.33) 0.01 0.29 0.11 0.39 0.33 0.28 (0.30) 0.55 0.12 (0.23) (0.10) 0.27 0.98 0.34 0.71 0.19 0.27 0.35 0.31 0.05 0.70 0.45 0.75 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q38 0.51 (0.39) 0.43 0.35 (0.47) (0.14) (0.29) 0.13 (0.28) 0.31 0.48 (0.28) 0.08 0.19 0.14 0.24 0.11 0.64 0.34 0.66 0.36 0.29 0.10 0.35 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q39 0.30 0.11 0.03 0.38 (0.54) 0.22 (0.02) 0.35 (0.23) 0.06 0.16 (0.22) 0.32 0.72 0.92 0.20 0.06 0.47 0.95 0.24 0.46 0.85 0.60 0.48 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q40 0.35 0.41 0.32 0.51 (0.48) (0.28) (0.20) 0.20 (0.51) 0.55 0.04 0.48 0.25 0.16 0.29 0.08 0.10 0.36 0.52 0.52 0.07 0.05 0.89 0.09 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q41 0.06 0.35 (0.09) 0.24 (0.07) 0.31 0.45 (0.09) 0.18 0.36 (0.56) 0.45 0.84 0.24 0.78 0.44 0.81 0.31 0.12 0.76 0.55 0.23 0.05 0.12 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q42 (0.24) (0.01) (0.44) 0.17 (0.19) 0.40 0.51 0.22 (0.10) 0.24 (0.59) 0.02 0.44 0.99 0.14 0.58 0.53 0.18 0.07 0.48 0.76 0.42 0.03 0.96 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q43 (0.20) 0.20 (0.65) (0.13) (0.41) 0.57 0.20 0.25 0.00 (0.47) (0.10) 0.21 0.51 0.51 0.02 0.68 0.16 0.04 0.51 0.41 0.99 0.10 0.75 0.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q44 0.19 (0.38) (0.27) 0.36 (0.60) 0.13 (0.25) 0.76 (0.39) (0.22) 0.11 0.17 0.54 0.20 0.37 0.23 0.03 0.67 0.41 0.00 0.19 0.47 0.72 0.57 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q45 (0.56) 0.45 (0.07) (0.12) 0.34 0.50 0.27 (0.06) 0.52 0.14 (0.58) 0.46 0.05 0.13 0.83 0.69 0.26 0.08 0.37 0.85 0.07 0.65 0.04 0.11 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q46 0.41 (0.07) 0.13 (0.24) 0.19 0.17 (0.38) (0.42) 0.35 (0.10) 0.21 0.30 0.17 0.83 0.66 0.43 0.53 0.57 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.74 0.50 0.31 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q47 0.04 0.47 (0.21) (0.64) 0.30 0.16 0.37 (0.53) 0.56 (0.27) (0.10) 0.12 0.91 0.11 0.49 0.02 0.32 0.59 0.21 0.06 0.05 0.38 0.75 0.70 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q48 (0.13) 0.31 0.25 0.16 0.25 (0.11) 0.62 (0.25) 0.24 0.58 (0.49) 0.08 0.67 0.30 0.41 0.61 0.41 0.71 0.02 0.42 0.43 0.04 0.09 0.79 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q49 0.01 0.23 (0.30) (0.45) 0.28 0.19 0.46 (0.48) 0.38 (0.15) (0.27) (0.10) 0.96 0.45 0.31 0.12 0.35 0.53 0.12 0.10 0.21 0.62 0.37 0.74 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q50 0.48 (0.06) 0.35 0.11 0.06 (0.07) (0.37) (0.52) 0.04 0.27 0.14 0.42 0.10 0.85 0.24 0.73 0.85 0.82 0.22 0.07 0.91 0.37 0.66 0.16 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q51 (0.19) 0.13 (0.31) (0.52) 0.21 (0.30) 0.36 (0.46) 0.10 (0.29) (0.11) 0.21 0.54 0.68 0.30 0.07 0.50 0.32 0.23 0.11 0.73 0.34 0.73 0.50 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q52 (0.55) 0.36 (0.20) 0.11 (0.33) 0.62 0.24 0.21 0.02 (0.07) (0.10) (0.15) 0.05 0.22 0.52 0.73 0.27 0.02 0.42 0.48 0.94 0.81 0.75 0.63
240
Q34 Q35 Q36 Q37 Q38 Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q44 Q45 Q1 0.05 (0.16) (0.23) (0.08) (0.08) (0.06) 0.61 0.24 (0.17) (0.09) (0.62) 0.14
