Content uploaded by Maurice Yolles
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maurice Yolles on Aug 10, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Intrinsic and extrinsic Motivation in Personality: Assessing Knowledge
Profiling and the Work Preference Inventory in a Thai Population
Chaiporn Achakul, phdlegna@yahoo.com
Maurice Yolles, prof.m.yolles@gmail.com
Institute of International Studies (IIS)
Ramkhamhaeng University
Abstract
Personality trait theories are often used to identify particular personality or behavioural
characteristics of potential employees by human resource management departments. However
this can be enhanced by understanding how motivation plays a role in personality, and
particularly within the context of knowledge-based personality processes. The paper draws on
knowledge management theory called Knowledge Profiling (KP) in which a theoretical
construct has been developed representing personality through a set of three traits and their
polar values. This model has previously been linked to the trait theory of personality called
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This research adopts KP, develops its linkage with
MBTI, and elaborates on its connection with motivation. The resulting model, referred to as
Knowledge Profiling Motivational (KPM) model is developed by connecting it with the
Work Preference Inventory (WPI), which assesses individual differences in Intrinsic and
Extrinsic motivational orientations. Analysis indicates that KPM is an improvement on the
KP model in representing personality. Moreover, the research suggests that personality traits
are not limited to bipolar relationship, but there are relationships between traits as well.
Introduction
Human Resource Management (HRM) is a core element of every organisational environment.
HRM interest often lies in attempts to know whom the organisation is employing, and what
potential they have to undertake the type of work required. People come from diverse
socioeconomic, psychological, and cultural backgrounds, so they are guaranteed to have a
variety of perspectives. A proper understanding of this diversity may well be reflected in our
eventual role in the organisation in which we work, and our suitability for given tasks.
Personality theories attempt to establish connections between cognitive patterns and
behaviour (Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003). Personality models have been developed
and employed to try to identify and categorize people’s personality characteristics into broad
categories (Drapela, 1987). Such interests date back to the ancient Greeks through their
concept of the Four Humors, which attempted to provide a rationale for human behaviour.
More modern approaches have been developed, like that of Jung’s (1969) psychological
types, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs-Myers & Myers, 1995), the “Big Five”
personality factors (Malone & Lepper (1987), and related explorations of how people fit into
groups also exist, like Belbin’s (1993) Team Roles Inventory. Each model had its strengths
and weaknesses, and different scaling and systems of scoring.
Despite their differences, they all aim to describe human personality accurately. With respect
to HRM, an understanding of human behaviour (in order to categorize people by features of
personality into broad categories) might enable both employer and employee to improve
policies and work programs to enhance job satisfaction and eliminate those that lead to
dissatisfaction. After all, human resources management, communications, and interpersonal
2
relationships are a lot more effective when a better understanding of people’s cognitive and
motivational factors, in particular with respect to learning (Lamb & Bornstein, 2011).
Motivation can be characterised as a thinking pattern that stimulates an individual’s
behaviour. Some of the original research conducted to identify factors underlying motivation
can be found in the theories of Abraham Maslow (1954), Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman
(1959), and Clayton Alderfer (1972). More recent research has further identified and grouped
motivators as falling into either intrinsic or extrinsic classes (Malone and Lepper, 1987). In
describing the difference between successful and unsuccessful scientists, the Nobel laureate
Arthur Schawlow remarked, “The labour of love aspect is important. The successful
scientists…are just impelled by curiosity” (“Going for the Gaps,” 1985, p. 42). The “labour
of love aspect” driving human behaviour is what psychologists have, for several decades,
called intrinsic motivation: the motivation to engage in work primarily for its own sake,
because the work itself is interesting, engaging, or in some way satisfying. To contrast this is
the concept of extrinsic motivation: the motivation to work primarily in response to
something apart from the work itself, such as reward or recognition or the dictates of other
people. Moreover, motivating employees in the workplace is paramount for productivity and,
therefore, to the very survival of a business (Green, 2000). Organizations have long
recognized the value of extrinsic motivators such as salary, benefits, and commission.
However, they have placed less emphasis on intrinsic motivators (Hammer, 2003).
Jung’s theory of the personality involves the conceptualization of the “Four Functions” of the
psyche, defined as: Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition. Thinking and Feeling are the
Rational functions that enable one to decide and judge. Sensation and Intuition are the
Irrational functions that enable the gathering of information and perception. The description
of the Rational and Irrational functions, respectively Judging (rational Thinking and Feeling)
and Perceiving (irrational Sensation and Intuition), were further developed by Myers Briggs
to arrive at their Judging and Perceiving dimension. Jung combined his Introvert and
Extravert types with the dominant and auxiliary functions of Thinking, Feeling, Sensation,
and Intuition, which leads ultimately to his sixteen personality types. The Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator was created by Isabel Myers-Briggs in the 1940s based on Carl Jung’s theory
of personality (Briggs-Myers & McCaully, 1985; Briggs-Myers & Myers, 1995). The Big
Five personality traits are five broad factors or dimensions of personality discovered through
empirical research. The strengths of the Big Five Factor model lie in its speed and ease of
use. The Big Five is a broad brush personality schema which consists of five bipolar scales:
Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion/Introversion, Agreeableness, and
Neuroticism. The higher a person scores for a behaviour within each of the five factors, the
more (logically) they will exhibit these behaviours. Although there are many more
personality trait theories in the market, the foregoing are the trait theories that will be focused
on in this study along with some of the underlying keys that are worth mentioning.
In this paper interest will be directed towards adopting a specific model of personality
developed by Yolles (2006; 2009a), and referred to as Knowledge Profiling. The reason is
that unlike other theories of personality, this one originates from cybernetic meta-theory that
involves a theory building process (Flynn et al., 1990), consistent with the approach adopted
here. This will be related to the Work Preference Inventory model (Amabile, 1990) of
motivation theory, the intention to see how personality can enhance our understanding of how
motivation affects our knowledge based personality processes. It does this by considering
motivation as a trait of personality. The model that results will be applied to a Thai
population, where personality evaluations are unusual.
