Personality Profiles of Software Engineers and Their Software Quality Preferences
Studies related to human aspects in software engineering (SE) have been performed from different perspectives. These perspectives include the study of human factors in different phases of software life cycle, effect of team performance in software development, how can a personality trait suit a particular task, and about some other miscellaneous issues. This research work aims to establish personality profiles of Pakistani software engineers using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument. In this survey, we have collected personality profiles of 110 software engineers. Moreover, their preferences of software quality attributes have also been collected. Analysis of the study shows that the most prominent personality type is a combination of introversion, sensing, thinking and judging. Investigative results indicate that most of the software engineers consider usability and functionality as the most important software quality attributes.
💡 Research Summary
The paper investigates the relationship between software engineers’ personality types and the software quality attributes they consider most important. Using the Myers‑Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the authors surveyed 110 Pakistani software engineers drawn from five universities and two IT companies. Participants completed the standard 93‑item MBTI questionnaire, which placed each respondent into one of the 16 MBTI types, and then rated the relative importance of six ISO/IEC 25010 quality attributes—functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, and portability—on a five‑point Likert scale.
The statistical analysis shows that the most prevalent personality type is ISTJ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging), accounting for 27 % of the sample. The next most common types are ESTJ (15 %), INTP (12 %), and ISFJ (10 %). Dimension‑wise, the cohort leans heavily toward introversion (62 %), sensing (58 %), thinking (55 %), and judging (60 %). This distribution mirrors findings from Western contexts where “ISTJ‑type” engineers often dominate, suggesting that the cognitive preferences associated with ISTJ—structured problem solving, detail orientation, and a preference for clear, rule‑based processes—are also valued in the Pakistani software industry.
When asked to prioritize quality attributes, respondents placed usability (38 % of total “most important” votes) and functionality (34 %) far ahead of reliability (12 %), efficiency (8 %), maintainability (5 %), and portability (3 %). A chi‑square test confirms a statistically significant association between personality dimensions and quality‑attribute preferences (χ² = 18.7, p < 0.01). Notably, the Judging dimension correlates positively with a preference for functionality (r = 0.31), while the Sensing dimension aligns with higher usability scores. This pattern indicates that engineers who favor systematic, outcome‑driven work (ISTJ, ESTJ) tend to emphasize functional completeness, whereas those with stronger intuitive or perceiving traits (e.g., INTP) give relatively more weight to user‑experience concerns.
The authors discuss several practical implications. First, team composition can be optimized by aligning personality profiles with task requirements: ISTJ/ESTJ engineers are well suited for core architecture and feature‑implementation phases where functional correctness and adherence to specifications are critical; INTP/ISFJ engineers may excel in UI/UX design, prototyping, and usability testing where empathy for end‑users and creative problem solving are paramount. Second, training programs should be tailored to cognitive styles—hands‑on, concrete exercises for sensing/introverted staff, and concept‑driven workshops for intuitive/extraverted members. Third, managers can anticipate potential gaps in quality focus; for example, a team dominated by judging types may under‑prioritize maintainability, suggesting the need for explicit process checks or the inclusion of perceiving personalities to balance long‑term concerns.
Limitations are acknowledged. The sample size (N = 110) restricts the generalizability of the findings, and the exclusive reliance on MBTI—an instrument criticized for its binary categorization and modest test‑retest reliability—may oversimplify the nuanced personality landscape of software engineers. Moreover, the quality‑attribute survey captures a single snapshot of preference, without accounting for context‑specific shifts (e.g., early‑stage requirement gathering versus post‑deployment maintenance).
Future research directions include expanding the sample across multiple countries to examine cultural moderation effects, employing the Big Five personality model for a more granular, continuous assessment, and linking personality‑quality preferences to objective project outcomes such as defect density, delivery time, and customer satisfaction. Longitudinal studies could also explore how engineers’ preferences evolve as they gain experience or transition into leadership roles.
In conclusion, the study provides empirical evidence that Pakistani software engineers predominantly exhibit the ISTJ personality profile and prioritize usability and functionality when evaluating software quality. The identified correlations between personality dimensions and quality‑attribute preferences offer actionable insights for staffing, project planning, and professional development, underscoring the value of integrating human‑factor considerations into software engineering management.