0.88 0.60 0.45 0.78 0.80 0.84 0.03 0.43 0.58 0.77 0.02 0.64 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q2 (0.01) (0.23) (0.10) 0.16 (0.34) 0.39 (0.29) 0.28 0.47 0.63 0.40 0.45 0.97 0.45 0.74 0.60 0.26 0.19 0.33 0.35 0.10 0.02 0.17 0.12 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q3 (0.12) (0.46) 0.48 0.02 (0.42) (0.14) (0.02) (0.11) (0.07) 0.29 (0.30) (0.12) 0.70 0.11 0.09 0.95 0.15 0.66 0.94 0.71 0.82 0.34 0.32 0.70 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q4 (0.10) 0.50 (0.36) 0.19 0.01 0.12 (0.11) 0.54 0.17 (0.52) (0.39) 0.37 0.74 0.08 0.22 0.53 0.96 0.69 0.72 0.06 0.59 0.07 0.18 0.21 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q5 (0.35) 0.18 (0.03) (0.29) (0.43) (0.02) (0.04) 0.19 (0.02) 0.04 (0.10) (0.06) 0.24 0.55 0.92 0.34 0.14 0.95 0.90 0.54 0.94 0.90 0.75 0.83 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q6 0.27 (0.52) 0.32 (0.28) 0.32 0.22 0.49 (0.13) (0.14) (0.03) (0.18) (0.54) 0.37 0.07 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.47 0.09 0.68 0.65 0.93 0.55 0.05 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q7 0.40 (0.26) 0.13 0.01 0.28 0.22 0.16 (0.30) (0.02) (0.11) 0.22 (0.29) 0.17 0.39 0.66 0.96 0.35 0.46 0.61 0.32 0.95 0.73 0.47 0.34 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q8 0.09 0.18 (0.23) (0.32) 0.51 0.22 0.45 (0.06) (0.14) (0.24) 0.55 (0.35) 0.78 0.56 0.45 0.29 0.07 0.46 0.12 0.85 0.64 0.43 0.05 0.24 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q9 (0.32) 0.71 (0.26) 0.02 0.13 (0.08) (0.16) 0.36 (0.14) (0.22) (0.01) 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.39 0.95 0.67 0.79 0.59 0.23 0.64 0.46 0.98 0.99 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q10 0.04 0.62 (0.04) (0.24) 0.43 (0.05) (0.35) (0.14) (0.08) (0.26) 0.41 (0.35) 0.89 0.02 0.90 0.43 0.14 0.87 0.25 0.64 0.79 0.39 0.16 0.23 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q11 0.13 (0.01) 0.14 (0.76) (0.12) 0.28 0.12 (0.51) (0.28) 0.39 0.32 (0.05) 0.67 0.98 0.64 0.00 0.71 0.35 0.70 0.07 0.35 0.19 0.28 0.86 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q12 (0.44) 0.10 (0.08) (0.21) (0.43) 0.11 0.34 0.25 (0.26) 0.26 (0.26) 0.62 0.13 0.74 0.79 0.48 0.14 0.71 0.26 0.42 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.02 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q13 0.40 (0.26) 0.13 0.01 0.28 0.22 0.16 (0.30) (0.02) (0.11) 0.22 (0.29) 0.17 0.39 0.66 0.96 0.35 0.46 0.61 0.32 0.95 0.73 0.47 0.34 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q14 0.47 (0.16) 0.15 0.05 0.36 (0.06) 0.48 (0.34) (0.63) (0.37) (0.26) (0.28) 0.10 0.61 0.63 0.88 0.23 0.84 0.10 0.25 0.02 0.21 0.40 0.35 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q15 0.40 0.04 0.15 (0.53) 0.14 0.19 0.20 (0.50) (0.45) 0.23 0.42 0.04 0.17 0.89 0.64 0.07 0.65 0.53 0.51 0.08 0.12 0.46 0.15 0.90 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q16 0.08 (0.38) (0.23) (0.22) (0.17) 0.54 0.35 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.34 (0.29) 0.79 0.20 0.45 0.48 0.57 0.05 0.24 0.56 0.45 0.32 0.25 0.33 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q17 (0.59) 0.34 (0.50) 0.04 (0.36) 0.12 0.12 0.77 0.27 0.16 (0.10) 0.55 0.03 0.25 0.08 0.89 0.22 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.37 0.60 0.74 0.05 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
241