3
Personality Theory and Motivation
Adler (1964) was the founder of a psychological theory which deviated from psychoanalysis
in that it placed emphasis on a person’s social environment. His perspective was based on
the fact that individuals are striving to overcome feelings of inferiority inherent from
childhood and to achieve mastery over them. Cattell (1946) stated his view of personality
which implied the two components of behaviour and environmental influences. Two of
Cattell’s conclusions are that personality is to be considered an inference of behaviour and
environmental influences which impact behaviour. Alternative views were held by the
existentialist, Fromm (1999) and Rogers (1961). Roger’s self-theory is said to resemble the
phenomenological model. Phenomenology views personality from the perceptual frame of
reference. It endeavours to see behaviour through the eyes of the person rather than through
outside observation or assessment. Each of the different theories and models of personality,
and indeed the related theories of human motivation that in Jung’s work underlie continuing
utilization of cognitive abilities (Elkind, 1976) provide a different perspective on the complex
of personality and behaviour.
So, motivation can be considered to be important to the cognitive processes that occur in
personality, a recognition expressed elsewhere (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Motivation
can be characterised as a thinking pattern that stimulates an individual’s behaviour. More
recent research has further identified and grouped motivators as either being intrinsic or
extrinsic (Malone and Lepper, 1987).
However, personality models that incorporate intrinsic/extrinsic motivation as a personality
trait have never been developed nor applied to a Thai population, nor with respect to
knowledge or knowledge processes. The purpose of this study is to produce a new model of
personality types arising from Knowledge Profiling (KP) theory that explains the behaviour
of individuals in terms of their knowledge and knowledge processes, including motivation,
through the Work Preference Inventory (WPI) model. This model could enhance our
understanding of how motivation affects our knowledge based personality processes.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) posits that individuals possess four dichotomous
dimensions of personality. The four personality dimensions account for the way individuals
interact with the world (Extraversion versus Introversion), gather information (Sensing versus
iNtuition), process information (Thinking versus Feeling), and make decisions (Judging
versus Perception). Amabile et al., (1994) has extended the MBTI model to include intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation as used in WPI in relation to the introvert and extrovert personality.
Knowledge Profiling (KP) is a theoretical construct arising from principles of Knowledge
Cybernetics (Yolles, 2008), and is composed of three personality dimensions developed from
an exploration of the relationship between Knowledge Profiling, Mindscape theory (Boje,
2004), and a theory of political profile (Yolles, 2007). It is part of knowledge management,
and centres to some extent on the “why”, “what” and “how” of specific behaviour,
particularly in the more micro-social environments indicated for human resource
development. It connects with human knowledge processes that are reflected in the coherent
social group that they create, and where people and the organizations that they are attached to
must be intimately related through knowledge processes. This results in the proposition by
Yolles (2006) that it is possible to connect theory about knowledge in people to knowledge in
social groups (e.g. Belbin, 1996).
4
KP arises from an agency theory (Bandura, 2005), through its adoption of cybernetic
principles (Bandura, 1991 & 1997) and the characteristics of intentionality (that includes
making action plans and strategies collectively through shared intention and which affects
corporate performance), forethought (that includes goal setting and anticipation of likely
outcomes of prospective actions to guide and motivate effort, and which provides direction,
coherence, and meaning), self-reactiveness (that includes self-regulation that including the
ability to construct appropriate courses of action and to motivate and regulate their
execution), and self-reflectiveness (that includes self-examination of their own functioning
through functional self-awareness, identity, and recognition of their efficacy, the soundness
of their thoughts and actions, and the meaning of their pursuits).
This has been formally modelled by Yolles (2006) and represented here as a personality
suprasystem, composed of three personality systems that relate to personality style and
orientation to learning. The model portrays the personality as a socio-cognitive “living
system” (Beer, 1989), in which the agency maintains a cognitive system of values, beliefs,
patterns of knowledge and identity, the personality suprasystem, and operative behaviour
within a socio-cultural and physical environment. The connection between the personality
suprasystem and the agency operative system is autopoietic - constituting a network of
processes that self-produces itself (Maturana & Varela, 1979; Mingers, 1995), and here an
operative couple is formed that allows personality to be manifested as behaviour. The
connection between the cognitive system and the operative agency couple ensures that the
agency functions according to its cognitive belief system of values and beliefs. Agency
maintains an autogenetic connection of cultural and knowledge principles, between its
operative couple and its cognitive system. The motivational aspect of agency propels
individuals along their imagined pathways to goal achievement and helps them achieve their
goals (Peterson et al., 2009; Snyder et al., 1991).
Applying the generic “living system” model recursively allows a similar relationship to be
established for the personality, as part of agency. Here, the personality figurative system is
connected with its operative system in an operative couple allowing decisions to be created,
influenced by the network of cognitive operative processes that manifest information to be
used for decisions, and set up as decisional structures that constitute personal decision rules
(Brugha, 2000). The connection between this operative couple and the cognitive system is
autogenic in nature constituting a network of principles that involves personality self-creation
(Schwarz, 1997 & 2003; Yolles, 1999 & 2006). These may be taken as operative, figurative
and dispositional, and each of these relates to traits that constitute controls on the personality.
This model was used by Yolles (2009a) to create a sociocognitive representation of MBTI,
called SMBTI that infers traits from which arise personality types. These traits take polar type
values that can represent a personality. A generalisation of this model is provided in Figure 1.
