Why people look for alternatives
Where MBTI® falls short
These are structural limitations — not criticisms of the underlying framework, which remains influential. They reflect the gap between a tool designed for insight and one designed for behaviour change.
01
The binary problem
MBTI® assigns people to one of 16 types based on four binary dimensions — E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P. In reality, most people sit somewhere in the middle. A score of 51% introvert and 49% extrovert gets you the same type as someone who scores 99%.
02
The questionnaire
93 forced-choice questions that many people find artificial or easy to answer "correctly." Research consistently shows people score differently on retakes — sometimes in a different type entirely.
03
The static report
Whether you're an INTJ or an ENFP, your report says largely the same things as everyone else who shares your type. And whether you're a Cool Blue, an INTJ or a high D — the profile adds little a good coach doesn't already know.
04
No in-the-moment support
MBTI® tells you what type you are. It doesn't help you prepare for Tuesday's performance conversation, adapt to the new colleague who operates very differently, or understand why a relationship keeps breaking down.
05
Accreditation and cost
Full MBTI® assessments require accredited practitioners. That creates a bottleneck, adds cost, and limits how widely the tool can be deployed across an organisation.
06
Behaviour change gap
MBTI® was designed to help people understand their type. It was never designed to help them change their behaviour in the moments that matter. That gap is exactly what SuperPowerMe was built to close.
End of Life Partnership