Q18 0.28 (0.32) (0.29) 0.29 0.07 (0.21) 0.39 (0.08) 0.11 (0.38) 0.15 (0.20) 0.35 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.82 0.50 0.18 0.80 0.72 0.20 0.62 0.52 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q19 0.10 0.02 0.37 0.04 0.10 0.33 (0.42) (0.09) (0.12) 0.31 0.11 0.25 0.74 0.95 0.21 0.90 0.76 0.27 0.15 0.76 0.69 0.31 0.71 0.40 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q20 (0.09) (0.02) 0.60 0.06 0.05 (0.02) (0.41) (0.23) (0.08) (0.21) (0.56) (0.16) 0.76 0.95 0.03 0.86 0.87 0.94 0.16 0.44 0.80 0.49 0.05 0.60 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q21 0.40 0.01 0.54 (0.47) 0.28 0.03 (0.07) (0.73) (0.47) (0.22) (0.12) (0.56) 0.18 0.96 0.06 0.10 0.36 0.91 0.81 0.00 0.11 0.46 0.69 0.05 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q22 0.36 0.26 (0.32) (0.33) 0.51 0.30 0.35 0.06 (0.24) (0.20) 0.19 (0.56) 0.23 0.40 0.28 0.27 0.08 0.32 0.25 0.84 0.44 0.51 0.54 0.05 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q23 (0.10) (0.21) (0.29) 0.01 (0.39) 0.11 0.41 0.35 (0.01) 0.20 (0.38) 0.45 0.75 0.48 0.34 0.98 0.19 0.72 0.16 0.24 0.99 0.51 0.20 0.13 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q24 0.34 0.19 (0.14) 0.29 0.43 0.03 0.32 (0.09) (0.44) (0.65) (0.27) (0.07) 0.26 0.53 0.66 0.34 0.14 0.92 0.29 0.78 0.14 0.02 0.37 0.83 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q25 0.29 (0.12) (0.51) 0.11 0.35 0.38 0.51 0.24 0.17 (0.13) 0.36 (0.12) 0.34 0.69 0.08 0.71 0.24 0.20 0.08 0.44 0.58 0.68 0.23 0.69 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q26 (0.63) 0.48 0.14 0.39 (0.47) (0.54) (0.48) (0.07) (0.19) (0.41) (0.60) 0.34 0.02 0.10 0.64 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.81 0.53 0.16 0.03 0.26 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q27 0.09 (0.31) (0.03) 0.33 (0.14) 0.22 (0.28) 0.31 0.40 0.57 0.13 0.50 0.78 0.30 0.92 0.27 0.64 0.47 0.36 0.31 0.18 0.04 0.67 0.08 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q28 (0.60) (0.25) 0.07 0.28 (0.29) (0.02) (0.20) 0.45 0.51 0.20 (0.25) 0.27 0.03 0.42 0.82 0.35 0.34 0.95 0.52 0.12 0.07 0.51 0.41 0.37 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q29 0.07 (0.11) (0.23) (0.30) 0.13 0.35 0.20 (0.09) 0.22 0.25 0.76 (0.06) 0.81 0.72 0.46 0.31 0.66 0.24 0.52 0.76 0.48 0.41 0.00 0.85 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q30 (0.49) 0.22 0.25 0.55 (0.28) (0.23) (0.51) 0.18 (0.10) 0.00 (0.39) 0.52 0.09 0.47 0.41 0.05 0.36 0.46 0.07 0.55 0.76 0.99 0.19 0.07 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q31 0.25 0.05 (0.69) 0.12 0.31 0.06 0.55 0.36 0.24 (0.47) (0.22) 0.14 0.42 0.88 0.01 0.70 0.29 0.85 0.05 0.23 0.42 0.10 0.47 0.65 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q32 0.59 (0.06) 0.44 (0.23) 0.48 0.16 0.04 (0.56) (0.59) (0.10) 0.11 (0.58) 0.04 0.85 0.13 0.45 0.10 0.60 0.89 0.05 0.03 0.75 0.72 0.04 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q33 (0.19) 0.20 (0.57) (0.10) (0.28) (0.22) 0.48 0.45 0.02 0.21 0.17 0.46 0.54 0.51 0.04 0.75 0.35 0.48 0.09 0.12 0.96 0.50 0.57 0.11 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q34 1.00 (0.31) (0.03) (0.05) 0.68 0.44 0.28 (0.21) (0.03) (0.27) 0.16 (0.47) . 0.30 0.91 0.88 0.01 0.13 0.35 0.50 0.93 0.36 0.60 0.11 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
242
Q35 (0.31) 1.00 (0.24) (0.24) (0.03) (0.03) (0.31) 0.09 (0.26) (0.32) (0.01) 0.23 0.30 . 0.43 0.43 0.91 0.91 0.30 0.76 0.39 0.29 0.98 0.46 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q36 (0.03) (0.24) 1.00 0.08 0.07 (0.09) (0.37) (0.55) (0.46) (0.01) (0.21) (0.23) 0.91 0.43 . 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.22 0.05 0.12 0.96 0.50 0.46 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q37 (0.05) (0.24) 0.08 1.00 (0.02) (0.23) (0.39) 0.31 0.37 (0.25) (0.34) 0.24 0.88 0.43 0.80 . 