Research & practice
The most common personality profiles and the rarest
Which combinations occur most often in 2,705 Big Five 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. You can recognise yourself, compare yourself with others, and give the pattern a name. The Big Five does not work with fixed types, however. It gives you five scores on continuous dimensions.
Combinations can still teach us something, as long as we do not mistake them for boxes. For this analysis, I reviewed 2,705 complete Big Five profiles from Personal User Guide. I calculated the median for each dimension. A plus means a profile scores at or above that population median; a minus means it scores below.
This creates 32 possible combinations. I only report combinations with at least fifty profiles. The result is an immediate warning against type thinking: even the largest combination represents only 5% of the population.
How to read the codes
The five letters mean:
- O, openness: interest in new ideas, variety, and imagination.
- C, conscientiousness: preference for structure, planning, and completion.
- E, extraversion: orientation towards stimulation, pace, and social contact.
- A, agreeableness: orientation towards harmony and other people.
- N, emotional sensitivity: sensitivity to stress, uncertainty, and negative emotions.
The median values in this dataset are 3.47 for openness, 3.47 for conscientiousness, 3.30 for extraversion, 3.45 for agreeableness, and 2.53 for emotional sensitivity.
A code such as O+ C+ E− A+ N+ therefore means scores at or above the median for openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional sensitivity, with extraversion below the median. It does not mean universally high or low. It is a relative position within this population.
The two largest combinations are one letter apart
| Combination | Number | Share |
|---|---|---|
| O− C+ E− A+ N+ | 126 | 5% |
| O+ C+ E− A+ N+ | 125 | 5% |
| O+ C+ E+ A− N− | 122 | 5% |
| O+ C+ E+ A+ N− | 119 | 4% |
| O+ C− E+ A+ N+ | 114 | 4% |
The two largest combinations sit very close together, with 126 and 125 profiles, both 5% after rounding. They match on four dimensions: conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional sensitivity sit at or above the median, while extraversion sits below it. Only openness differs.
That single letter matters. Someone with O+ may gain energy from a new idea, an experimental method, or an unfamiliar route. Someone with O− may prefer something proven, concrete, and recognisable. Both can be conscientious, considerate, less drawn to a busy social pace, and relatively sensitive to tension. Yet they may respond very differently to change.
Suppose a team introduces a new process. The O+ variation may first ask what opportunities it creates. The O− variation may want to know what is wrong with the existing process and what exact problem will be solved. These are not predictions for every individual. They are useful questions to derive from the combination.
The third combination looks very different
O+ C+ E+ A− N− appears 122 times, also 5% after rounding. Openness, conscientiousness, and extraversion are at or above the median, while agreeableness and emotional sensitivity are below.
In collaboration, this may look like someone who explores new possibilities, creates momentum, participates visibly, and adds structure, while being less likely to follow consensus automatically. Lower emotional sensitivity can support steadiness under pressure. Lower agreeableness can make it easier to ask uncomfortable questions.
The risk is that pace and directness may land harshly with others. 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 or alignment?”
Even the most common profile is rare
This is the most important finding. The largest combination covers 126 out of 2,705 profiles, which is 5%. In other words, 95% have a different combination from the leader.
Statements about what most people are like become difficult to defend. Individual dimensions have visible centres of gravity, but combining five dimensions spreads the population across many patterns. The top ten runs from 94 to 126 profiles, and each combination represents only 3% to 5%.
The chart uses rounded percentages. Its purpose is to show proportion, not create a new type ranking. The overwhelming majority sits outside the top three.
Which combinations are rarest?
Among combinations that meet the threshold of fifty, these are the five smallest:
| Combination | Number | Share |
|---|---|---|
| O− C− E+ A+ N− | 52 | 2% |
| O+ C− E− A+ N− | 53 | 2% |
| O− C+ E+ A− N+ | 60 | 2% |
| O+ C− E− A− N− | 60 | 2% |
| O+ C+ E− A− N− | 60 | 2% |
Rare means only less frequent in this dataset. It says nothing about value, health, or suitability. The smallest reported combination appears 52 times and the next one 53 times, both 2% after rounding.
The smallest, O− C− E+ A+ N−, places extraversion and agreeableness at or above the median, with openness, conscientiousness, and emotional sensitivity below. That might produce a socially active and people-oriented style that is also pragmatic and loose in structure.
The next one, O+ C− E− A+ N−, combines openness and agreeableness at or above the median with conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional sensitivity below it. As a working hypothesis, this could describe someone receptive to ideas and considerate of others, but with less need for a strict plan or busy social rhythm.
Every code still contains wide variation. A score just above the median and one far above it receive the same plus. 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 introverted” can stop a conversation. A manager may decide that a certain type does not fit a role, while the underlying scores are far more nuanced.
The Big Five encourages a better question. Not, “Which box are you?” but, “On which dimension do we differ, when do we notice it, and what agreement would help?”
The two largest combinations match on four signs and differ on one. A type name might emphasise their similarity. During organisational change, the openness difference may be the most relevant fact. In a planning conflict, conscientiousness may matter more. At a noisy team day, extraversion could be decisive.
Turn a combination into a useful manual
Do not start your guide with the code. 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. For example:
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.
This is how an abstract profile becomes practical. Read how it works to see how Personal User Guide turns scores into useful collaboration language.
What we deliberately do not conclude
These profiles are not a representative sample of every employee or country. They belong to people who completed a Personal User Guide profile. 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. Designing collaboration for one assumed standard type means designing for almost nobody.
Read next
Read what the averages and variation in 2,705 profiles reveal about collaboration. To turn profile codes into practical agreements, use the guide to writing a personal user manual with examples.
Comments
No comments yet. Share the first one.