Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey

Article in Project Management Journal · June 2013

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21338

CITATIONS

23 READS

10,100

3 authors:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Personal Rapid Transit – PRT View project

Re-layout of an assembly area: A case study at Bosch Rexroth Oil Control View project

Yuval Cohen

Afeka Tel-Aviv Academic College of Engineering

99 PUBLICATIONS 493 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Hana Ornoy

The Open University of Israel

5 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Baruch Keren

Shamoon College of Engineering

65 PUBLICATIONS 368 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Baruch Keren on 10 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981_MBTI_Personality_Types_of_Project_Managers_and_Their_Success_A_Field_Survey?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981_MBTI_Personality_Types_of_Project_Managers_and_Their_Success_A_Field_Survey?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Personal-Rapid-Transit-PRT?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Re-layout-of-an-assembly-area-A-case-study-at-Bosch-Rexroth-Oil-Control?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuval_Cohen2?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuval_Cohen2?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Afeka_Tel-Aviv_Academic_College_of_Engineering?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yuval_Cohen2?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hana_Ornoy?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hana_Ornoy?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/The_Open_University_of_Israel?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hana_Ornoy?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Baruch_Keren?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Baruch_Keren?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Shamoon_College_of_Engineering?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Baruch_Keren?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Baruch_Keren?enrichId=rgreq-ccbb480bdc4aba0ba94ff5a5d8b1103b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MzU5Njk4MTtBUzo1NDc5NDIzNjUxMjI1NjVAMTUwNzY1MTA0ODQwOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
P A

P E

R S

78 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

INTRODUCTION ■

Nominating a project manager with a personality profile that matchesthe project he or she will be heading is one of the most influentialdecisions for the success of a project (Turner & Müller, 2006). Forany project that requires substantial management effort, the com- petency of its project manager is an essential ingredient for its success (Müller & Turner, 2010). Bredillet (2008) also identifies the project manager as affecting project success while presenting the success as one of the nine major research perspectives on project management. Turner, Huemann, Anbari, and Bredillet (2010) develop and discuss these “nine schools of proj- ect management” and dedicate a chapter to the subject under consideration titled “Choosing appropriate project managers: Matching their leadership style to the type of project.” In this chapter, they identify the project manager as a major factor related to project success and discuss the relationship between his or her leadership style and the success or failure of projects.

Project success factors are parts of a broad field of research and there are many other such factors in addition to the project manager’s personality (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Fortune & White, 2006; Westerveld, 2003).

This paper describes a survey of 280 project managers, which reveals both their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality traits (Hammer & Barger, 1996) and their success. The paper uses the survey to study the rela- tionship between the MBTI personality type classification of project man- agers and the success of their projects. In general, personality may be regard- ed as a complex system of traits (Mischel & Shoda, 1995); the MBTI focuses on a relevant part of that system and describes it using major four dichoto- mous traits. The combinations of these traits and their implications are well documented in MBTI literature (e.g., Hirsh & Kummerow, 2007; Michael, 2003).

Compared with other managers, project managers must be more suited to tackling non-routine activities and uncertain environments (Leybourne & Sadler-Smith, 2006); this requires both creative thinking and quantitative analysis (Tullett, 1996). The survey clearly shows that, in comparison with the rest of the population, project managers have personality types charac- terized not only by a willingness to risk making decisions with partial data, but also less readiness to give up thorough analysis of the scant data they have. These personality types characterize managers who can logically spec- ulate about the future and would feel more comfortable doing so than the rest of the population.

MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey Yuval Cohen, The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel Hana Ornoy, The Lander Academic College, Jerusalem, Israel; The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel Baruch Keren, SCE—Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-Sheva, Israel

ABSTRACT ■

This paper describes a survey of 280 project managers that reveals both their personality types (via Myers-Briggs personality inventory) and their success in project management. The results show that a project manager’s personali- ty is better suited for functioning with partial data and under ambiguity than the rest of the population. These traits were found for both women and men. The conclusion is that project managers (females and males) have a unique personality-type distribution that distinguishes them from the general population. The findings can contribute to better understanding the traits that characterize the project management popu- lation, and their relationship to project success.

KEYWORDS: project management; person- ality; key success factors; personality types; Myers-Briggs; MBTI

Project Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, 78–87

© 2013 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21338

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 79

Project managers face more chal- lenges in planning, organizing, and motivating efforts. The fit between a project manager’s personality and the nature of the project that he or she con- ducts has received relatively scant research attention (Dolfi & Andrews, 2007). Traditionally, more attention has been paid in the literature to findings about the qualifications of managers in general (Colinson & Hearn, 1996; Cromie, Callaghan, & Jensen, 1992) and their psychological profiles (Kets de Vries, 1991; Zaleznik, 1966). In recent years, the differences between projects and the different managerial practices required for managing them have attracted growing attention (e.g., Crawford, Hobbs, & Turner, 2004; Shenhar, 1998; Shenhar & Dvir, 2004). The relationship between a project man- ager’s personality and the project type was studied by Crawford et al. (2004), and the implication of this relationship on project success was studied by Turner and Müller (2006), using MBTI. Only a few previous studies have addressed the personalities of project managers and their influence on proj- ect performance and success: Dolfi and Andrews (2007) studied the effect of optimism on a project manager’s ability to overcome obstacles. A study based on person–organization (P–O) theory and Holland’s (1997) classification of vocational personalities was presented by Dvir, Sadeh, and Malach-Pines (2006) and Sadeh, Dvir, and Malach- Pines (2007). The P–O theory is based on the fit between the individual’s needs, desires, and preferences and the position offered within the proposing organization. In this study, the focus is on whether the personality of the indi- vidual project manager fits the job. A more recent paper (Thal & Bedingfield, 2010) used the five-factor model (FFM) for a similar purpose. Although FFM is a descriptive model, Myers-Briggs was ini- tially developed as a job matching and assignment tool during World War II; since then, this tool has improved and is used by many job specialists and

human resource corporations (Myers- Briggs & Myers, 1980; Rushton, Morgana, & Richard, 2007). It is estimated that mil- lions of people are assigned jobs annual- ly around the world and many of them are diagnosed by derivatives of the Myers-Briggs questionnaire (Hammer & Barger, 1996). Thus, the appointment of a project manager, as well as other job assignments, is more closely associated with the Myers-Briggs personality ques- tionnaire (e.g., Wideman, 2002) than the FFM; therefore, this paper uses the Myers-Briggs personality question- naire, which is widely used by job assignment specialists.

The remainder of the paper is struc- tured as follows: the next section describes the main themes in the Myers-Briggs personality analysis method (typically used in job fitting); then, a section is ded- icated to the description of the survey details and its administration; an addi- tional section describes the results and discusses their implications; and the last section concludes the paper.

Myers-Briggs Personality Type Classification Although there is no real consensus yet in psychology on what exactly consti- tutes personality, intelligence, or lead- ership, the wide use of scaling methods is prevalent in describing them (e.g., MMPI, IQ, and CLI, respectively) and other abstract psychological terms. Trait theory in psychology is a trend to emphasize the importance and central- ity of stability parameters in human personality. Carl Jung is considered to be one of the first to emphasize this approach (Jung, 1990; Quenk, 2009; Rushton et al., 2007); hence, different models have been developed around Jung’s theory. One of the better known theories is the “Big Five Personality Traits” that characterize humans by placement in one or more of the follow- ing five traits: Openness, Conscientiou- sness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Another model is the Enneagram, a method that describes nine personality types. According to

this theory, these nine types are subdi- vided into three separate groups: the triad of “feelings,” characterizing per- sons with possible “feelings” problems; the triad of “doing,” characterizing problems related to performance; and the triad of “power,” characterizing problems related to control by power.

The Keirsey and Bates (1984) model of personalities is also based on Jung’s theories but gives them new and differ- ent meanings. According to Keirsey’s Temperament Theory, people can be classified into four categories of Temper- aments (Artisans, Guardians, Rationals, and Idealists). Each of Keirsey’s four scales detects a respondent’s preference for Expressive versus Attentive, Obser- vant versus Introspective, Tough-Minded versus Friendly, and Scheduled versus Probing.

One of the oldest and most popular methods for classifying personality traits as part of job fitting is the Myers- Briggs personality type indicator (Furnham, 1996; Hammer & Barger 1996). The Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) technique is a method based on the personality theory of Jung (1990). The technique was developed by Katharine C. Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs-Myers during World War II to assist in fitting a person to a job and vice versa (Quenk, 2009). The technique involves answering a short questionnaire, which enables classification of a person’s traits according to four dichotomous types: (1) Extrovert (E) versus Introvert (I); (2) Sensing (S) versus Intuitive (N); (3) Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F); and (4) Judging (J) versus Perceiving (P). The letters in parenthesis above are used to symbolize each of the traits used to describe personality, as shown in Table 1. Thus, any person can be classified into one of the 16 personality categories shown in Figure 1.

The personality categories are use- ful for matching a person to a job or a task. The MBTI technique proved to be useful during World War II and has been popular ever since; for example, it was reported that over two million MBTI

80 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey P

A P

E R

S

questionnaires were administered dur- ing 2006 (Rushton et al., 2007).