It now can be seen in terms of a sociocognitive agency theory as being part of an autonomous
personality system that explains how trait orientations adopted by a personality can change
dynamically according to sociocognitive processes
Now, operative refers to how individuals interact with a given situation. The trait of this
system has two type states: Fundamentalists and Pragmatists. Pragmatism was of central
interest to James (1904; 1907). It reflects the functional use of ideas as opposed to doctrinaire
thinking, and it signifies preference for flexibility and common sense, decisions tending to be
based on concrete cases and precedents, rather than on abstract principles. Decisions arise
from decision rules that result in action, these being routines embedded in a set of
comprehensive cognitive and emotive structures (Fischler, 2004). In considering the
5
cognitive purpose of pragmatism, Graham (2004, 2005) relates it to holding conformity in
normative beliefs, and these norms are epistemic commitments in a relevant social
community. Hence, pragmatists are empirically motivated, and rely on practical experiences.
They create meaning through context (Sonesson, 2000), which (in Graham’s terms) would be
constituted through the normative beliefs in a social community to the detriment of rules and
regularities. Like pragmatism, fundamentalism determine an agent’s behavioural direction,
and can be defined as practises based on a rigid adherence to some traditional doctrine, or an
adherence to a prescriptive idea or set of principles, and being motivated by theory to which
it adheres strictly. For Graham (2004, 2005) the fundamentalist’s direction (which he refers
to as proper aim) is called intuitionism – a condition in which there is conformity to a priori
knowledge that enables truth to emerge when engaged with epistemic principles.
Personality
Operative System
Rational, emotive,
informational & decisional
structures. Operative trait
Network of rational and
emotional & motivational
principles Network of cognitive
operative processes
Personality Figurative
System
Personal strategies &
informational figurative
images. Appreciative trait
Feelings & motivations
Agency Operative
System
Operative social
behaviour
Network of
operative
processes
Imperative for
personality adjustment
Personality
Dispositional system
Cognitive information
structures. Dispositional
trait. Attitudes, emotions,
motivational dispositions
Cognitive
System
Values, beliefs, patterns of
knowledge, identity
Network of cultural &
knowledge principles
Impulses for cultural
and knowledge
adjustment
Cognitive Personality Suprasystem
Network of processes
adjustment imperatives
Network of process
adjustment imperatives
Figure 1: Model of the Personality as part of Agency incorporating attributes of motivation,
adapted from Yolles (2009a)
Figurative refers to the strategic conceptualisation that individuals develop, and it involves an
appreciative component (Vickers, 1970) that refers to formative organizing, and when it
involves personal governance, enables missions, goals, and aims can be defined and
approached through planning. This may involve logical, and/or relational abilities to organize
thought and action and thus to define sets of possible systematic, systemic and behaviour
possibilities. It also involves motivational attributes that are connected to feelings (Conger
and Kanungo, 1987; Heath, 2002). It can also involve the (appreciative) use of tacit standards
by which experience can be ordered and valued, and may involve reflection. As a trait it has
two type states: Patterner and Dramatist. Following Shotwell et al (1980) patterners show
strong interest and skill in configuration uses of materials, deriving from persistent curiosity
about the object world and how it works, and is connected to problems of symmetry, pattern,
balance, and the dynamics of physical relationships between entities. Dramatists are
6
interested in sequences of interpersonal events, having dramatic or narrative structures, and
undertaking effective communications. It includes motivational visions that impact on the
operative system through the network of operative cognitive processes otherwise referred to
as operative intelligence by Yolles, Fink and Douber (2011) that are likely accompanies by
emotional motivational intelligence (Earley & Ang, 2003).
Dispositional refers to individuals’ beliefs and values, and influences (including motivational
ones, Casakin & Kreitler, 2008) that occur from knowledge that derives from the cognitive
organisation (the set of beliefs, attitudes, values) of other worldviews. It ultimately
determines how those in social collectives interact, and it influences their understanding of
formative organising. Its consequences impact on the formation of social norms. This trait
can take one of two type states: Ideationalist (to do with the idea) and Sensatist (to do with
material things). Ideationalists centre on conceptual imaging constituting knowledge, they are
good at acquiring or creating knowledge, and have no know-how to develop them for
material implementation. Sensatists are concerned with the senses, are able to develop or
engineer existing ideas for material implementation, and are good concept translators, but
they cannot generate new ideas or concepts. Here, emotional and motivational dispositions
are deemed to exist that contribute t the development of a network of rational and emotional
& motivational principles that is elsewhere referred to as figurative intelligence (Yolles, Fink
and Douber, 2011)
The nature and properties of these systems arises from certain ontological differences
between the systems as shown in Table 1, where each column is considered to be a semantic
stream of personality, a notion we shall return to shortly. This is a model agency with a
sociocognitive based personality, and as required in such models it centres on information
availability, processing and structures. Such a sociocognitive agency has an autonomous
personality system that explains how the polar values adopted by a personality trait can
change dynamically according to sociocognitive processes. It has two levels of logic, called
foci of examination. The upper focus is constituted as the interaction between personality
temperament as a figurative system attribute of the agent, and the operative system with its
social structure providing a potential to displaying behaviour. At this upper focus the
interaction between the personality and the social that develops through a cybernetic
connection between the agency and its social environment. This is constituted as a network of
decisions that are implemented through behavioural orientation.
Following Yolles & Fink (2009b) the three columns of Table 1 (deriving from Habermas’s
(1987) Three Worlds theory of being: Yolles, 2006) are referred to as semantic personality
streams that entertain cognitive properties, each having distinct personality properties:
kinematic, directional and latency. While the streams may be thought of as being analytically
independent, they are also highly interactive. As such, necessarily, any semantic stream must
reflect attributes of the others. Each stream interacts with the others in ways that reflect on
the personality as a whole. When they work together as a system, then they richly interact
purposefully and a balanced personality arises. When they interact poorly then each stream
acts as an environment for the others. This latter situation might be representative of a spastic
personality where the cognitive natures of each of the three streams are lost on the others.
