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:pcarr@vt.edu

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 pcarr@vt.edu

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