Keirsey and Bates (1984) adopted the MBTI typology and used it to exam- ine Jungian psychological preferences known as temperament types. While the MBTI uses 16 psychological types, Keirsey and Bates categorized observed behavior into four broad temperament groups, which were suggested by prior research: (1) sensing and judging (SJ), (2) sensing and perceptive (SP), (3) intuitive and thinking (NT), and (4) intuitive and feeling (NF). Each of the 16 psychological preferences could

be categorized into one of the four tem- perament types. The research of Keirsey and Bates has shown that SP and SJ temperaments each represent approxi- mately 38% of the general population, whereas NT and NF temperament types, each represents roughly 12% of the general population.

Wideman (2002) compared the characteristics of successful project managers with the distribution of MBTI types across the population, as identified by Keirsey and Bates (1984). Wideman categorizes the MBTI types into groups that can be summarized as follows: 1. Project leaders: INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ,

ESTJ (—, —, T, J) 2. Project leaders and followers: INTP,

ENTP, ENFJ, ESFJ (—, N,T, P; E, —, F, J) 3. Project followers: INFJ, ISFJ (I, —, F, J) 4. Unsuited/Questionable: INFP, ISFP,

ESFP, ENFP, ISTP, ESTP (—, —, F, P; —, S, T, P)

The results of our study (see Table 5) show that the reported project success rates of these groups did not reveal sig- nificant differences.

Survey Details and Its Administration The survey was conducted using four different questionnaires, each completed by all participants, as follows: (1) Self-developed questionnaire (based

on Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001), which examines how project managers judge their project success and performance in four dimen- sions: 1. Project manager satisfaction with

following the planned framework (e.g., spending within budget, completion time within schedule, performance meets specs).

  1. Customer satisfaction with the project (e.g., satisfaction based on performance and deliverables).
  2. Managerial satisfaction with the project’s contribution to the orga- nization’s overall success.
  3. Overall satisfaction with the pro- ject’s contribution to the future of the organization (e.g., new research and development capabilities).

The answers to the questions were given on a Likert-type scale (1 to 5), with 1 being the lowest level of satisfaction and 5 the highest (a non-applicable option was marked by filling “99”). Prior to the study, a test case of 10 project man- ager participants was chosen to answer the questionnaire; their answers revealed that two questions were misunderstood, so they were subsequently corrected. Some minor changes in wording were also made; however, most of the ques- tionnaire remained unchanged.

All the participants’ answers were converted to standard grades on a scale of 0 to 100, and the mean grade for each question was computed. Cronbach’s a (alpha) of our questionnaire was 0.73, validating its internal consistency. (2) The Three Personality Factors ques-

tionnaire proposed by Jung (1921). This questionnaire includes 33 questions, which are categorized into three major personality charac- teristics: (I) stability, (II) organiza- tion, and (III) extroversion. The grades are normalized to a scale of 0% to 100%, where 0% reflects the

Extroversion Introversion Personality focused on the outside world, Personality focused on the inner world, gets its motivation from interaction with gets its motivation from thought, other people and by doing things. information, ideas, and concepts.

Thinking Feeling Person decides by logic and unbiased Person decides with emphasis on the analysis of cause and effect. Decisions try expected effect upon feelings of others to be objective without involving feelings, and the self. The decision may be based as much as possible. on gut feeling, tries to harmonize and

satisfy others.

Sensing Intuition Person decides based on facts and trusts Person decides based on intuition, rela- palpable current facts, figures, and details. tionships, and speculations.

Judging Perceiving Person judges quickly and takes sides or Person tries to be a spectator and leave decides, wants to be part of the game—not themselves all the options open as long a spectator. More organized than as possible. Very slow to judge. spontaneous.

Table 1: The four dichotomies of the Myers-Briggs technique.

INTJINFJISFJ

ISFP

ESFP

ESFJESTJ

ESTP

ISTP

ISTJ

INFP

ENFP

ENFJ

INTP

ENTP

ENTJ

Figure 1: The 16 possible personality types of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 81

lowest level of the feature and 100% is the highest level of the feature.

(3) The Myers-Briggs questionnaire (Myers-Briggs & Myers, 1980), which reveals personality orientation along four dichotomous scales: (I) Internal versus external attention focus: Introversion versus Extroversion; (II) Style of receiving outside infor- mation: Sensing versus Intuition; (III) Decision-making style: Feeling versus Thinking; and (IV) Style of involvement in the world arena: Judgmental versus Perceiving.

(4) A self-developed socio-demographic questionnaire, which examines the gender, age, education level, marital status, number of children, years of work experience, years of experi- ence as a project manager, industry type, and organization’s name.

