Introduction
The prime responsibility of every manager is to effectively utilize the resources under his or her control. The empowerment of human resources and the optimum utilization of material assets depend directly on the constructive mobilization of human skills. Every individual is a unique person with a distinct configuration of capabilities, personality traits, likes and dislikes, unconscious motivators, and personal preferences across varying situations. Regardless of how talented an individual executive may be, sustained achievement requires the reciprocal support of fellow co-workers to realize the overarching goals of the organization.
This is precisely where the science of team dynamics begins. Members of a working group or team are continuously and reciprocally affected by one another (Graham, 1991). Understanding the deep psychological dynamics of a team and the interaction patterns of its members enables leaders to cultivate healthier, higher-trust collaboration.
Across the world, numerous industries face intense structural and economic pressures, compelling senior executives to plan strategically for organizational survival through restructuring and operational discipline. Keeping this global scenario in view, the present research was designed to examine the personality profile of a highly successful public sector organization engaged in the production and marketing of agricultural pesticides, and to compare its profile against a successful private sector enterprise engaged in industrial production and marketing (Dubey, Agrawal, & Palia, 2001). Following structured training workshops on “Understanding Self and Enhancing Team Performance,” individualized feedback and personal counseling sessions were conducted to communicate each executive’s strengths and developmental blind spots.
Tests Used for the Assessment of Personality
1 The Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30 — 30-Image Online Assessment)
Unconscious & Emotional ArchitectureThe Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) is the modern 30-image online projective diagnostic instrument—developed as the next-generation evolution succeeding the SIS-II—that helps in assessing the foundational personality structure of the individual. It evaluates interpersonal relationships, self and ego states, team-building capacity, empathy toward others, erotic balance, and clinical risk traits such as hostility, aggression, depression, and suspiciousness. The somatic images are highly innovative and function, in a clinical sense, as a psychological “time machine”—taking the viewer back in time and facilitating the release of unprocessed unconscious material. When unresolved painful material remains in memory storage, projected responses are shaped by that underlying affect. What emerges in projective awareness is deep-seated intrapsychic material, even when the viewer has consciously forgotten the original traumatic imagery and associated affect. It facilitates the expression of feelings and earlier life events underlying many forms of emotional distress and conversion pain. What makes the SIT30 unique is its 30-image online format, allowing individuals to take the test in the privacy of their homes or offices while feeling secure, uninterrupted, and confident.
The technique is based on spontaneous, individually generated responses to 30 semi-ambiguous inkblot images, eliciting intrapsychic associations and symbolic meanings specific to the respondent. Test responses are differentiated against peer norms and clinical indices according to internationally recognized psychodiagnostic criteria. Beyond organizational screening, the procedure is a powerful adjunct to psychotherapy and executive coaching because responses can be explored to create tailored development plans and revisited in follow-up discussions to surface deeply defended unconscious material. During administration, respondents often abreact emotional conflict raised to consciousness by the imagery, which itself serves as a therapeutic experience (Cassell & Dubey, 2003). By developing a practiced eye and ear for projective imagery, clinicians and advisors can share the perceptual world of their clients with minimal defensive interference—making Somatic Inkblots significantly more penetrating than verbal interviews and self-report questionnaires alone (Dubey, Banerjee, & Dubey, 2019).
The SIT30 utilizes 11 core scoring indices shared with the Rorschach and Holtzman Inkblot systems: Total Number of Responses, Human Responses, Animal Responses, Anatomical Responses, Sex Responses, Other Responses, Most Typical Responses, Typical Responses, Movement Responses, Rejection of Images, and Pathological Responses (Pathological Anatomy Scale, Hostility-Aggression Scale, Depression Scale, and Paranoia Scale). Currently, the test is used in clinical settings for personality assessment and therapeutic intervention, in business organizations for team building and executive selection, in school systems for safety screening, and as a social compatibility tool (Cassell & Dubey, 1998, 2003; Dubey & Cassell, 1993; Dubey, Agrawal, & Palia, 2001; Dubey et al., 2005, 2018; Dubey & Dubey, 2012, 2018, 2021; Dubey, Banerjee, & Dubey, 2019; Dubey, 2020; Compagnoni & Dubey, 2020; Mishra et al., 2020; Singh & Dwivedi, 2020; Manickam & Dubey, 2021; Singh & Dubey, 2021, 2022).