Where the streams are integrated, an integrated personality arises. Each of these streams is
postulated to be associated with distinct personality models. Using this frame of reference
different unconnected models may not be in competition, but rather synergistic. Thus for
instance, Mindscape theory (Maruyama, 2001) can be argued to effectively define the
kinematics semantic stream of the personality. However SMBTI can be used to represent the
7
latency stream of personality and processes of empowerment. These two schemas can
therefore work hand in hand, systemically, to contribute towards a more balanced personality
To better represent personality, a third approach is also required, but this has not yet been
identified. Since the three semantic streams make up a whole system for the personality
(when the streams are interactive) so their cognitive properties are also related to each other.
Thus, were traits are seen to be the result of these cognitive properties, they should also be
seen as interactive and therefore in some way under mutual influence. Any study of the
cognitive properties will therefore be reflected in the traits and trait relationships.
Semantic Streams of Personality
Cognitive
Properties Kinematics
(through social motion) Direction
(determining social trajectory) Latency
(through variety development)
Cognitive interests Technical Practical Deconstraint
Operative
(conscious; ego)
Work. This enables people
to achieve goals and
generate material well-
being. It involves
technical ability to
undertake action in the
environment, and the
ability to make predictions
and establish control.
Interaction. This requires that people
as individuals and groups in a social
system gain and develop the
possibilities of an understanding of
each others' subjective views. It is
consistent with a practical interest in
mutual understanding that can
address disagreements, which can be
a threat to the social form of life.
Degree of emancipation. For
organisational viability, the
realisation of individual potential is
most effective when people: (i)
liberate themselves from the
constraints imposed by power
structures (ii) learn through
precipitation in social and political
processes to control their own
destinies.
Cognitive purposes Cybernetical Appreciative/Rational Mindedness
Figurative
(subconscious;
superego)
Intention. Within the
governance of social
collectives this occurs
through the creation and
pursuit of goals and aims
that may change over
time, and enables people
through control and
communications processes
to redirect their futures.
Formative organising. Within
governance enables missions, goals,
and aims to be defined and
approached through planning. It
may involve logical, and/or
relational abilities to organise
thought and action and thus to
define sets of possible systematic,
systemic and behaviour possibilities.
It can also involve the (appreciative)
use of tacit standards by which
experience can be ordered and
valued, and may involve reflection.
Manner of thinking. Within
governance of social collectives an
intellectual framework occurs
through which policy makers
observe and interpret reality. This
has an aesthetic or politically correct
ethical positioning. It provides an
image of the future that enables
action through politically correct
strategic policy. It gives a politically
correct view of stages of historical
development, in respect of
interaction with the external
environment.
Cognitive influences Social Dispositional Political disposition
Creating cultural
disposition
Existential
(unconscious; cultural
state & disposition)
Formation. Enables
individuals/groups in a
social collective to be
influenced by knowledge
that relates to its social
environment. It affects
social structures and
processes that define
social forms that are
related to collective
intentions and behaviours.
Belief. Influences occur from
knowledge that derives from the
cognitive organisation (the set of
beliefs, attitudes, values) of others
worldviews. It ultimately determines
how those in social collectives
interact, and it influences their
understanding of formative
organising. Its consequences impact
on the formation of social norms.
Freedom. Influences occur from
knowledge that affect social
collective polity, determined in part,
by how participants think about the
constraints on group and individual
freedoms; and in connection with
this, to organise and behave. It
ultimately has impact on unitary and
plural ideology and morality, and
the degree of organisational
emancipation.
Table 1: Three Semantic Streams indicating KP Cognitive Properties of Agency Personality
From Figure 1 personality is also susceptible to motivation. There is an agency theory of
motivation that draws on a theory of self-determination (Ryan, & Deci, 2000), and which
therefore maintains principles that are consistent with Figure 1. It arises with the notion of
Work Preference Inventory (WPI), which is composed of two primary and four secondary
scales of motivation developed by Amabile, Hill, Hennessy, and Tighe (1994). Intrinsic
Motivation refers to motivation to engage in work primarily for its own sake, because it is
inherently interesting or enjoyable. Extrinsic Motivation refers to motivation to work
8
primarily in response to some factor apart from the work itself, and refers to doing something
because it leads to a separable outcome.
Until now KP has not explored the connection of its traits to motivational attributes, and this
research should help develop the ability to measure psychological types, along with intrinsic-
extrinsic motivation as separate personality traits, termed Knowledge Profiling Motivation
(KPM). The main research questions are as follows:
1. How qualitatively adequate are KP traits as a reflection of WPI motivation?
2. Is there a relationship between each KP personality trait and WPI intrinsic-extrinsic
motivational orientation?
3. Are the type category classifications on the KP the same as type category classifications
reported on the WPI?
4. Can the new model of KPM reflect both KP and WPI?
Methodology
The essential elements of the cognitive properties in Table 1 were represented by Yolles
(2006) as a set of questions. These were intended to be indicative rather than designed as
comprehensive questions.
Personality Semantic Streams
OPERATIVE PROPERTIES: Executors Fundamentalist/Pragmatist
Kinematics
(through social motion) Direction
(determining social trajectory) Latency
(through variety development)
Technical Practical Deconstraint
I pursue the goals I am set without
question
I contribute to the group by helping
to implement its procedures
I always follow procedures in all
situations
I am effective at using procedures to
interpret the future
I use procedures effectively to
establish organizational controls
I am good at helping others see how
things should be done
I am not good at appreciating the
views of others
I am effective in helping others who
have misunderstandings and
disagreements to see what they are
doing wrong
I am effective at encouraging others
to think and act within (rather than
beyond) the constraints imposed by
power structures.
I can effectively disentangle
situations despite (rather than from) the
constraints imposed by power
structures.
I am effective at encouraging people
to recognise and work within the control
processes offered within (rather than
beyond) their social structure.