0.94 0.45 0.19 0.30 0.21 0.41 0.26 0.42 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q38 0.68 (0.03) 0.07 (0.02) 1.00 0.41 0.15 (0.08) (0.03) (0.46) 0.18 (0.55) 0.01 0.91 0.81 0.94 . 0.17 0.63 0.79 0.91 0.11 0.55 0.05 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q39 0.44 (0.03) (0.09) (0.23) 0.41 1.00 0.07 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.41 (0.22) 0.13 0.91 0.78 0.45 0.17 . 0.81 0.41 0.75 0.74 0.16 0.46 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q40 0.28 (0.31) (0.37) (0.39) 0.15 0.07 1.00 (0.03) (0.24) (0.01) 0.08 (0.17) 0.35 0.30 0.22 0.19 0.63 0.81 . 0.92 0.43 0.97 0.80 0.57 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q41 (0.21) 0.09 (0.55) 0.31 (0.08) 0.25 (0.03) 1.00 0.65 0.20 (0.02) 0.47 0.50 0.76 0.05 0.30 0.79 0.41 0.92 . 0.02 0.50 0.96 0.10 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q42 (0.03) (0.26) (0.46) 0.37 (0.03) 0.10 (0.24) 0.65 1.00 0.26 0.13 0.22 0.93 0.39 0.12 0.21 0.91 0.75 0.43 0.02 . 0.38 0.67 0.47 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q43 (0.27) (0.32) (0.01) (0.25) (0.46) 0.10 (0.01) 0.20 0.26 1.00 0.42 0.28 0.36 0.29 0.96 0.41 0.11 0.74 0.97 0.50 0.38 . 0.15 0.36 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q44 0.16 (0.01) (0.21) (0.34) 0.18 0.41 0.08 (0.02) 0.13 0.42 1.00 (0.28) 0.60 0.98 0.50 0.26 0.55 0.16 0.80 0.96 0.67 0.15 . 0.35 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q45 (0.47) 0.23 (0.23) 0.24 (0.55) (0.22) (0.17) 0.47 0.22 0.28 (0.28) 1.00 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.42 0.05 0.46 0.57 0.10 0.47 0.36 0.35 . 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q46 (0.08) 0.69 (0.28) 0.01 (0.02) (0.06) (0.38) 0.34 (0.01) 0.03 0.02 0.27 0.80 0.01 0.36 0.96 0.96 0.83 0.20 0.25 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.37 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q47 (0.53) 0.12 0.12 0.05 (0.39) (0.23) (0.20) 0.34 (0.03) 0.25 (0.28) 0.29 0.06 0.70 0.71 0.87 0.19 0.46 0.51 0.25 0.93 0.41 0.35 0.33 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q48 (0.25) (0.25) (0.11) 0.46 0.09 (0.31) 0.23 0.39 0.29 (0.31) (0.57) 0.21 0.42 0.41 0.73 0.12 0.77 0.30 0.44 0.18 0.34 0.30 0.04 0.49 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q49 (0.28) 0.15 (0.08) 0.33 (0.22) 0.09 (0.52) 0.62 0.46 0.06 (0.23) 0.18 0.36 0.62 0.79 0.26 0.47 0.77 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.86 0.44 0.55 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q50 0.24 0.28 (0.42) 0.35 0.19 (0.15) (0.04) 0.46 0.18 (0.29) (0.13) 0.01 0.43 0.35 0.15 0.24 0.53 0.64 0.90 0.12 0.55 0.34 0.68 0.98 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q51 (0.49) (0.18) 0.39 (0.04) (0.34) (0.56) 0.11 0.02 (0.18) 0.16 (0.41) 0.10 0.09 0.56 0.18 0.89 0.26 0.05 0.73 0.96 0.55 0.59 0.16 0.75 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q52 0.17 (0.84) 0.20 0.26 (0.22) 0.07 0.15 (0.06) 0.25 0.48 (0.03) 0.21 0.58 0.00 0.52 0.39 0.46 0.81 0.62 0.84 0.40 0.10 0.92 0.49
243
Q46 Q47 Q48 Q49 Q50 Q51 Q52 Q1 (0.04) 0.32 0.51 0.06 0.19 0.35 0.09