Sample Population The participants were 280 managers with experience in project manage- ment, working in a variety of business areas: software, construction, banking, communications, food, engineering, security, transportation, and education. The participants’ average age was 38.7 years. In terms of gender: 72% were males and 28% were females. Other studies and Project Management Institute (PMI) data suggest a male female distribution in project management of approximately 66% male and 34% female (Cartwright & Gale, 1995; Gale & Cartwright, 1995; Stackman & Henderson, 2010; Tullett, 1996). So, the percentage of men versus women in the survey is biased toward men (but is still less than two standard deviations from the population per- centage). The average education level of men in the study was 15 years and for women 14.8 years (practically identi- cal); however, their experience as a proj- ect manager is very different (8.1 years for men and 2.8 years for women).

Research Procedure The participants were selected by a group of MBA students who conducted the field research as part of their studies.

The students came from various com- panies in a variety of businesses and typically picked participants from their home organization; therefore, the 280 participants who volunteered to answer the questionnaires can be considered a representative sample. The question- naires were given to the participants between January and February of 2010. The participants were given an explana- tion of the research objective and detailed guidance about how to fully and accurately fill out the question- naires. Filling out the questionnaire typ- ically took 20 to 30 minutes and was conducted under the supervision and with the assistance of the MBA students, who had been specially trained by the researchers. The participating project managers were assured that their priva- cy would be protected (i.e., the results would not be linked back to participants and be used only for research purposes).

Data Analysis Method The data were entered onto an Excel spreadsheet, and averages and stan- dard deviations as well as distributions and statistical tests were computed on copies of this spreadsheet.

The Survey Results Empirical Type Distribution Among Project Managers Several studies discuss the general personality-type distribution in the population (e.g., Ball, 2001; Wideman, 2002) and others explore the personali- ty-type distribution of special popula- tions (e.g., Allison & Hobbs, 2010, for natural resource managers.)

In Table 2, we compare the personality- type distribution in the survey with the same distribution estimated by the Myers- Briggs Institute. The estimated frequency of the total population is taken from the Myers & Briggs Foundation and was

Survey Population vs. Total Population Description Breakdown by Type Total IJ INTJ INTJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ Survey Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.3% 1.2% 7.3% 20% Population % 2.1% 1.5% 13.8% 11.6% 29% Difference �7.1% �0.8% 12.6% 4.3% 9% IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP Empirical PM % 9.2% 2.7% 2.3% 8.8% 23% Population % 3.3% 4.4% 8.8% 5.4% 22% Difference �5.9% 1.7% 6.5% �3.4% �1%

EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP Empirical PM % 11.9% 4.2% 0.8% 4.6% 22% Population % 3.2% 8.1% 8.5% 4.3% 24% Difference �8.7% 3.9% 7.7% �0.3% 3%

EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ Empirical PM % 12.7% 3.5% 2.7% 16.9% 36% Population % 1.8% 2.4% 12.3% 8.7% 25% Difference �10.9% �1.1% 9.6% �8.2% �11% Total NT NF SF ST Total Empirical PM % 43.1% 12.7% 6.9% 37.7% 100% Population % 10.4% 16.4% 43.4% 30.0% 100% Difference 32.7% �3.7% �36.5% 7.7% 0%

Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP, Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality- type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp

Table 2: Total population personality type comparison: The project manager survey versus the general population.

82 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey P

A P

E R

S

compiled from a variety of MBTI results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP, Inc.; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI).

Table 2 shows major gaps in the SF (Sensing, Feeling) and NT (Intuitive, Thinking) columns. Overall, the survey population has 36.5% fewer SF people than the total population and 32.7% more NT people than the total popula- tion. These results are in line with studies that relate project management to intu- ition and thinking (e.g., Leybourne & Sadler-Smith, 2006; Tullett, 1996). Berens (2006) called the NT personality type “Theorist,” whereas the SF type was either “Stabilizer” or “Improviser.” Also, of the judgmental (J) types in the first and fourth rows, the survey has 10% more extroverts (EJ) and 9% fewer introverts (IJ) than the general popula- tion. The slant toward extroverted judgmental-type project managers may be associated with communication skills required for project leadership.

The goodness of fit test was used in order to test the hypothesis (H0) that our 280 project managers (observed data) have the same MBTI distribution as in the general population (expected data).

The statistic is p with

9 degrees of freedom and it shows that H0 must be rejected for any a� 0.01. The conclusion is that project managers form a special population.

Although these differences were found for both males and females, they were much more significant in females. While 23.6% fewer SF types were found among the males of our project man- agers’ sample (compared with the total male population), 48.4% fewer SF types were found in the sample females (compared with the total female popu- lation). Furthermore, 25.0% more NT types were found in males (compared with the total male population), and 44.1% more NT types were found in females (compared with the total female population). Since approximately 56%

x2 � a k

i�1

(Oi � ei) 2

ei

of the females are the SF type, this phe- nomenon excludes close to 50% of women from taking part in the project management profession.