FIGURATIVE PROPERTIES: Elaborators Dramatist/Patterner
Cybernetical Appreciative/Rational Mindedness
I like to explore the possibilities for
creating effective strategic
organizational goals
I am effective at working in teams to
control situations
I am an effective communicator
I am effective in interpersonal work
with others to evaluate how well
goals are developing
I am effective at formulating
explanations about where goals are
going wrong
I am effective at seeking new
knowledge to implement goal
strategies
I am an effective planner of group
situations
I am an effective relational thinker,
linking ideas with networks of people
I can facilitate the ideas/thoughts of
my group
I am an effective team worker
I can effectively work with others to
identify possible improvements in
situations
I can effectively work with others to
identify the behavioral possibilities
within situations
My ethical beliefs influence any
formal/informal policy that I make
with others
I am aware of the group view of the
principles of our management
I try to work with others to develop
strategically realistic images of the
future
I try to work with others to take into
account the relationships between the
culture/cultural history of the defined
group in relation to the environment
in which it operates
EXISTENTIL PROPERTIES: Identifiers Ideational/Sensate
Social Dispositional Political Disposition
I am effective at creating new
I am good at influencing the defined
I am effective at creating (rather than
9
knowledge about control and
communication needs and processes.
I am effective at creating new
knowledge about organizational
structure and related behavior.
I am able to contribute new
knowledge to help the development of
the objectives and aims of the
organization.
group with my understanding of new
knowledge. engineering or translating) new
knowledge that can influence the
organization and affect its outlook.
I am effective at creating (rather than
engineering or translating) new
knowledge that can influence the
organization by affecting its ability to
organise and structure itself.
Table 2: Core KP instrument for Agency Personality
The instrument developed is used to measure student personality in terms of dependent
variables through a Questionnaire, graded according to each model. The instrument
incorporated questions from the whole of KP Table 2, elaborated on and further developed
though the use of MBTI. The rationale for this comes from Yolles & Fink (2009b), where it
was argued that MBTI should be seen to be associated with the personality latency stream
with the traits: deconstraint, mindedness and political disposition. However, it should be
noted that unlike MBTI, no interest at this stage of the research lay in identifying type values
that the traits take, only the traits that they are modeled to be connected to. So, questions were
taken from MBTI form G, the WPI, and a re-formulation of the questions embedded in the
agency personality listing of Table 2. The KP orientation can also be explained in relation to
the MBTI by reference to its relation with Belbin’s Team Role Inventory (BTR), something
that will be returned to in due course. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as used in the WPI
has been tested in relation to the introvert and extrovert personality of the MBTI. MBTI form
G, which was translated into Thai and tested for validity and reliability by Cholchaipaisal
(1997), is available from the Myer-Briggs website. The seventh version of the WPI
questionnaire has 30 items on a 4-point scale and is based on research by Amabile et al
(1994). KP type questionnaire consists of ground theory associated with the MBTI and WPI
and a pilot test by Yolles (2006). The questionnaire was issued in English for this study.
So, the research focus centres on cognitive properties for KPM of the directional stream (with
practical, appreciative, and dispositional traits), cognitive properties from the latency stream
and related entities from SMBTI. Research questions are based on Yolles’s (2000; 2006: Ch
7) pilot study. The final instrument was distributed for a pilot study in Thailand and the
resulting responses were used to further refine the questions as used for the current version.
As a result the conceptual model was reformulated so as to enable hypotheses to be
highlighted, as shown in Figure 2. The set of hypotheses are listed in Table 2.
The instrument consisted of 82 questions arranged as follows:
QA-QG demographic questions
Q1-Q52 Knowledge Profiling (KP) enriched by selections from Sociocognitive Myers-
Briggs Type Inventory (SMBTI)
Q53-Q82 Work Preference Inventory (WPI)
The latency and directional semantic streams were integrated through the proposition that
they constitute two interactive richly semantic streams, and thus have traits which intimately
influence each other. While this may not always be the case in particular instances, this
outcome should show up statistically. According to the theory, where outliers exist then one
would need to examine the coherence of the individual personality.
10
The pilot instrument was distributed to Bangkok Bank employees and high school students,
and 278 were completed and returned. The instrument was used to test whether the questions
were intelligible, easy to answer, unambiguous, and accurately translated. The results were
analyzed using factor analysis in SPSS and provide preliminary insight into the integrity of
the questionnaire. It was then refined, retranslated to cross-check the accuracy of the
intended meaning by a qualified English translator and a native speaking Thai national. The
questionnaire thus improved, was expected to provide a better instrument to answer the
research questions.
KP/SMBTI
Operative
Figurative
Executor
Figure 2: The KPM conceptual model with derived hypothesis
Hypothesis Hypothesis H
0
True/False
1 There is no statistically significant relationship between each KP Practical
personality trait and WPI Intrinsic motivational orientation False
2 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Practical personality
trait and WPI Extrinsic motivational orientation. False
3 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Appreciative
personality trait and WPI Intrinsic motivational orientation. False
4 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Appreciative
personality trait and WPI Extrinsic motivational orientation. False
11
5 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Dispositional
personality trait and WPI Intrinsic motivational orientation. False
6 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Dispositional
personality trait and WPI Extrinsic motivational orientation. False
7 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Practical personality
trait and gender. False
8 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Appreciative
personality trait and gender. True
9 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Dispositional
personality trait and gender. True
10 There is no statistically significant relationship between Intrinsic motivation
orientation and gender. True
11 There is no statistically significant relationship between Extrinsic motivation
orientation and gender. False
12 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Practical personality
trait and education level. True
13 There is no statistically significant relationshi15p between KP Appreciative
personality trait and education level. True
14 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Dispositional
personality trait and education level. False
15 There is no statistically significant relationship between WPI Intrinsic motivation
orientation and education level. False
16 There is no statistically significant relationship between WPI Extrinsic motivation
orientation and education level. False
17 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Practical personality
trait and age. False
18 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Appreciative
personality trait and age. True
19 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Dispositional
personality trait and age. True
20 There is no statistically significant relationship between WPI Intrinsic motivation
orientation and age. True
21 There is no statistically significant relationship between WPI Extrinsic motivation
orientation and age. True
22 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Practical personality
trait and years of work experience. True
23 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Appreciative
personality trait and years of work experience. True
24 There is no statistically significant relationship between KP Dispositional
personality trait and years of work experience. True
25 There is no statistically significant relationship between WPI Intrinsic motivation
orientation and years of work experience. True
26 There is no statistically significant relationship between WPI Extrinsic motivation
orientation and years of work experience. True
Table 2: Hypotheses that associated with the KPM Conceptual Model
The KP orientations can also be explained in relation to the MBTI by reference to its
connection with Belbin’s Team Role Inventory (BTR), developed by Meredith Belbin
(Belbin, 1993). The BTR eight roles model was introduced and a team role was defined as a
pattern of behavioural characteristic that relate to the way in which one team member
functions in relation to the others in order to facilitate the progress of the team as a whole. It
is worth noting that the Belbin Team Roles model includes current values and motivation as
factors used in categorizing roles. The 16 Personality Factors (16PF) is a self-report inventory
developed by Raymond Cattell (1986), designed to assess major personality dimensions with
an assessment providing scores on 16 primary factors and 5 global factors. BTR was broken
down into personalities associated with each role and measured with 16PF, the same measure
used for the MBTI. Results from a study by Higgs (1996) indicate there are some associations
12
between MBTI scales and six of the eight BTR. The same potential linkage to BTR can be
shown to KP. KP was broken down into a measure of personality using a questionnaire that
has 16 personality factors used to measure the MBTI and BTR.The theoretical construct of
each of KP orientation associated personalities was explained in relation to BTR associated
personalities by Yolles (2002).
