I'm in a series of blogs about the relationship between the MTR-i team role mandala and Jung's stone mandala (go to the first article in the series).  On Friday, I got into some of the heavier theory that underpins the MTR-i team roles.  Today, I'll look at the shape of the wheel.

It is usual for those working in the field of type to use a square "type table" to provide a visual representation of type preferences - see our Myers Briggs pages for the layout.  At type conferences or on workshops, the facilitator often draws a blank type table on a flip chart with the four-letter codes in each box, and then individuals can sign their name in the box to declare their preferences.  One option, to represent team roles, was to overlay the roles on the type table.  However, to my mind this is not a simple diagram, nor clear, nor does it truly represent the dynamics of the theory.  The problems are several...

The first is that the table consists of a series of boxes and 'putting people in boxes' is something that I wished to avoid.  In theory, the MBTI code of practice and qualifying programmes make it clear that 'putting people in boxes' is not what Myers Briggs theory is about.  And the qualifying training usually covers the appropriate use of words to help convey this message (eg: "I have preferences for..." rather than "I am...").  But the words we use convey are just a small part of the message, and unconscious communication is much more powerful.  I have concerns, therefore, about saying on a workshop "this isn't about putting people in boxes" but then sending out a more powerful, unconscious and contradictory message by asking people to put their names in boxes.

Secondly, there are types in the type table layout who are a long way from types that are very similar, and close to types that are very different.  ESTJ and ENTJ, for example, are very close in a number of ways.  Three of the preferences are the same, they share the same dominant function, and in Jung's typology they are the same type (extraverted Thinking).   Nevertheless, they appear on 'opposite' sides of the type table.  ESTJ and ESFJ, however, are diametrically opposed in Jung's theory because in one Thinking is dominant and in the other Feeling is dominant.  Yet on the type table, these two are next to each other.

Also, the type table implicitly conveys the message that there is only one way of behaving, ie: your type (this is part of the 'box' problem).  Some practitioners get around this by saying that we can move around the table - eg: be an ESTJ today and an INFP tomorrow.  This seems, to me, to be very inadequate, because we can't change our identity like that.  It's a bit like saying that I'll be a white man today but be a black man tomorrow and a chinaman the day after.  If you are white, you can paint your face black, but  you can't choose to 'be' black.  In a similar way, if your preferences are for ESTJ then you can use feeling and intuition, but you can't 'be' an INFP.

Finally, the type table does not reflect the theory of opposites that is such an integral part of Jung's theory.  There is very little 'oppositeness' in the table, and what there is is wrong (as discussed in the example of ESTJ/ENTJ above)

The MTR-i mandala was designed to address some of these concerns, and particularly to provide an unconscious communication of the idea of oppositeness and a lot more of the similarities/differences between the various function-attitudes or team roles.  Roles on the opposite sides of the wheel are opposite each other.  Roles that are close have strong similarities.  There are axes that represent judgement and perception, and the relationships between dominant and auxiliary functions can easily be represented.  The inner and outer wheels also convey the difference between extraversion and introversion having a focus on the inner and outer worlds.  The relationship between type and role can be illustrated in that we can move around the wheel (ie use any function-attitude) but the type code on the wheel shows where the person likes to be, the 'home' on the wheel.  The wheel is not perfect, though, the main failing of the design being that it perhaps does not convey the stretch between extraverted and introverted functions in a truly representative way - a 3-D mandala would be needed for that, but paper and screen media are 2-D.

So that's how the MTR-i mandala was arrived at.  It was a 4-5 year journey, involving a lot of research and development, and driven largely by conscious motivation but with an eye to some of the unconscious messages it might convey.  In my next blog, I 'll start talking about Jung's stone mandala, how and why he carved it, and what it means.