0.91 0.29 0.08 0.84 0.53 0.24 0.76 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q2 (0.05) (0.17) (0.36) 0.08 (0.26) (0.42) 0.60 0.88 0.58 0.22 0.79 0.38 0.16 0.03 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q3 (0.32) 0.15 (0.02) 0.16 (0.13) 0.60 0.35 0.28 0.62 0.94 0.61 0.68 0.03 0.25 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q4 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.56 0.36 (0.07) (0.44) 0.31 0.30 0.24 0.05 0.23 0.82 0.13 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q5 0.07 0.59 (0.05) 0.60 0.04 0.46 (0.36) 0.82 0.03 0.86 0.03 0.89 0.12 0.23 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q6 (0.55) (0.08) 0.28 (0.15) (0.21) 0.42 0.18 0.05 0.79 0.35 0.63 0.50 0.16 0.56 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q7 (0.46) (0.91) (0.17) (0.63) (0.18) (0.32) 0.28 0.12 0.00 0.57 0.02 0.56 0.29 0.36 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q8 (0.22) (0.41) 0.06 (0.50) (0.12) (0.20) (0.35) 0.47 0.17 0.84 0.08 0.70 0.52 0.24 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q9 0.75 0.42 0.07 0.37 0.59 0.07 (0.82) 0.00 0.16 0.82 0.22 0.03 0.82 0.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q10 0.53 (0.05) (0.35) 0.04 0.31 (0.18) (0.78) 0.06 0.87 0.24 0.88 0.30 0.57 0.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q11 (0.22) (0.22) (0.60) (0.43) (0.68) (0.22) 0.23 0.47 0.48 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.46 0.45 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q12 (0.10) 0.33 0.24 (0.07) (0.37) 0.22 0.20 0.74 0.27 0.44 0.83 0.21 0.47 0.51 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q13 (0.46) (0.91) (0.17) (0.63) (0.18) (0.32) 0.28 0.12 0.00 0.57 0.02 0.56 0.29 0.36 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q14 0.03 0.03 0.09 (0.32) 0.24 0.03 0.01 0.92 0.92 0.78 0.28 0.42 0.93 0.97 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q15 0.03 (0.29) (0.63) (0.60) (0.32) (0.30) 0.18 0.93 0.33 0.02 0.03 0.29 0.32 0.56 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q16 (0.48) (0.25) (0.14) 0.01 (0.25) (0.15) 0.29 0.10 0.41 0.64 0.98 0.41 0.61 0.34 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q17 0.19 0.29 0.38 0.33 0.13 0.14 (0.20) 0.54 0.33 0.20 0.27 0.66 0.65 0.52 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
244
Q18 (0.38) (0.27) 0.20 (0.19) 0.17 (0.10) 0.11 0.20 0.37 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.74 0.72 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q19 0.24 0.23 (0.34) 0.09 (0.28) (0.30) 0.27 0.43 0.45 0.26 0.77 0.35 0.33 0.36 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q20 (0.21) (0.08) 0.14 0.12 (0.24) 0.26 0.00 0.50 0.81 0.65 0.70 0.43 0.39 0.99 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q21 (0.14) (0.32) (0.43) (0.31) (0.22) 0.05 (0.13) 0.64 0.29 0.15 0.30 0.46 0.87 0.68 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q22 0.41 0.04 (0.13) 0.01 0.48 (0.19) (0.55) 0.17 0.91 0.67 0.96 0.10 0.54 0.05 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q23 (0.07) 0.47 0.31 0.23 (0.06) 0.13 0.36 0.83 0.11 0.30 0.45 0.85 0.68 0.22 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q24 0.13 (0.21) 0.25 (0.30) 0.35 (0.31) (0.20) 0.66 0.49 0.41 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.52 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q25 (0.24) (0.64) 0.16 (0.45) 0.11 (0.52) 0.11 0.43 0.02 0.61 0.12 0.73 0.07 0.73 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q26 0.19 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.06 0.21 (0.33) 0.53 0.32 0.41 0.35 0.85 0.50 0.27 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q27 0.17 0.16 (0.11) 0.19 (0.07) (0.30) 0.62 0.57 0.59 0.71 0.53 0.82 0.32 0.02 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q28 (0.38) 0.37 0.62 0.46 (0.37) 0.36 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.02 