Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to use descriptive research and identify California public library director personality types, their preferred approaches to planning, their self-assessment of their planning effectiveness, what planning approach is most attractive to each personality type, whether the descriptions of planning approaches given by Nutt and attributed to certain pair preferences are correct, and what self-evaluation ratings are most attractive to each type. Methodology. The random sample consisted of 118 from the population of 168 California public library directors identified by the California State Library. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was used to identify personality types. A supplemental questionnaire identified self-assessment of planning expertise and preferred approach to planning from among four described by Paul C. Nutt. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data which were presented on Selection Ratio Type Tables. Findings and conclusions. This study found that public library directors are 17 percent each ISTJ and ENTJ, and they prefer Thinking (T) at 72 percent over Feeling (F) and Judging (J) at 69 percent over Perceiving (P). Their preferred approach to planning is a step-by-step process that isolates need and couples it with financing. Eighty percent evaluate their planning above average. ENTJ selected "meeting people's needs should direct planning" as their preferred approach. The descriptions of planning approaches given by Paul C. Nutt and attributed to specific pair preferences was not supported by the findings. ENTJ is heavily represented among those who give themselves an excellent evaluation on planning. Recommendations. Use the findings to encourage stakeholder participation in planning, realizing that flexibility will be required because the directors have different preferences and personality types than their staff and the general public. Refine the planning descriptions given by Nutt and determine if the preferred planning approach was selected because of current fiscal difficulties. Compare self-evaluation of planning effectiveness with actual effectiveness.