The proposed study was a correlational investigation involving data collected through
measuring instrument constituted as a survey questionnaire. The study was correlational in
nature because all the data was collected at a single point in time, and none of the variables of
interest were manipulated by the investigator. The use of a correlational design is appropriate
for the theoretical model proposed here since no prior study has been reported using the
specific combination of predictors employed in this study. The discovery of significant
relationships in the proposed study may lead to subsequent evaluation of causal hypotheses in
future longitudinal and/or experimental studies.
The respondents filled out questionnaire surveys that assessed demographic data and used a
4-point Likert-type scale to assess reactions to the items listed in the appendix. The 4-point
scale ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree.
The WPI measuring instrument uses a 30-item scale that employs a four-point Likert-type
response format. (N = Never or almost never true of you, S = Sometimes true of you, O =
Often true of you, A = Always or almost always true of you). The MBTI form G is a self-
report instrument that takes about 25 minutes to complete and contains 126 items of which 94
are scored for type (forced choice format) written at the 7th grade reading level. The
questionnaires used in this study were the version of MBTI form G as translated
professionally, and a version of the WPI translated from English to Thai independently, and
compared to reduce possible error. The items were reduced from form G for SMBTI by
selecting only those that were directly a reflection of the conceptual model, in particular by
eliminating the introversion/extroversion items.
Dependent variables were: KP personality traits and WPI motivation. Independent variables
were: Gender, Age, Educational level, and years of Work experience. The reliability of the
KP questionnaire was based on the KP pilot study and pilot questionnaire. The translation
was cross-checked from English to Thai, and internal consistency reliability testing was done
using Cronbach’s Alpha. The validity of KP scales with the MBTI has been discussed by
Yolles (2009a) and Yolles (2009b), and that of WP with MBTI has been examined by
Amabile et al (1994). The pilot questionnaire was distributed to Bangkok Bank employees
and high school students of which 278 were completed and returned.
The sample for this study was drawn from a population of native speaking Thai nationals.
The main population of this study was Thai workers from companies in various companies as
Thai Airways, Senso, Bangkok Bank, and Sofitel. The dependent variables are KP traits and
WPI Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation. The independent variables are gender, education,
occupation, age, work experience, and years of international education. Of the 675 copies of
the questionnaire distributed, 590 were returned and usable. Comrey and Lee (1992)
recommend that sample size should be 500 or more for factor analysis.
All the data were coded and keyed for analysis using the Statistical Package of the Social
Sciences for Windows Version (SPSS). Factor analysis was used to explore the relationship
between data and determine if KP can be represented by the WPI. Factor analyses are
performed by examining the pattern of correlations (or covariances) between the observed
13
measures (Gorsuch, 1983). ANOVA was used to explore the relationship between data and
determine if there are significant relationships between KP, the WPI, and demographics.
The reliability of the WP and MBTI was discussed by Amabile et al (1994). The reliability
of the KP questionnaire was based on the KP pilot study and pilot questionnaire. The
translation was cross-checked from English to Thai, and internal consistency reliability
testing was done using Cronbach’s Alpha. Each questionnaire question, KP traits, and WPI
motivation is tested with Cronbach’s Alpha (Cronbach, 1951).
Results
Using factor analysis, the following results were obtained:
1. KP/WPI (Q1-Q82) resulted in 5 factors converging in 8 iterations. The divide was
conclusive between KP/SMBTI 3 factors and WPI, resulting in 2 factors. The KP/WPI
divide in Rotated Component Matrix was not conclusive. The WPI divide was conclusive
with and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation clearly distinguishable.
2. KP/SMBTI (Q1-Q52) gave 3 factors which converged in 5 iterations. The divide in
Rotated Component Matrix was not conclusive.
3. KP/SMBTI (Q1-Q52) gave 6 factors, converge in 8 iterations. The divide in Rotated
Component Matrix is somewhat distinguishable.
4. WPI (Q53-Q82) resulted in 2 factors which converged in 3 iterations. The divide is
satisfactory conclusive, with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation clearly distinguishable.
5. WPI (Q53-Q82) gave 4 factors which converged in 6 iterations. The divide in Rotated
Component Matrix is distinguishable.
