The Danger of Categorizing People in Management

Management literature and our daily life are full of the curious phenomenon of categorizing people. From Horoscopes to Myers-Briggs to Hippocratic Types to Chinese Blood Types, it seems like an integral human urge to create a pseudoscientific way to understand people.

I do think that we can benefit from trying to understand human behavior and what kind of personality traits resonate both with us and with the people we work with. But it’s crucial that we don’t assign people to unchangeable categories. Humans are far more complex creatures than these methods give them credit for.

Identity is fluid, not fixed. Just as Shiva embodies multiple forms, so do we shift, adapt, and evolve beyond simple labels.

Take MBTI, for example—the biggest and most widely used categorization tool today. Originally developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs, it was inspired by Briggs’ early work on categorizing children's behaviors. However, MBTI was never designed to rigidly define people, yet it’s often misused that way in workplaces today.

But here’s the catch—people don’t fit into neat boxes. The same person can act like one archetype one day and seven others the next. Personality is fluid, shaped by experiences, moods, and environments.

Like Ozymandias, a sliver of personality might stand one day, only to crumble the next. Who we are isn’t set in stone—it shifts, evolves, and disappears with time.

Real-World Proof: Google's Project Aristotle

If personality types were truly the key to workplace success, we’d expect them to be the best predictors of high-performing teams. But Google’s Project Aristotle found otherwise.

Google conducted an internal study to understand what made some teams thrive while others struggled. Their biggest finding? Psychological safety—the ability to speak up without fear of embarrassment or punishment—was the most critical factor in high-performing teams.

Interestingly, personality types had no significant impact on success. Teams thrived not because of their MBTI profiles, but because they had trust, clear goals, and a culture where people felt heard.

Google’s research found that psychological safety—not personality types—is the strongest predictor of team success. Are you leading with labels or fostering trust?

So, What’s the Takeaway?

Personality models can be useful for self-reflection and developing empathy. They help us understand that people operate differently. But the moment we start categorizing people, we risk losing out on potential.

A great leader doesn’t assume that all engineers are introverts who hate talking to people. Some might struggle with communication, some might thrive with the right guidance, and some might be natural leaders. It’s up to the leader to see the person, not the stereotype.

Use personality types as a tool for understanding, but never as a box that limits what someone can be. Because at the end of the day, people are too complex, too unpredictable, and too human to be reduced to a label.