0.12 0.22 0.23 0.42 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q29 (0.42) (0.53) (0.25) (0.48) (0.52) (0.46) 0.21 0.15 0.06 0.42 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.48 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q30 0.35 0.56 0.24 0.38 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.25 0.05 0.43 0.21 0.91 0.73 0.94 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q31 (0.10) (0.27) 0.58 (0.15) 0.27 (0.29) (0.07) 0.74 0.38 0.04 0.62 0.37 0.34 0.81 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q32 0.21 (0.10) (0.49) (0.27) 0.14 (0.11) (0.10) 0.50 0.75 0.09 0.37 0.66 0.73 0.75 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q33 0.30 0.12 0.08 (0.10) 0.42 0.21 (0.15) 0.31 0.70 0.79 0.74 0.16 0.50 0.63 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q34 (0.08) (0.53) (0.25) (0.28) 0.24 (0.49) 0.17 0.80 0.06 0.42 0.36 0.43 0.09 0.58 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
245
Q35 0.69 0.12 (0.25) 0.15 0.28 (0.18) (0.84) 0.01 0.70 0.41 0.62 0.35 0.56 0.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q36 (0.28) 0.12 (0.11) (0.08) (0.42) 0.39 0.20 0.36 0.71 0.73 0.79 0.15 0.18 0.52 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q37 0.01 0.05 0.46 0.33 0.35 (0.04) 0.26 0.96 0.87 0.12 0.26 0.24 0.89 0.39 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q38 (0.02) (0.39) 0.09 (0.22) 0.19 (0.34) (0.22) 0.96 0.19 0.77 0.47 0.53 0.26 0.46 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q39 (0.06) (0.23) (0.31) 0.09 (0.15) (0.56) 0.07 0.83 0.46 0.30 0.77 0.64 0.05 0.81 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q40 (0.38) (0.20) 0.23 (0.52) (0.04) 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.51 0.44 0.07 0.90 0.73 0.62 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q41 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.62 0.46 0.02 (0.06) 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.02 0.12 0.96 0.84 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q42 (0.01) (0.03) 0.29 0.46 0.18 (0.18) 0.25 0.97 0.93 0.34 0.11 0.55 0.55 0.40 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q43 0.03 0.25 (0.31) 0.06 (0.29) 0.16 0.48 0.93 0.41 0.30 0.86 0.34 0.59 0.10 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q44 0.02 (0.28) (0.57) (0.23) (0.13) (0.41) (0.03) 0.95 0.35 0.04 0.44 0.68 0.16 0.92 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q45 0.27 0.29 0.21 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.21 0.37 0.33 0.49 0.55 0.98 0.75 0.49 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q46 1.00 0.36 (0.30) 0.41 0.69 (0.12) (0.58) . 0.23 0.31 0.16 0.01 0.70 0.04 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q47 0.36 1.00 0.22 0.69 0.12 0.58 (0.17) 0.23 . 0.47 0.01 0.70 0.04 0.58 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q48 (0.30) 0.22 1.00 0.16 0.08 0.41 0.11 0.31 0.47 . 0.60 0.79 0.17 0.73 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q49 0.41 0.69 0.16 1.00 0.37 0.18 (0.22) 0.16 0.01 0.60 . 0.21 0.56 0.47 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q50 0.69 0.12 0.08 0.37 1.00 (0.04) (0.45) 0.01 0.70 0.79 0.21 . 0.91 0.12 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q51 (0.12) 0.58 0.41 0.18 (0.04) 1.00 (0.02) 0.70 0.04 0.17 0.56 0.91 . 0.94 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
Q52 (0.58) (0.17) 0.11 (0.22) (0.45) (0.02) 1.00 0.04 0.58 0.73 0.47 0.12 0.94 .
