The MTR-i team role mandala has some remarkable parallels with the stone mandala that Jung carved in his home at Bollingen (see first article in this series).  However, when I developed the MTR-i, I knew relatively little about Jung beyond 'Psychological Types', and didn't understand the high significance that mandalas have, for individuals and their psychological development.  I had some conscious reasons for developing the MTR-i questionnaire and the MTR-i mandala, but, looking back, I think there were also some unconscious factors at play.

During the 1990s I was a team building consultant who used, amongst other things, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) questionnaire.  At the time, the only team role models available were Belbin's SPI (Self Perception Inventory) and Margerison-McCann's TMS (Team Management Systems).  Neither of these were suitable for use alongside the MBTI.

Belbin's model was derived from observation, so the theoretical basis did not match Myers Briggs theory.  Whilst for some groups this wasn't a problem, for others the lack of theoretical integration undermined the credibility of both models;  in fact, team workshops could be hijacked by discussions trying to fit the two models together.  Also, the use of Belbin and Myers Briggs alongside each other did not facilitate any easy discussion of 'stretch' between one's (static) preferences and (fluctuating) role.

Margerison-McCann has a similar theoretical basis to Myers Briggs, but is more of a competitor to it than a complementary tool: it talks about preference.  Preference is the Myers Briggs domain, whereas I wanted something clearly focused on the role being undertaken in each situation.

I therefore looked to developing a model that I could use alongside Myers Briggs, primarily in team development.  Naively, I thought this would take about 9 months to a year, part time, but it ended up taking typically 20 hours a week from 1996 to 2000, including an online internet study involving over 20,000 people. 

I looked for three things to come together in the development:
- a strong theoretical foundation
- a good statistical basis
- simplicity and practicality for use with teams

To get all three ducks in a row, I found that I had to go behind much of the current presentation of Myers Briggs theory, as many of the modern definitions of type just didn't work statistically.  I therefore went back to Jung's Psychological Types, and embarked on a development life cycle as shown (it refers to some "constructs" which I'll describe in more detail tomorrow).



Before the final version of the MTR-i was produced I went through this life cycle approximately 90 times over a four-year period.  Towards the latter stages, the statistical analysis was undertaken by Leanne Harris, then a lecturer in psychology at the University of Herts, who conducted some factor analyses (the final version of the MTR-i produced 8 distinct factors).

In parallel with this, I was also undertaking some pragmatic trial and error with real teams, using different versions of materials, team role names and mandalas.  The ultimate aim was to produce some simple and usable.  By and large this objective was achieved, with the exception of one team role name: after 9/11, and particularly the start of George Bush's 'crusade against terror', the Open University asked me to change the team role name "Crusader" to "Campaigner" so the MTR-i did not cause any offence in Arab schools.

Tomorrow, I'll talk a bit more about the constructs that emerged from the above life cycle.