The most common personality profiles and the rarest
Which combinations of recognisable anchor words occur most often in 2,705 profiles? A privacy-safe analysis that does not reduce people to fixed types.
By Gijs HeerkensUpdated People regularly ask me which personality type is most common. The question is understandable. A type feels manageable. Yet a profile does not reduce a person to one fixed type. Two people can resemble each other in four preferences and have a very different collaboration experience in the fifth.
Combinations can still teach us something. For this analysis, I reviewed 2,705 complete Personal User Guide profiles. For each word row, I divided the population into two equal halves and noted which outer anchor each person leans towards within this group.
This creates 32 possible combinations. I only report combinations with at least fifty profiles. Even the largest combination represents only 5% of the population.
How to read the anchor words
| One direction | Middle | Other direction |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional | Curious | Progressive |
| Flexible | Methodical | Focused |
| Quiet | Merry | Dominant |
| Competitive | Reasonable | Compassionate |
| Undisturbable | Relaxed | Sensitive |
This analysis uses only the two outer anchors in each row. “Towards progressive” means that someone falls on that side of the population centre. It is not an absolute judgement and not necessarily the word shown in their personal guide.
The two largest combinations differ by one anchor
| Anchor combination | Number | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional · focused · quiet · compassionate · sensitive | 126 | 5% |
| Progressive · focused · quiet · compassionate · sensitive | 125 | 5% |
| Progressive · focused · dominant · competitive · undisturbable | 122 | 5% |
| Progressive · focused · dominant · compassionate · undisturbable | 119 | 4% |
| Progressive · flexible · dominant · compassionate · sensitive | 114 | 4% |
The two largest combinations sit very close together, with 126 and 125 profiles. They share focused, quiet, compassionate, and sensitive. Only the first word row differs.
That difference may become visible during change. A progressive colleague may first ask which opportunities a new method creates. A conventional colleague may ask what is wrong with the existing method and which concrete problem will be solved. These are not predictions for every person. They are useful questions.
Number three brings a different rhythm
The third combination appears 122 times: progressive, focused, dominant, competitive, and undisturbable.
This may look like someone who explores possibilities, creates momentum, participates visibly, adds structure, and asks uncomfortable questions. Being undisturbable can help them stay on course under pressure.
The risk is that pace and directness land harshly. The useful question is not, “Am I this type?” It is, “What should others know about my pace and directness, and how will I notice when they need more time?”
Even the largest combination is rare
The largest combination covers 5% of the profiles. In other words, 95% have a different combination.
The chart uses rounded percentages. Its purpose is to show proportion, not create a new type ranking.
Which combinations are rarest?
| Anchor combination | Number | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional · flexible · dominant · compassionate · undisturbable | 52 | 2% |
| Progressive · flexible · quiet · compassionate · undisturbable | 53 | 2% |
| Conventional · focused · dominant · competitive · sensitive | 60 | 2% |
| Progressive · flexible · quiet · competitive · undisturbable | 60 | 2% |
| Progressive · focused · quiet · competitive · undisturbable | 60 | 2% |
Rare means only less frequent in this dataset. It says nothing about value, health, or suitability.
Two people can fall on the same side of the population centre and still differ considerably. Experience, skills, and context also shape behaviour.
Why fixed types are attractive
A type gives people language. The problem begins when that language replaces curiosity. “I am just a direct type” can become an excuse. “She is quiet” can stop a conversation.
The Big Five encourages a better question: on which word row do we differ, when do we notice it, and what agreement would help? During organisational change, conventional versus progressive may matter most. In a planning conflict, flexible versus focused may matter more. At a noisy team day, quiet versus dominant could be decisive.
Turn anchors into a useful manual
Start with situations in which others often misread you:
- Evaluating a new idea.
- Organising a deadline.
- Participating in meetings.
- Receiving feedback.
- Discussing tension.
For each situation, write what others can see, what it often means, and one concrete request:
When I ask many critical questions about a new plan, I am trying to make it workable. I am not automatically against it. Help me by making the goal, first step, and decision point explicit.
Read how it works to see how Personal User Guide turns anchor words into useful collaboration language.
What we deliberately do not conclude
These profiles are not a representative sample of every employee or country. The current data model has no reliable context variable for work, dating, family, or sport, and country is absent.
We therefore do not claim which profile is best for managers or which combination is happiest. What the data does show is that no combination forms the norm.
Read next
Read what the anchor distribution in 2,705 profiles reveals about collaboration. To turn the words into practical agreements, use the guide to writing a personal user manual with examples.
Comments
No comments yet. Share the first one.