The conclusion is that project man- agers (females and males) have a unique personality type, in terms of MBTI distribution, which distinguishes them from the general population. The population of project managers has many fewer SF types than the general population and many more NT types. In general, people in the NT category focus on analyzing possibilities in an ambiguous environment, whereas peo- ple in the SF category base their focus on gathering facts and human relations. Because many projects are carried out in an uncertain environment, project man- agers have to manage their projects based not only on facts but also by con-

sidering many possibilities. Myers-Briggs (1962) claimed that the possibilities that the NT people choose are often theoret- ical or technical, whereas the human elements are more or less ignored. It seems that these NT characteristics are the prevalent characteristics of project managers. Tables 3 and 4 depict the male and female distribution of project managers compared with the general public distribution.

Risk Preferences Among Project Managers While the MBTI personality type index is not directly related to risk prefer- ences, some researchers reported that such a relationship exists. For example, Henderson and Nutt (1980) found in their study that SF managers are likely to be risk takers, whereas the NT

MALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population Description Breakdown by Type Total

IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ Empirical Male % 7.0% 2.2% 1.1% 6.5% 17% Male pop. % 3.3% 1.3% 8.1% 16.4% 29% Difference 3.7% 0.9% �7.0% �9.9% �12%

IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP Empirical Male % 8.1% 2.2% 1.6% 10.8% 23% Male pop. % 4.8% 4.1% 7.6% 8.5% 25% Difference 3.3% �1.9% �6.0% 2.3% �2%

EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP Empirical Male % 12.4% 4.3% 0.0% 5.4% 22% Male pop. % 4.0% 6.4% 6.9% 5.6% 23% Difference 8.4% �2.1% �6.9% �0.2% �1%

EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ Empirical Male % 12.4% 2.7% 3.8% 19.4% 38% Male pop. % 2.7% 1.6% 7.5% 11.2% 23% Difference 9.7% 1.1% �3.7% 8.2% 15%

Total NT NF SF ST Total Empirical Male % 39.8% 11.3% 6.5% 41.9% 99% Male pop. % 14.8% 13.4% 30.1% 41.7% 100% Difference 25.0% �2.1% �23.6% 0.2% �1%

Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP, Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality- type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp

Table 3: A comparison of the male project manager personality type distribution with the overall male population distribution.

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 83

and the NF groups take moderate risks, and ST managers are the risk-averse group. Filbeck, Hatfield, and Horvath (2005) explored the relationship between the personality type (MBTI) and risk toler- ance of investors in the expected utility theory framework. Their results conflict with those of Henderson and Nutt and, in fact, arrive at the opposite conclu- sions. Filbeck et al. concluded that indi- viduals with a preference for thinking (T) tend to be more risk tolerant than those with a preference for feeling (F). Moreover, they concluded that individ- uals with a preference for sensing (S) are willing to tolerate more upside or downside potential than those with a preference for intuition (N), but the sensing-intuition dimension did not indicate any differences in risk toler- ance as measured by variance. Note that the results of our study are closer to the results of Henderson and Nutt.

The opposite findings of Henderson and Nutt compared to those of Filbeck et al. may be attributed to the difference in framework presented to the subjects by the different questionnaires. For exam- ple, the gap could be better explained if Filbeck et al. present stock purchasing in a way that F and N subjects perceive as a risky gamble, whereas T and S sub- jects perceive stock purchasing as a statistical problem. An additional expla- nation may be the different types of subjects (managers and workers versus students) and a different distribution of characteristic combinations.

One of the main findings in this paper is that project managers are much more NT than the population and much less SF (Table 2). The question is how this fact might be related to the risk preference of project managers. The MBTI classifica- tion implies that the risk in a project man- agement environment can be categorized

into two major dimensions: input risk preference and output risk preference. On the input side the sensing (S) project manager is risk averse (decides by facts, see Table 1), and the intuitive (N) project manager is a risk taker (decides by intu- ition and speculation). However, on the output side, the thinking (T) project manager is risk averse (decides by logic and unbiased analysis), and the feeling (F) project manager is more of a risk taker (may decide by gut feeling). Since project managers from the NT type are more prevalent, they tend to manage projects with less data and rely more on their intuition. On the other hand, they tend to be cautious and analyze whatever data they have in order to make a good decision. Our insight is that intuitive (N) project managers can live with ambigui- ty and less data better than others; there- fore, they can take more risks on the input side, meaning that collecting data and facts is not as critical for them as for the sensing (S) project managers. However, project managers will then perform a full analysis of whatever limit- ed data they do have. These traits and capabilities are very important for a per- son who manages projects.