2 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Conscious Workplace PreferencesLike other personality instruments such as the 16PF, Rorschach Inkblot Test, and Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30), the MBTI grew out of practical organizational need and rests on a well-grounded Jungian theoretical base. Because MBTI types describe normal cognitive preferences rather than pathology, they appeal constructively to executives: every type is unique and carries distinct strengths. The discovery of one’s type—the classic “aha!” experience—provides a value-free mirror through which healthy professionals learn how they best operate.
The MBTI measures four bipolar continuums: Extraversion–Introversion (E–I), Sensing–Intuition (S–N), Thinking–Feeling (T–F), and Judging–Perceiving (J–P). Assessing these preferences helps organizations deploy talent to its fullest potential while enabling each executive to understand his or her leadership style, preferred work environment, organizational contributions, potential pitfalls, and actionable steps for strengthening interpersonal teamwork.
3 Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)
Fluid Intelligence & Perceptual ClarityRaven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices is a rigorous non-verbal test of abstract reasoning. Widely regarded as one of the premier instruments for assessing fluid intelligence and calibrated for the top 20% of the population, it is extensively used for screening senior executives and strategic decision-makers.
Material, Method & Empirical Tables
The Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30), MBTI, and Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices were administered to 236 personnel of the Marketing Division of a leading public sector agrochemical organization during a two-day residential training program in small groups ($n = 15 ext{–}20$). Raven’s APM was administered to assess Clarity of Perception and abstract reasoning; the Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) evaluated the Emotional Aspect of Personality (interpersonal relationships, ego states, impulse control, erotic balance, and team adaptability); and the MBTI mapped situational work preferences. Participants ranged in age from 32 to 59 years (233 males and 3 females; 221 graduates/postgraduates and 15 with 12th-grade education).
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (N = 236)
| Demographic Parameter | Sub-Category | Count (N) | Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Participants | Marketing Division Executives | 236 | 100.0% |
| Gender Distribution | Male | 233 | 98.7% |
| Female | 3 | 1.3% | |
| Educational Attainment | Graduates & Above | 221 | 93.6% |
| 12th Grade (Senior Secondary) | 15 | 6.4% | |
| Age Range (32–59 Years) | 32–40 Years | 43 | 18.2% |
| 41–50 Years (Modal Cohort) | 128 | 54.2% | |
| 51–59 Years | 65 | 27.5% |
Table 2. Percentile Distribution on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (N = 236)
| Percentile Band on Raven’s APM | Executives (N) | Cohort Share (%) | Visual Distribution & Cognitive Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90th–95th Percentile & Above | 103 | 44% (43.6%) |
Superior fluid intelligence; anticipates complex situations well in advance.
|
| 75th–89th Percentile | 62 | 26% (26.3%) |
High perceptual clarity and analytical problem-solving.
|
| 50th–74th Percentile | 71 | 30% (30.1%) |
Solid above-average operational reasoning.
|
Analytical Note: 70% of the marketing cadre scored at or above the 75th percentile (with 44% in the 90th–95th+ tier), indicating a highly intelligent workforce capable of perceiving market shifts early and acting decisively in favor of the organization.