In respect of the reliability tests applied to the collected responses, Bartlett’s test significance
level was .000, therefore it can be concluded that there are significant relationships between
variables for these data so the questionnaire of the study can be considered acceptable and
reliable. The KMO value was 0.88, which falls into the range of being good to great, so
factor analysis is appropriate for these data. The Cronbach’s Alpha for questionnaire
questions 1-82 was 0.914, indicating good reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha for KP Practical
trait was 0.642, indicating acceptable reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha for KP Appreciative
trait was 0.834, indicating good reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha for KP Dispositional trait
was 0.744, indicating acceptable reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha for WPI Intrinsic
motivation was 0.793, indicating acceptable reliability. Cronbach’s Alpha for WPI Extrinsic
motivation was 0.726, indicating acceptable reliability.
The survey participants’ demographic data included gender, education level, occupation, age,
work experience, and international educational experience. The population is almost equal in
terms of the male to female ratio. The majority of the population at 46.3% had a bachelor’s
degree educational level. The majority (78.9%) of the sample population was in the private
sector. The majority of the population, at 56.9%, was in the 21-30 year age range. The
majority of the study population, at 60.4%, had a range of work experience from 0-5 years.
The majority of the population, at 93.7%, had 0 years of domestic international education and
0 years of international education abroad.
The Scree Plot and Total Variance Explained show 21 component numbers (factors) overall
with an Eigen value above 1.0. This will be further refined with the Rotated Component
Matrix. The rotated component matrix found that KP can be broken down into 3 factors, the
WPI can be broken down into 2 factors, and overall, KP is not represented by WPI factors,
14
and vice versa. The detailed analysis of the rotated component matrix done on KP questions
1-52 shows the results of 6 factors: Fundamental, Pragmatist, Dramatist, Patterner, Ideational,
and Sensate. The detailed analysis of the rotated component matrix done on WPI questions
53-82 reveals 2 factors: Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation. The research
questions and findings are as follow:
(1) How adequate qualitatively is KP traits as a reflection of WPI motivation? With the
varimax rotation method and values below 0.5 suppressed, the rotated component matrix
showed 5 components with an Eigen value of more than 1.0 and 8 iterations. The factor
analysis results show that KP’s Practical, Appreciative, and Dispositional traits were not a
factor in the WPI and vice versa for Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation. WPI factors of
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation should therefore be included in development of KP.
(2) Is there a relationship between each KP personality trait and the WPI intrinsic-extrinsic
motivational orientation? ANOVA shows that there is a significant relationship between
each KP Practical, Appreciative, and Dispositional trait and WPI Extrinsic and Intrinsic
Motivation.
(3) Are the type category classifications on the KP the same as type category classifications
reported on the WPI? The rotated component matrix showed a clear distinction between KP
questions 1-52 and WPI questions 53-82. There are no category classifications on the KP
Practical (Fundamentalist/Pragmatist), Appreciative (Dramatist/Patterner), and Dispositional
(Ideational/Sensate) traits that duplicate the same field as WPI’s Intrinsic and Extrinsic
motivation.
(4) Can the new model of KPM reflect both KP and the WPI? The factor analysis rotated
component matrix shows 5 factors and the ANOVA shows a significant relationship which
indicates that the new model of KPM is an improvement over KP because it incorporates
WPI’s Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation as factors.
Summary and Discussion
The linage of Knowledge Profiling (KP) and Work Preference Inventory establishes a
motivational model (KPM) that explains the behaviour of individuals in terms of their
knowledge and knowledge processes and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. This study
adopts this model to enable the measurement of motivation as a personality trait (via WPI) to
combine with personality traits (via KP). As a result of these findings, the following
propositions can be made about demographics.
Gender: Neither male nor female gender affects KP Practical trait. Male have slightly higher
means plots than females for KP Practical trait. Neither male nor female gender affects
neither KP Appreciative nor Dispositional traits. Neither male nor female gender affects WPI
Intrinsic motivation. Neither male nor female gender affects WPI Extrinsic motivation. Male
have slightly higher means plots than females for Extrinsic motivation.
Education Level: Education level does affect KP Dispositional trait. A higher education
level implies a slightly lower means plot for KP Dispositional trait. Education level does not
affect SBTI Practical nor Appreciative traits. Education level does affect WPI’s Intrinsic and
Extrinsic motivation. A higher education level implies a slightly lower means plot for WPI
Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation.
15
Age: Age does affect KP Practical trait. Age does not affect KP Appreciative and
Dispositional traits. Age does not affect WPI Intrinsic or Extrinsic motivation.
Work Experience: Work experience does not affect KP Practical, Appreciative, and
Dispositional traits. Work experience does not affect WPI Intrinsic or Extrinsic motivation.
This research is the first to use the KP representation along with the WPI. The scope of
research could be extended to include other models such as the Belbin Team Roles Inventory
and The Big Five factor personality and other demographic bases to further refine the model.
The depth of research can also be extended to develop a more concise and comprehensive
questionnaire. Also the 21 factors with an Eigen value above 1.0 could be further investigated
to see if new traits or personality types can be deduced.
The research suggests that personality traits are not fixed bipolar qualities, but rather that the
traits bear mutual relationships with each other, something which Figure 1 strongly suggests
when there are no pathologies that interfere in the system interconnections. Future research
might be conducted that focuses on providing a broader range of the employee population of
business from more varied demographic backgrounds would strengthen correlation to trait or
personality type. There is also the potential to extend this study to identify underlying cultural
aspects of personality. Another area of potential research might be to determine the type
values that a trait takes as occurs in more traditional personality evaluation approaches like
MBTI and the Big Five. This would require that trait type values are sought for the latency
directional and kinematic semantic streams. The latency stream would connect the bipolar
type values with traits for SMBTI, and the kinematic stream would explore Mindscape theory
in the same way, relating the traits and the trait values to one another. Type value
determination of traits would require an extended measuring instrument that includes items
which reflect the polar nature of type characteristics. For the evaluation of types, more
sophisticated statistical methods would be required that are beyond the scope of this paper
(Pittenger, 1993).