Types and Project Success Project success was estimated using many questions regarding compliance with time, budget, and specifications, as well as stakeholder satisfaction and project effectiveness, and its contribu- tion to the organization and its strategy. The answers were normalized to a scale of 0 to 100, and the average grade for each personality type was computed. Table 5 depicts the success estimation as a function of personality type.

The results in Table 5 show that, although NT is the most prevalent type, the NT project managers have the low- est reported success rates. At the other end, while the fewest project managers are SF types, these project managers report the highest success rates. The average grade of success in the survey is 74 (on a scale of 0 to 100). Although the SF combination is rare (7% of project

FEMALE DATA: Project Managers vs Population Description Breakdown by Type Total

IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ Empirical F. PM % 14.5% 2.6% 1.3% 9.2% 28% Female pop. % 0.8% 1.6% 19.4% 6.9% 29% Difference 13.7% 1.0% �18.1 2.3% �1% IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP Empirical F. PM % 11.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 24% Female pop. % 1.8% 4.6% 9.9% 2.4% 19% Difference 10.0% �0.7% �6.0% 1.5% 5%

EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP Empirical F. PM % 10.5% 3.9% 2.6% 2.6% 20% Female pop. % 2.4% 9.7% 10.1% 3.0% 25% Difference 8.1% �5.8% �7.5% �4.0% �5%

EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ Empirical F. PM % 13.2% 5.3% 0.0% 10.5% 29% Female pop. % 0.9% 3.3% 16.9% 6.3% 27% Difference 12.3% 2.0% �16.9% 4.2% 2% Total NT NF SF ST Total Empirical F. PM % 50% 16% 8% 26% 100% Female pop. % 5.90% 19.20% 56.30% 18.60% 100% Difference 44.1% �3.4% �48.4% 7.7% 0%

Source. The estimated frequency table was compiled by The Myers & Briggs Foundation from a variety of MBTI results between 1972 and 2002, including data banks at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type; CPP, Inc; and Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality- type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp

Table 4: A comparison of the female project manager personality type distribution with the overall female population distribution.

84 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey P

A P

E R

S

manager survey population) compared with the NT combination (43% of the survey population), the SF success grades are significantly higher than those of the NT project managers. This is tested and shown at the bottom of Table 5. The ISF combination is only 3% of the total project management popu- lation, but 22% of the general popula- tion. Moreover, the ISF project managers are shown to be extremely successful (82.5) in comparison with the average

grade (74). The FP project managers (12% of the survey population) also have a higher than average grade (78). This is important, because FP types rep- resent approximately 30% of the general population.

The following reasons may explain the success reported by the SF project managers (and other rare types) in our study: 1. The few SF people who become proj-

ect managers have special talents

and the qualifications needed to be project managers.

  1. They manage unique projects, in which the SF type is an advantage.
  2. The success perception of these SF respondents is inflated compared to other groups.
  3. There were only 19 project managers in the SF group, which might not be a large enough group to establish the phenomenon.

Gender Effects All the above findings are consistent for both genders, with very slight differences. The gender differences in our study, as they emerge from the socio-demographic survey are depicted in Table 6.

Note that the male and female expe- rience in the workplace is 9.9 and 8.9 years, respectively (only one year differ- ence); however, their experiences as project managers are very different: 8.1 years for males and 2.8 years for females. Also, the males are on the aver- age 4 years older than the females; thus, we must conclude that the female proj- ect managers had begun working in project management positions only in the last decade or two, whereas the male project manager had been holding project management positions for quite some time. This also explains the large percentage of male project managers and their higher number of children. Also, on the average, male project man- agers are heading higher budget projects (average of US$80.7 million budgets for men and US$36.8 million by women).

Finally, the distribution of sectors between male and female project man- agers in the survey was significantly different. Figures 2 and 3 depict these distributions. For example, it is evident that there are more female project managers in education and finance and fewer in the construction and software industries than there are men.

Conclusions This paper presents an empirical, exploratory study based on a survey of 280 project managers. The main survey findings show that:

Overall Project Success Estimates by Personality Types

IJ INTJ INFJ ISFJ ISTJ IJ Scores 71 71 82 73 74

IP INTP INFP ISFP ISTP IP Scores 71 75 83 70 75

EP ENTP ENFP ESFP ESTP EP Scores 73 78 78 76 76

EJ ENTJ ENFJ ESFJ ESTJ EJ Scores 71 75 73 75 74

Total NT NF SF ST Total 71 71 82 73 74

NT vs. SF test

Avg. St. Dev.