246
APPENDIX D
PLAN OF STUDY
Department Course Title Year Planned Creditand Course No.
Cornell University Various 1976 26
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Summer 98 3
CE 5044 Construction Research Fall 98 3Presentation
CE 5024 Construction Administration Fall 98 3And Claims Resolution
CE 6014 Project and Company Fall 98 3Management
MGT 5314 Organizational Behavior Fall 98 3
STAT 5665 Statistics for Behavioral Fall 98 3Science
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Spring 99 12
MGT 5335 Management of Change Spring 99 Audit
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Summer I 99 6
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Summer II 99 6
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Fall 99 12
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Spring 00 12
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Summer I 00 3
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Summer II 00 3
CE 7994 Dissertation Research Fall 00 3
Total 101
247
APPENDIX E
Resume
248
Paul G. Carr, P.E.25425 Indian Point ~ Chaumont, New York 13622 ~ USA
Home Phone 315-649-5232 ~ Email [email protected]
EDUCATIONDoctor of Philosophy (June 1998 – December 2000 (Expected))Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VirginiaCivil Engineering - Construction Engineering and ManagementQCA = 4.0/4.0
Master of Engineering (May 1976)Cornell University, Ithaca, New YorkCivil Engineering – Systems Engineering
Bachelor of Engineering (June 1975)Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New YorkCivil Engineering - Engineering TechnologyQCA= 3.87/4.0Graduated with Highest Honors
Continuing EducationLegal Aspects of Architecture, Engineering and ConstructionNew York Construction Law, Federal PublicationsRichardson School of Construction Estimating, Richardson EstimatingPlanning and Scheduling with Primavera, Commint Technical ServicesMyers-Briggs Type Indicator Psychological Administrator and Interrupter
EMPLOYMENT and PROFESSIONAL DUTIES1998-Present Ph.D. Student
CE 4014 Cost Engineering - InstructorVirginia Polytechnic Institute (VirginiaTech)
2000-Present Associate Professor/ Visiting LecturerCEE 591/592 Engineering Management Project
Cornell University
1998- Present Management ConsultantThe Bernier - Carr Group of Companies
1985-1998 Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerBernier - Carr and Associates, P.C. Engineers - Architects - Surveyors
1981-1985 General PartnerBernier, Peck, Gozalkowski and Carr - Engineers and Surveyors
1980-1981 Principal and Sole ProprietorPaul G. Carr, P.E. Consulting Engineer
249
1978-1980 Project EngineerRobert E. Witt, P.E. Engineering Consultant
1977-1978 Assistant Project EngineerStearns and Wheler Consulting Engineers and Scientists
1976-1977 Project Engineer and Vice President of Corporate PlanningKelly Construction Company
1975 (Summer) Project Engineer and Assistant SuperintendentVincent J. Fasano General Construction Company
1973 - 1975 (Three-3 Month Co-op Terms) Engineering TechnicianNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
1970-1973 (Five - 3 Month Terms) Assistant Regional Quality ControlEngineerThe General Crushed Stone Company
PROJECTSThe major projects that define the scope of my career comprise a number ofmunicipal and institutional building programs. The primary focus of myProfessional Engineering practice has been in the planning, design andconstruction management of approximately $400,000,000 in primary andsecondary schools, water treatment and distribution works, sewage collectionand treatment programs, bridges, municipal offices and libraries.
HONORS & PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS• Member - National Society of Professional Engineers• Member - American Consulting Engineers Council• Member - American Society of Civil Engineers• Member – The Cornell Society of Engineers• Phi Kappa Phi - National Scientific Honor Society• Chi Epsilon - National Civil Engineering Honor Society• Associated General Contractors (AGC) Scholarship Recipient• Northern New York Builders Exchange Scholarship Recipient• Environmental Protection Agency Scholar - Cornell University• Past President and 1989 Construction Man of the Year NNY Builders Exchange• Member Representative - American Arbitration Association
• Pilot Proficiency Award Program - Phase III - Federal Aviation Administration
INTERESTS & ACTIVITIESLicensed Helicopter PilotLicensed Airplane Pilot - Single Engine – Multi-Engine - Instrument RatingsInternational Air Race CompetitionSport FishingAlpine SkiingScuba Diving