Effects of Personality Type Tools and Problem-Solving Methods on Engineering Company Project Success

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research question is relevant, and exploring the intersection of personality assessment tools and problem‑solving methods could fill an important gap in project management literature. However, the current design has serious methodological limitations that must be addressed.

Foremost, the study relies on an extremely small, non-random sample of 28 respondents from a single department within one company. Correlation coefficients and p-values derived from such small samples are highly unstable; they cannot be generalized to the wider population of engineering project managers. Even statistically significant associations may be spurious when the sample is this small. To make reliable inferences, the sample must be expanded across multiple departments and organizations, or the methodology should shift toward qualitative approaches (e.g., in‑depth interviews, case studies) that are better suited to small samples.

Second, the choice of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as the primary personality instrument requires much stronger justification. The MBTI has been widely criticized in the psychological literature for poor reliability and validity. Many researchers argue that the dichotomous types are not independent and that the instrument does not predict job performance or satisfaction. In its current form, the manuscript does not acknowledge these critiques nor provide a rigorous defence of why MBTI profiles should be expected to influence project outcomes. If the authors believe that Jungian type theory offers valuable insights for team composition, they should ground their argument in the primary literature on analytical psychology and discuss how Jung’s constructs translate into measurable differences in project performance. Alternatively, incorporating more scientifically validated personality models, such as the Big Five, would strengthen the study.

Third, the study would benefit from a deeper integration of theory and method. The survey uses Likert scales and Spearman correlations, but there is little discussion of how these numerical associations relate to the underlying psychological constructs or to practical decisions in project management. With such a small sample, triangulating quantitative findings with qualitative narratives could provide richer and more meaningful insights. Expanding the survey to include behavioural measures of project success, or following up with interviews to explore why certain personality combinations work better, would greatly enhance the contribution.

The topic is promising and could address a genuine research gap, but the current manuscript does not support strong conclusions. A substantially larger and more diverse sample, acknowledgment of the contested nature of the MBTI, and a more robust methodological approach (possibly incorporating qualitative data) are needed to strengthen the validity and utility of the findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please clearly highlight the novelty of the study and present quantitative results in the abstract. A detailed description of the research methodology should also be provided.

Authors are requested to expand on the literature review and provide a clear rationale for conducting prior research. The same applies to the analysis method – the article lacks a discussion of personality analysis. We request a more advanced analysis, an analysis of the analytical method, and a comparison with cosmetic products.

- The research gap is not clearly identified through reference. Authors should also clearly distinguish the novelty of the study from its purpose.

Authors are requested to provide a detailed description of the survey procedure, including: detailed question wording, information on whether the questions are open-ended or closed-ended, a detailed pilot study, whether the participants were trained in this method, how they were selected, how their experience was verified, how long the data were measured, whether the design was cross-sectional or cross-sectional, or executable, and the response method (i.e., how many people were responsible for the information contained in the survey). The survey tool can remain as the final device.

Authors should include tables with numerical correlation values ​​and detailed information about them, the specific statistical analysis software used, and the significance level (α) used.

Can other issues related to psychological theory be considered?

The authors request justification for why not all 16 MBTI characteristics are included.

- The authors caution whether the results modify or expand the scope of knowledge.

- The publication will be linked to a detailed summary and a highlight of the research in the final section of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The sample is small and from a single environment. The population/sample is very small (target N 29; responses 28) and non-probabilistic (purposive method), within a single organisation and department, which limits generalisation. I suggest strengthening the limitations section and discussing selection biases and sample homogeneity, as well as what conditions should be met to replicate the study in other contexts (e.g., other sectors/countries).

Detail the questionnaire construction process (content validity, item examples, latent variable maps). Expand on the justification for using Spearman (assumptions, exploration of non-linearity) and cluster analysis (criteria for number of groups, robustness). Report a posteriori power analysis for the principal correlations.