NT score 71 1.00 SF score 82 4.55

Pooled St. Dev for Avgs 1.2 Z-value 6.22 Alpha � 0.0001

Table 5: The average reported success scores of various personality types and a comparison of NT with SF scores.

Male Female Difference

Percentage in the survey 72% 28% 44%

Average age 38.7 34.9 3.8

Average number of children 2.4 1.7 0.7

Average education level 15 14.8 0.2

Average years in the workplace 9.9 8.9 1

Average years as a project manager 8.1 2.8 5.3

Average number of subordinates 15.8 7.8 7.9

Average project budget (US$ millions) 80.7 36.8 43.9

Table 6: Differences between male and female characteristics in the project manager survey.

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 85

  1. Project managers have a unique dis- tribution of personality type (MBTI), which separates them from the gen- eral population.
  2. There are significantly more NT (Intuitive, Thinking) type project man- agers than their percentage in the general population. The NT project managers base their decisions on intu- ition and analysis. This is expected, because project managers must make decisions in the face of ambiguity and uncertainty and have to rely on intu- ition while lacking some of the facts.
  3. There are significantly fewer project managers of the SF (Sensing, Feeling) type than those found in the general population. These SF project man- agers base their decisions on full sensory data while cognizant of com- passion and the other human feel- ings of their peers and subordinates.
  4. The special group of ISF, represent- ing 23% of the general population formed only 3% of the project man- ager survey population. This is a strong sign for their inadequate pro- file; however, the 3% ISF reached the highest project success scores. This finding points at their being placed in special projects.
  5. The results were found for both women and men. In terms of gender, females are about 28% of the project manager survey population. They were as successful as males, but sig- nificantly younger than the male project managers in the survey which reflects their absence from project management in previous decades.

A word of caution is in place: As stated in the code of ethics of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type–CAPT (2010, Interpreting MBTI® Results, para. 3): “One should not state or imply that type explains everything. Type does not reflect an individual’s ability, intelligence, likeli- hood of success, emotions, or normalcy. Type is one important component of the complex human personality.” Also, this study did not control the project type;

Security 1%

Construction 10%

Education 14%

Finance 7%

Government 5%Retail

13% Medical

7%Marketing 7%

Software 18%

Transportation 5%

Tourism and Entertainment

7%

Electronics and Communications

6%

Figure 2: Distribution of the female project manager survey population by industry sector.

Electronics and Communications

7% Tourism and

Entertainment 3%

Security 3%

Construction 31%

Education 2%Agriculture

2%

Technology 2%

Finance 3%

Government 2%

Retail 8%

Medical 5%

Marketing 2%

1%

Software 24%

Aviation 2%

Manufacturing 3%

Figure 3: Distribution of the male project manager survey population by industry sector.

86 June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success: A Field Survey P

A P

E R

S

however, the subject of matching project manager personality to a project type is important and is left for future research. Moreover, the issue of finding relation- ships between certain success metrics to personality traits also requires more data collection and further research.

Despite the limitations of the study as an exploratory study, its findings have important theoretical and practi- cal implications. The findings con- tribute to better characterization of the project management population and the relationship between certain com- mon project manager characteristics and project success. ■

References Allison, H., & Hobbs, R. (2010). Natural resource management at four social scales: Psychological type matters. Environmental Management, 45(3), 590–602.

Ball, I. (2001). Gender differences in the distribution of types in Australia. Australian Psychological Type Review, 3(1), 15–16.

Berens, L. V. (2006). Understanding yourself and others: An introduction to the 4 temperaments. West Hollywood, CA: Telos Publications.

Bredillet, C. N. (2008). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project management research (Part 6). Project Management Journal, 39(3), 2–6.

Cartwright, S., & Gale, A. (1995). Project management: Different gender, different culture? A discussion on gen- der and organizational culture–Part 2. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(4), 12–16.

Center for Applications of Psychological Type–CAPT. (2010). MBTI code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment /ethical-use.htm

Colinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1996). Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinity and management. London, England: Sage.

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The ‘‘real’’ success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 185–190.

Crawford, L., Hobbs, J. B., & Turner, J. R. (2004). Project categorization systems and their use in organizations: An empirical study. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Cromie, S., Callaghan, I., & Jensen, M. (1992). Entrepreneurial tendencies of managers: A research note. British Journal of Management, 3(1), 1–5.

Dolfi, J., & Andrews, E. J. (2007). The sub- liminal characteristics of project man- agers: An exploratory study of optimism overcoming challenges in the project environment, International Journal of Project Management, 25(7), 674–682.

Dvir, D., Sadeh, A., & Malach-Pines, A. (2006). Projects and project managers: The relationship between project man- agers’ personality, project types and projects success. Project Management Journal, 37(5), 36–48.