Reference
Adler, A. (1964). Individual psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: Harper Perennial.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference
inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 950-967.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency, Association for
Psychological Science, 1(2)164-80.
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Boje, D. (2004). Mindscape theory, http://peaceaware.com/mindscape/Myers-
Briggs_and_mindscape.htm
Briggs-Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985); Manual: A guide to the development and
use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Briggs-Myers, I.; & Myers, P, B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type (3rd
ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Brugha, C. (2000), A Meta-System for Information Systems, Systemist, pp1-14.
Casakin, H., Kreitler, S.,,2008, Motivational Aspects of Creativity in Students and
Architects: Implications for Education, International Conference On Engineering
16
And Product Design Education, 4 & 5 September 2008, Universitat Politecnica De
Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. New York, NY:
Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297–334
Drapela, V.J., (1987), A Review of Personality Theories. Springfield, IL: Thomas
Dweck, C.S,. Leggett, E.L., 1988, A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation and
Personality, Psychological Review, 1988, 95(2) 256-273
Elkind, D. (1976). Child development and education: A Piagetian perspective. Oxford,
England: Oxford U Press.
Fischler, H., 2004, Investigating Students’ Learning, Teachers’ Decision Making, And
Instructional Processes In Physics Teaching – Video Based Research From Various
Perspectives, National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST)
Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 1-3.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R.G., Bates, K.A., and Flynn, E.J., 1990. Empirical
Research Methods in Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management,
9(2),
250–284.Fromm, E. (1990). Man for himself: An inquiry into the psychology of ethics. New
York: Holt Paperbacks.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graham, P.J., 2004, Theorizing Justification, In Michael O’Rourke, M., Campbell, J.,
Silverstein, H., (eds.), Contemporary Topics in Philosophy 5: Knowledge and Skepticism.
MIT Press. Also see www.csun.edu/~philos33/Theorizing_Just_Graham.pdf, accessed
May 2005.
Graham, P.J., 2005, Liberal Fundamentalism and its Rivals, In Lackey, J., Sosa, E., (eds.),
The Epistemology of Testimony. Oxford UP. Also see
www.philosophy.ucr.edu/people/graham/Liberal_Fundamentalism.pdf, accessed May
2005.
Habermas, J., 1987, The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Polity Press, Cambridge,
UK
Harvey, R.J., Murry, W. D., & Markham, S. E. (1995). A “Big Five” Scoring System for the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Paper presented at the 1995 (May) Annual Conference
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando.
Heath, I., 2002, The Strange World of the Subconscious Mind,
http://astrovault.com/azseamonkey/ebooks/hypnosis.how.to/the.world.of.subconsciou
s.mind.pdf
Lamb, M.E., Bornstein, M.H., 2011, Social and Personality Development, Psychological
Press, New York.
Malone, T. W., Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic
motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and
Instruction: III. cognitive and effective process analyses (pp. 223-253). Hilsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Maruyama M. (2001). Individual Types: Subcultural or Transcultural. The General
Psychologist. Vol. 36 (3): 64-67.
Maturana, H., Varela, F.J., 1979, Autopoiesis and Cognition, Boston Studies in the
Philosophy of Science, Boston
17
Matthews, G., Deary, I.J., Whiteman, M.C., 2003, Personality Traits, 2nd Ediition, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Mingers, J. (1995). Self-Producing Systems. Plenum Press, New York and London
Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K, & Myrowitz, J. (2009). CEO positive
psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-
technology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348-368.
Pittenger, D. J. (1993). Measuring the MBTI...And Coming Up Short. Journal of Career
Planning and Employment, 54(1), 48–52.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67
Shotwell, J.M., Wolf, D., Gardner, H. (1980). Styles of Achievement in Early Symbol Use. In
Brandes, F., (ed), Language, Thought, and Culture. Academic Press, N.Y. pp175,199
Schwarz, E. (1997), Towards a Holistic Cybernetics: From Science through Epistemology to
Being, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 4(1)17-50.
Schwarz, E. (2003). Is Consciousness Reality or Illusion? A Non-Dualist Interpretation of
Consciousness, Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASYS’03 - Sixth International
Conference, Liege (Belgium), 11-16 August.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al.
(1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual differences
measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60:570-585.
Sonesson, G. (2000). The life of signs in society and out of it: Critique of the communication
critique, www.arthist.lu.se/kultsem/sonesson/life_of_signs1.html, accessed February
2003. Originally available in Torop, P., Lotman, M., & Kull, K., (eds.), 1999, Trudy po
znakyvym sistemam/Sign System Studies 27:.88,127 (with summaries in Russian and
Estonian). Tartu, Estonia
Vickers, G. (1970). Freedom in a rocking boat: Changing values in an unstable society,
Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
Yolles, M.I. (2006). Organisations as Complex Systems: an introduction to knowledge
cybernetics, Information Age Publishing, Inc., Greenwich, CT, USA
Yolles, M.I. (1999). Management Systems: A Viable Approach. Financial Times Pitman,
London
Yolles, M. (2000). The viable theory of knowledge management, research memorandum of
the Janus Centre for Research in Management Systems and Cybernetics, Vol. 3 No. 1,
information management centre, Liverpool Business School. Liverpool John Moores
University, UK.
Yolles, M. (2002). From Belbin’s team roles profiling to knowledge profiling. Liverpool
Business School. John Moores University, UK: Unpublished.
Yolles, M. (2007). Exploring cultures through knowledge cybernetics. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Competence and Manwork Experiencement, 5(1), 19-74.
Yolles, M., (2009a), Migrating Personality Theories Part 1: creating agentic trait
psychology?, Kybernetes, 38(6)897 – 924
Yolles, M. Fink, G. Dauber, D., 2011,Organisations as emergent normative personalities: part
1, the concepts, Kybernetes (5/6), 635 – 669
Yolles, M., Fink, G., (2009b). Migrating Personality Theories Part 2: Towards a Theory of
the Balanced Personality? Kybernetes, 38(6)1461-1490.