Table 3. Complete 16-Type MBTI Profile vs. International Population Norms (N = 236)
Table 4. Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) Response Pattern (N = 236)
| SIT30 Scoring Index | Cohort Mean | Percentage (%) | Psychodiagnostic Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Responses (R) | 65.00 | 100.00% | Exceeds optimal benchmark (>62); high productivity & functional intelligence |
| Most Typical Responses (MT) | 14.52 | 22.34% | Scores ≥14 indicate exceptional team-building & peer alignment capacity |
| Typical Responses (T) | 31.00 | 47.69% | Coherent, realistic, and adaptive conventional thinking |
| Human Responses (H) | 23.00 | 35.38% | Strong interpersonal empathy and relational engagement |
| Animal Responses (A) | 10.00 | 15.38% | Controlled emotional expression & healthy tension release |
| Anatomical Responses (At) | 9.50 | 14.61% | Balanced somatic awareness; resilient to minor physical stress |
| Sex Responses (Sex) | 2.70 | 4.15% | Well within normal protocol (<4); healthy impulse regulation |
| Other Responses | 15.00 | 23.07% | Broad perceptual and environmental scanning range |
| Movement Responses (M) | 9.50 | 14.61% | High imaginative drive, inner stability, and goal orientation |
| Pathological Responses (Path) | 0.19 | 0.29% | Near-zero pathology across the cohort |
| Rejection of Images (Rej) | Almost Nil | 0.00% | Zero task rejection; full openness and ego resilience |
Results: The 91% Sensing-Judging (SJ) Stabilizer Matrix
The findings of the MBTI indicate that the organization’s leadership is anchored by four dominant profiles: ESTJ (51%), ESFJ (19%), ISTJ (14%), and ISFJ (7%)—representing 91% of all executives tested. While ESTJ is the classic profile of the “Administrator,” such a high concentration in a single category carries the potential organizational blind spot of making decisions too rapidly based on precedent and overlooking the need for systemic change. Together, however, these four profiles provide formidable operational execution:
1. ESTJ — The Prominent “Administrator” Group (51% vs. 13% International Norm)
121 Executives (51.3%)While ESTJs represent approximately 13% of the general population internationally, they account for 51% of executives in the present study. Known as Administrators, ESTJs ensure that work is completed on time with clear responsibilities, definite procedures, and logical consistency. Details are rigorously attended to, the bottom line is paramount, and there is a natural skepticism toward the abstract, soft, or unquantifiable.
ESTJs are logical, analytical, decisive, and tough-minded; they organize facts and operations well in advance, critique programs systematically, monitor execution step-by-step, and step directly into leadership roles. Those who fit best in an ESTJ organization value predictability, formal interaction, hierarchy respect, and institutional tradition. At their best, ESTJ leaders keep initiatives moving, embrace operational responsibility, and persuade others through assertive clarity. Their primary pitfall is appearing blunt or insensitive when acting quickly, occasionally missing wider long-term implications.
2. ESFJ — The Second Prominent “Harmonizer & Seller” Group (19% vs. 13% International Norm)
44 Executives (18.6%)ESFJs represent approximately 13% of the general population and 19% in this marketing cohort. They are helpful, tactful, compassionate, and orderly, placing a high value on harmonious human interaction. They excel on teams, pay close attention to people’s needs and wants, complete tasks accurately and on schedule, and respect organizational rules and authority. They lead through personal attention, cultivate goodwill through strong relationships, and keep colleagues well-informed. Having 19% ESFJ representation in a marketing division is highly advantageous for customer and dealer relationship stewardship.
3. ISTJ — The Third Prominent “Systematic Inspector” Group (14% vs. 6% International Norm)
33 Executives (14.0%)Fourteen percent (33 executives) belong to the ISTJ profile—more than double their 6% share in the general population. ISTJs are exceptionally dependable and hold a practical, realistic respect for verified facts. When they see that something needs to be done, they accept responsibility—often beyond the call of duty. Thorough, painstaking, systematic, and hardworking, their perseverance stabilizes everything with which they are connected.
Their primary developmental challenge is a tendency to overlook long-range market shifts in favor of day-to-day procedures and to become overly rigid regarding standard operating protocols. Many traditional manufacturing giants were built as ISTJ organizations, but evolving competitive markets require pairing ISTJ operational precision with extraverted market innovation.
4. ISFJ — The Fourth Prominent “Protective Steward” Group (7% vs. 6% International Norm)
17 Executives (7.2%)Described as patient, devoted, organized, and protective, ISFJs (7.2% vs. 6% international norm) are the dependable “behind-the-scenes” professionals who willingly complete time-consuming, painstaking tasks to ensure team success. Motivated by a deep sense of duty and commitment to family, colleagues, and organization, ISFJs value cooperation, order, and tradition while avoiding interpersonal dissonance. Because they consider helping others an honor and often place duty ahead of personal leisure, senior leadership must ensure their quiet steadfastness is actively supported rather than overburdened.
Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) Findings
An optimal volume of high-quality responses on the 30-image online Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) (mean $R = 65.00$, exceeding the clinical benchmark of 62) demonstrates strong imaginative capacity, high productivity, and superior functioning intelligence. It further reflects active environmental engagement and constructive interaction with peers:
- Movement ($M = 9.50$), Human ($H = 23.00$), and Most Typical ($MT = 14.52$) Triad: A high number of Movement responses paired with elevated Human and Most Typical responses is clinically associated with creative foresight, functional intelligence, and warm interpersonal relationships. Specifically, individuals generating 14 or more $MT$ responses form exceptionally cohesive teams—they can persuade peers effectively while remaining receptive to collective consensus.
- Animal Responses ($A = 10.00$, 15.38%): A moderate-to-low proportion of Animal responses indicates mature control over raw emotional expression while providing a healthy, socially acceptable outlet for competitive drive. Low-to-moderate Animal percentages are consistently observed among intellectually superior subjects and effective team builders.
- Anatomical Responses ($At = 9.50$, 14.61%): Reflects normal somatic awareness and resilience; executives manage routine physical aches or occupational fatigue as a normal part of life without hypochondriacal preoccupation.
- Erotic / Sex Responses ($Sex = 2.70$, 4.15%): Normal clinical protocols average fewer than 4 erotic responses. The cohort mean of 2.70 confirms healthy impulse control and adherence to social norms.
- Pathological Responses ($0.19$) & Image Rejection ($pprox 0$): Near-zero pathology and virtually zero image rejection confirm that the executive cadre possesses highly desirable, resilient personality traits.
Discussion: Public Sector vs. Private Sector Executive Benchmarks
The findings of this study illuminate the characteristic cognitive preferences of Indian industrial executives. While the ESTJ (“Administrator”) profile represents roughly 13% of the global population, it accounts for 51% in this public sector enterprise. In an earlier benchmark investigation, Dubey, Agrawal, and Palia (2001) administered the MBTI and Somatic Inkblot Test to 90 executives of a private sector telephone cables manufacturing company (tested in groups of 10). Comparing the two cohorts reveals striking structural parallels alongside sector-specific adaptations:
| Psychometric Dimension | Public Sector Marketing (N = 236, Present Study — SIT30 & MBTI) | Private Sector Manufacturing (N = 90, Dubey et al., 2001) |
|---|---|---|
| Dominant MBTI Profile | ESTJ: 51.3% (121 executives) | ESTJ: 60.0% (54 executives) |
| Second Prominent Profile | ESFJ: 18.6% (“Seller” — Marketing Fit) | ISTJ: 13.0% (Technical Operations Fit) |
| Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I) | E: 76.7% / I: 23.3% | E: 78.0% / I: 20.0% |
| Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N) | S: 94.5% / N: 5.5% | S: 80.0% / N: 18.0% |
| Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F) | T: 69.5% / F: 30.5% | T: 86.0% / F: 12.0% |
| Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P) | J: 96.6% / P: 3.4% | J: 96.0% / P: 2.0% |
In the private sector cohort (headed by an INTJ CEO), 86% belonged to the Thinking group and 80% to Sensing. In the present public sector marketing cohort, the emergence of ESFJ (19%) as the second largest group—known as natural relationship builders and “sellers”—represents an ideal alignment with marketing and dealer-network responsibilities.
Similarly, the Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) profile in the present public sector study as well as the earlier private sector study (Dubey et al., 2001) confirmed strong ego strength, healthy interpersonal relationships, balanced erotic perception, controlled hostility and aggression, high team-building orientation, and firm contact with reality. Overall, the executive cohort demonstrated a remarkably healthy personality profile, with only two individual cases in the present sample exhibiting interpersonal or ego-strength disturbances that required targeted clinical counseling.
HRD Training & Personal Counseling Outcome (3-Month Follow-Up)
All 236 participants completed a structured two-day HRD training program emphasizing Organizational Culture, Vision, Mission & Objectives, Effective Communication, Team Building, and Stress Management. In addition, confidential one-on-one counseling was provided to nearly 50% of the executives who were experiencing pressure around sales targets, occupational stress, or personal challenges. Follow-up evaluation three months after the intervention documented marked positive improvements in both individual stress resilience and collaborative team performance.
Conclusion
Integrating the MBTI, Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices, and the 30-image online Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) provided executives with both conscious and unconscious self-knowledge. The MBTI helped participants recognize their dominant and auxiliary preferences, leadership style, preferred work environment, and actionable strategies to overcome potential blind spots. The Somatic Inkblot Test (SIT30) illuminated their core ego strength, interpersonal warmth, emotional regulation, and team-building readiness. Paired with targeted two-day HRD training and confidential personal counseling, the intervention empowered executives to achieve ambitious organizational targets while effectively managing occupational stress.
Related Works by Prof. B. L. Dubey & Anand Dubey
The Hitchhiker's Guide to Inkblots
Rorschach, Holtzman, and Somatic Inkblot Series (SIT30 / SIS), corporate assessment, and 25-Case Clinical Atlas.
Timeless Leadership
Navigating modern organizational complexities with Rājadharma, Nishkama Karma, and high-trust team architecture.
SomaticInkblots.com (SIT30) ↗
Explore the 40-year archive of the Somatic Inkblot Series, Journal of Projective Psychology, and SIT30 online diagnostics.
References
- Cassell, W. A., & Dubey, B. L. (1998). Application of Somatic Inkblot Series in Personality Assessment, Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 5, 3–32.
- Cassell, W. A., & Dubey, B. L. (2003). Interpreting Inner World through Somatic Imagery: Manual of Somatic Inkblot Series. SIS Center, Anchorage, USA (www.somaticinkblots.com).
- Compagnoni, N., & Dubey, B. L. (2020). Somatic Imagery Test (SIT) as a Measure of Trauma Resolution in a Case of Abortion. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 27(2), 105–111.
- Dubey, B. L. (2020). Advances in Projective Psychology: Techniques and Applications (Presidential Address). SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 27(2), 68–70.
- Dubey, B. L., Agrawal, A., & Palia, R. S. (2001). Personality Profile and HRD Intervention in a Telephone Cables Company. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 8, 127–134.
- Dubey, B. L., & Dubey, Anand (2012). Application of SIS in Business Organization. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 19, 43–47.
- Dubey, B. L., & Dubey, Anand (2018). Manual of Somatic Imagery Test. Dubay Healing Center, 7490 Coon Club Road, Medina, OH 44256 (USA).
- Dubey, B. L., & Dubey, Anand (2021). Manual of Somatic Imagery Test. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 28(2), 83–112.
- Dubey, B. L., Banerjee, P., & Dubey, Anand (2019). Inkblot Personality Test: Understanding the Unconscious Mind. SAGE Publications, New Delhi.
- Dubey, B. L., & Cassell, W. A. (1993). Some Experiences with Somatic Inkblot Series. British Journal of Projective Psychology, 38(1), 19–41.
- Dubey, B. L., Cassell, W. A., Manickam, L. S. S., & Singh, A. R. (2005). Efficacy of Somatic Inkblot Test in Personality Assessment, Diagnostic Evaluation and Therapeutic Intervention. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 10–23.
- Dubey, B. L., Kumar, R., & Dubey, Anand (2018). Somatic Inkblot Series and the Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health: Inception to Silver Jubilee. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 25(1), 5–34.
- Graham, W. K. (1991). Reciprocal influence and group dynamics in organizational teams. Organizational Behavior Reference Series.
- Manickam, L. S. S., & Dubey, B. L. (2021). PTSD and ‘Unfinished Business’: Can SIS Images Lead to Re-experiencing and Gestalt Closure? SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 28(1), 58–62.
- Mishra, P., Pandey, M. K., & Kumar, K. (2020). Utility of SIS-II in Identifying the Therapeutic Change in Pathological Internet Use. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 27(1), 43–49.
- Singh, S., & Dubey, Anand (2021). Somatic Imagery Test as a Tool for Assessment of Hostility and Aggression: Case Analyses. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 28(1), 53–57.
- Singh, S., & Dubey, B. L. (2022). Intervention Using Somatic Inkblot Test in Sexual Deviance — A Case Study. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 29(1), 51–56.
- Singh, S., & Dwivedi, S. (2020). Sensitivity of SIS-II Scoring System in Detecting Specific Delusion in Patients with Schizophrenia: Preliminary Observations. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 27(2), 116–119.