Filbeck, G., Hatfield, P., & Horvath, P. (2005). Risk aversion and personality type. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(4), 170–180.

Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53–65.

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five ver- sus the big four: The relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307.

Gale, A., & Cartwright, S. (1995). Women in project management: Entry into a male domain? A discussion on gender and organizational culture, part 1. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 16(2), 3–8.

Hammer, A. L., & Barger, N. J. (1996). MBTI applications: A decade of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Henderson, J. C., & Nutt, P. C. (1980). The influence of decision style on deci- sion making behavior. Management Science, 26(4), 371–386.

Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (2007). Introduction to Type® in organizations (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cpp Inc.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocation- al choices: A theory of vocational per- sonalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types, collected works (Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1990). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character and tempera- ment types. Del Mar, CA: Gnosology Books/Prometheus Nemesis.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1991). On becoming a CEO. In M. F. R. Kets de Vries and associates (Eds.), Organizations of the couch: Clinical perspective on organizational behavior and change (pp. 120–139). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leybourne, S., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). The role of intuition and improvisation in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(6), 483–492.

Michael, J. (2003). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a tool for leadership development? Apply with caution. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(1), 45–54.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective theory of personali- ty: Reconceptualizing situations, dis- proportions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psycholgical Review, 102(2), 246–268.

Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 437–448.

June 2013 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 87

Myers-Briggs, I. (1962). Introduction to type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Myers-Briggs, I., & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing: Understanding person- ality type. Mountain View, CA: Davies- Black Publishing.

Quenk, N. (2009). Essentials of Myers- Briggs Type Indicator Assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Rushton, S., Morgana, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teacher’s Myers-Briggs person- ality profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 432–441.

Sadeh, A., Dvir, D., & Malach-Pines, A. (2007). The implications of P–O fit the- ory to project management. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 3(4), 125–136.

Shenhar, A. J. (1998). From theory to practice: Toward a typology of project management styles. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41(1), 33–48.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2004). How projects differ and what to do about it. In J. Pinto & P. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of managing projects. New York, NY: Wiley.

Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725.

Stackman, L. S., & Henderson, R. (2010). An exploratory study of gender in project management: Interrelationships with role, location, technology, and project cost. Project Management Journal, 41(5), 37–55.

Thal, A., & Bedingfield, J. (2010). Successful project managers: An exploratory study into the impact of

personality. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(2), 243–259.

Tullett, A. D. (1996). The thinking style of the managers of multiple projects: Implications for problem solving when managing change. International Journal of Project Management, 14(5), 281–287.

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2006). Choosing appropriate project man- agers: Matching their leadership style to the type of project. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Turner, R. J., Huemann, M., Anbari, F. T., & Bredillet, C. N. (2010). Perspectives on projects. New York, NY: Routledge.

Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model: Linking success cri- teria and critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411–418.

Wideman, R.M. (2002). Dominant per- sonality traits suited to running projects successfully (and what type are you?). Paper presented at the 29th Annual Project Management Institute, Seminar/Symposium: Tides of Change. Long Beach, CA, October 1998. Retrieved from http://www.maxwide man.com/papers/personality /personality.pdf

Zaleznik, A. (1966). The managerial mystique: Restoring leadership in busi- ness. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Yuval Cohen is the head of the industrial engineer- ing program at the Open University of Israel. His areas of specialty include project management, operations planning, and design and management of production and logistic systems, and he has

published many papers in these areas. He served for several years as a senior operations planner at FedEx Ground (USA) and received several awards for his contributions to the hub and terminal net- work planning. He received his PhD from the University of Pittsburgh (USA), his MSc from the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, and his BSc from Ben-Gurion University. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE) and a full member of the Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (INFORMS).

Hana Ornoy is the head of the Management Section at the School of Business Administration of The Lander Academic Institute and a faculty teaching member in the Department of Economics and Management at The Open University and Department of Psychology at Bar-Ilan University. She holds a PhD in organiza- tional behavior from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. She is a senior organizational consultant and is the author of The Relocation Trip (2009) and The Israeli Manager in the Time of Globalization (2011), both published in Hebrew by Rimonim Publishing House, Israel.

Baruch Keren is a senior lecturer in the Industrial Engineering and Management Department at the SCE–Shamoon College of Engineering and a lecturer at the Open University of Israel. He received his BSc, MSc, and PhD (summa cum laude) degrees in indus- trial engineering from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His professional experience includes 13 years with Israel Chemicals Ltd. and its sub- sidiaries in the areas of industrial engineering, economics, and auditing. His current research interests include decision making under uncer- tainty, production planning, project manage- ment, and operations research.

View publication statsView publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263596981

The post Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, appeared first on graduatepaperhelp.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"