Why have you heard of MBTI but not Golden?

There is a common history to understand if you are interested in knowing why you have not heard of the Golden personality profile tool, despite the fact it was developed by a team that had worked directly on the development of MBTI and had access to much of that data. The reason why relates to the publishers and how they have marketing both tools but also a litigation battle between the two parties which almost destroyed the Golden team.

The Golden Personality Profiler (GPP) comes from the Golden family who have a rich legacy in developing assessments. Essentially dating back to the 1950s when Rev Ed Golden, a clinical psychologist and minister studied the Bernreuter Personality assessment as part of his masters thesis.  He also founded The North East Career Center at Princeton Theological Seminary/University in the mid 60s. This was the first time assessments were used in an organisation to guide career and life planning decisions of clergy and intra denominational and religious leaders and staff.  

Rev Ed Golden started to use the MBTI, formerly known as the Briggs Myers Type Indicator, which he bought directly from Isabel Myers out of her home before it was published. He also used other more sophisticated assessments like the 16PF and WAIS PAS system in his consulting practice along with assessments like the Strong Interest Inventory, Adjective Check List, and Rokeach Value survey in his private business. He hired the psychometricians Dr David Saunders, a friend and esteemed researcher who worked with Myers at Educational Testing Service in Princeton to research the interaction effects of assessments for which he had tens of thousands of sample data on. Saunders had developed the 16PF along with Raymond Cattel. Part of that research was related to the MBTI and the 16PF, as well as other assessments. 

He became good friends with Peter Myers who owned the estate of the MBTI. Peter was Dr John Golden's God Father. When his mother, Isabel died, Ed's son John Golden helped organize and clean out her house which contained all the data that she ever collected on the MBTI. John Golden, David Saunders, Ed Golden and a team that included 3 other Golden family members guided and conducted the deep research into the MBTI data and developed the newest versions of the MBTI in the late 1980s, called the Form J Type Differentiator Indicator and the Expanded Analysis Report based on our clients (10,000) responses to over 280 questions, part of which were MBTI questions developed by Isabel Myers and part were their own contribution to delve deeper into areas that were thought to be important. 

The team were interested in the 5th factor measuring aspects of behavior associated with the five factor model called Neuroticism. This now forms the unique 5th scale of the GPP which measures how indivduals react to daily stressors. Ultimately the MBTI estate and publisher did not want to publish an MBTI TDI assessment that explored what they called Comfort/Discomfort, but did publish the EA report that contained the MBTI with sub factors. Today that version is called the MBTI Form M Step 2 report.

The Golden team realised that they could only continue their research if they developed their own assessment, so they embarked on that journey in the early 1990s. The goal was to develop an assessment for career development services on a CD Rom based disk system. An area that the MBTI was not serving and could not serve. 

They developed the early version of the GPP and personally informed Peter Myers of their product and strategy. He initially supported their efforts but then turned against it. This led to a 3 year legal battle in the Federal Court. Although at the end, the Golden team were free to publish the GPP all the relationships were lost as is often the case with extended court battles. Rev Ed Golden died at the beginning of the litigation and the original team that had been put together to develop the GPP was also a casualty of the legal battle which was ultimately about preserving the Golden academic and business rights. Only Dr John Golden was left standing and continued the effort on his own as he does to the present day.

Dr John Golden was adamant that the team had developed a superior assessment and this was self published up until 2004 when a group of international assessment publishers pursued the publishing of the GPP. Led by ECPA in France and Hogrefe in Germany. ECPA was shortly thereafter acquired by Harcourt/Psychorp, which was in acquired by Pearson. Pearson and or Hogrefe acquired most of the sizeable publishers around the globe by 2010. The GPP was a cornerstone assessment for both publishers. The College Board also used the GPP from 1998 to 2016 as a cornerstone assessment for career guidance with millions of high school students. The College Board was the owner and developer of the SAT assessment developed for years by Educational Testing Services. There is a really good studnt version of the GPP which is especially good with secondary and 6th form students.

At the end of this year it is understood that the arrangement with Pearson may be ending and this tool will once again be published and marketed by Dr John Golden and his business Golden LLC who have continued to develop newer versions of the tool.

One of the outcomes of the litigation with MBTI was that neither company would ever be allowed to reference the other assessment unless it was in the form of research. During the litigation the Federal Judge observed that the Test Development Industry is a nepotistic group. They all knew each other and respected each other, but the business side took control.

Ultimately the reason that MBTI is better known than the GPP comes down to how well the publishers have marketed them. If you have used both MBTI and the GPP you will know that they are both similar but different. The GPP is simpler to use with more straightforward language which means it is easier for individuals to understand. So great in team building and personal development. MBTI still enjoys a cult like status and if you find it easier to talk about Judging and Perceiving then stick with it. I'm off to discuss Organising and Adapting instead :)