The ‘triple constraint’ (time, cost, scope) is adopted, but alignment with sustainable development projects may require expanded metrics (e.g., stakeholder benefits, environmental/social impacts, durability). I propose motivating the choice of metrics and discussing how to incorporate sustainability indicators into future work.

From section 3 of ‘Results and discussion’ you jump to section 5 of conclusions.

To separate decimals from percentages in all tables and graphs, a comma is used instead of a full stop. This must be corrected throughout the entire paper.

Better transitions between sections (there are currently repetitions of the approach).

Consistent numbering and labelling of tables/figures, with reading notes and abbreviated variables defined in the footnotes.

In ‘Objective 2,’ the text asserts significant relationships, but Table 6 itself shows several non-significant associations; it also mixes forward-looking statements (e.g., ‘a shift towards Six Sigma is anticipated’) with descriptive data. I suggest separating results (what the data show) from speculation or recommendations and clearly labelling each.

Several interpretations are plausible (e.g., preference for ESTJ/ENTJ profiles for PM and ESTJ/INTJ/ENTJ/ISTJ in teams; difficulty in isolating the ‘significance’ of resolution methods due to lack of background). I propose translating these observations into decision guidelines (when to use MBTI vs. a combination of tools; choice of 8D, PDCA, DMAIC depending on the type of problem), with examples and limits of applicability.

Numerous bivariate correlations are reported in ‘Results and discussion’; only some of which are significant (e.g., ‘Five Whys make root cause definition’, ρ≈0.53, p=0.007; ‘Problem-solving benefits...’, ρ≈0.57, p=0.002), while others are not (p>0.05).

It states ‘IRB: not applicable’ and ‘informed consent obtained’. Given that employees were surveyed, it would be advisable to add the basis for considering that institutional ethical review does not apply, or reference to a committee that granted exemption; how anonymity/confidentiality and absence of coercion were ensured.

The first-time reference 30 is mentioned in the text is in the conclusions section, which does not make sense; it should be included earlier in the paper.

The list of References includes outdated or generic sources and several references to reports/sources/theses of your own; it would be advisable to strengthen it with recent, specific peer-reviewed literature on personality and performance of teams/projects outside of software; criticism/validity of MBTI and alternatives; sustainable project management. In addition, verify that the metadata (years/DOIs) are consistent (e.g., ref. 29 presents an apparent inconsistency between year and DOI). More references should be included.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is understandable, but needs polishing to improve fluency, grammar, and technical terminology (inconsistencies such as ‘man ager's’, agreement, use of commas/decimal points, capitalisation of method/figure names, and consistency of verb tenses). I suggest a professional or native review focused on unifying style (e.g., “project success” vs. “projects” success'); correcting word separations and typos and simplifying very long sentences and avoiding redundancies between sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant and underexplored — linking personality assessment tools (MBTI, DISC, etc.) and problem-solving methods (PDCA, Six Sigma, 8D, etc.) to project success in engineering organizations. However, the research novelty is modest. Similar correlations between MBTI and project success have been examined previously (e.g. Cohen et al. 2013; Xia et al. 2017; Latief et al. 2012), and the study’s contribution is largely contextual (Danish engineering firm) rather than conceptual. The originality would be strengthened by articulating what gap this paper fills beyond confirming known associations.

The literature review is comprehensive but descriptive. It cites standard MBTI and problem-solving literature but lacks critical integration. Many references are summarized sequentially rather than synthesized to build a conceptual argument. The overlap between MBTI-based team formation and root-cause problem-solving frameworks is not explored theoretically. “Sustainability projects” are referenced, but there is no link between sustainability theory and personality/problem-solving dimensions.

Deepen the conceptual linkage between soft-skill theory, problem-solving competence (Li et al. 2011), and project outcomes. Discuss conflicting findings (e.g., personality diversity vs. homogeneity debates). Clarify how sustainable development context moderates the relationships. The quantitative correlational design using a small sample (n = 28) from a single company is explained clearly, but methodological robustness is weak for generalization. Include factor analysis to confirm construct validity. Consider multivariate models or mixed-methods triangulation (e.g., interviews from the six volunteers). Provide the questionnaire instrument as an appendix.

Results are presented systematically with supporting tables, but interpretation tends toward confirmation bias: The discussion repeatedly restates that MBTI and PDCA/8D/Six Sigma “lead to project success” without explaining why. Statistical outputs (e.g., correlation = 0.283) are described as meaningful though practically weak.

The narrative confuses statistical significance with causal inference. Visuals (correlograms, dendrograms) are useful but under-explained. Figures 1–3 lack detailed captions and axes labels, reducing interpretability. Focus on key significant correlations and interpret cautiously within organizational behavior theory (e.g., cognitive fit, learning orientation). Future work suggestions are valid (larger, non-homogeneous sample; inclusion of matrix organization effects), but they should be framed within a broader theoretical model (e.g., Resource-Based View or Dynamic Capabilities).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is grammatically adequate but not at the standard of an international journal. Frequent redundancy and awkward phrasing reduce clarity. Academic tone should be more concise and analytical.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all comments made by the reviewer, which is greatly appreciated given the time and effort involved. However, in its current form, it does not meet the required level of sustainability. Acceptability should be conditional upon authors integrating sustainability metrics and frameworks beyond the triple constraint of the project, with practical implications aligned with ESG and recent specific literature. Single, small sample in a single organisation, without probabilistic sampling. Request that limitations be specified and that effect sizes, confidence intervals and multiplicity correction be included; ideally, submit the new version to a brief statistical review. The questionnaire used should be attached, with the data anonymised.

Explain precisely how the findings contribute to organisational sustainability and ESG objectives. Link the results to environmental, social and economic impacts beyond the triple constraint of the project. Add practical implications geared towards decision-making in sustainability contexts. Strengthen the fit with recent, specific literature on sustainable project management, team performance, and the validity of personality instruments. Summarise the state of the art in a clear map of constructs, expected relationships, and gaps that your study addresses. Avoid repetition between the introduction and theoretical framework.

Present the hypotheses in numbered form, with their expected direction and the theoretical reasoning behind them. Define all variables and scales in an operationalisation table with examples of items and references to validity and reliability. Justify the sampling procedure, organisational context, and sample size. Discuss selection biases, sample homogeneity, and limitations for generalisation. Suggest conditions for replication in other sectors and countries.

Include sensitivity tests, alternative analyses, and assumption checks. Consider subgroup analyses or hierarchical models if there is a team or project structure. Report diagnoses and treatment decisions for missing values.

Define the use and limitations of the chosen personality tool. Include critical references and alternatives. Clarify the selection and context of application of 8D, PDCA, DMAIC or others, with practical criteria for their selection according to the type of problem. Translate findings into operational guidelines for project managers and PMOs. Propose checklists or decision frameworks that integrate team profiles, resolution methods, and sustainability goals. Include application scenarios and usage limits.

Expand on the justification for why formal ethical review was not required or, where applicable, indicate the exemption granted. Describe how the anonymity, confidentiality, and voluntariness of participants were ensured. Authors should indicate whether the questionnaire, anonymised data, and analysis code can be hosted in a repository. This would facilitate verification and broaden the impact of the study.

Transitions between sections should be improved and redundancies avoided. It would be advisable to add a section on limitations and future lines of research that explicitly connects with the sustainability agenda.

Update and balance the bibliographic repertoire with peer-reviewed articles from the last five years relevant to the topic. Verify metadata, style consistency, and DOI completeness. Reduce non-academic or tangential citations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have revised and improved the English quality of the manuscript, but the article still requires professional editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing my comments. Please try to break down the longer sentences for readability. The tone is syntax is switching a lot which creates grammatical ambiguity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is grammatically adequate but not at the standard of an international journal. Frequent redundancy and awkward phrasing reduce clarity. Academic tone should be more concise and analytical.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx