shirley mortassagne pyschometeric report-1

iThemba:iThemba:iThemba:iThemba:

Training & Development and Counselling Services

PERTINENT INFORMATION

This report is confidential and may only be perused by individuals of authority who are directly involved in this appointment/promotion. The individual assessed may not receive a copy. Feedback is available to the individual and may only be provided, written or verbal, by myself. This evaluation should be considered as part of the total process and in relation to the relevant job competencies. The critical competencies, as provided by the client, serve as the basis for the choice of assessment tools. The author of this report does not accept responsibility or liability for the unauthorized use or divulgement of its contents.

NAME: Shirley Mortassagne POSITION: Executive Assistant

COMPANY: Paramount Industrial Holdings

CONTACT: Martie Baumgardt

PERSON DATE: 09 October 2015

P.O Box 66493,

WOODHILL, 0076

TEL: 012 998 0809

FAX: 012 998 0807

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Web:

www.ithembatdc.co.za

Confidential Evaluation Report

iThemba: Training & Development Confidential

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 2

GENERAL REASONING

Verbal Reasoning (V/R)

Numerical Reasoning (N/R)

Abstract Reasoning (A/R)

BRAIN PROFILE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 4

PERSONALITY PROFILE ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Primary Factors

Major Factors

Areas of Potential Concern (Behavioural)

Personality Report

Interpersonal Communication Model

Temperament Style

SUPERVISORY COMPETENCE (In-Tray Exercise) .............................................................................................. 15

a) Action Oriented Competencies

i) Initiative

ii) Decisiveness

b) Thinking Competencies

i) Analysis & Problem Solving

ii) Judgement

c) Supervisory Competencies

i) Planning/Organising and Prioritising

ii) Follow-up/Administrative Control

iii) Delegation

d) Interpersonal Competencies

i) Interpersonal Sensitivity

ii) Written Communication

iii) Customer Care

SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................................. 26

LEVELS OF STRATEGIC COMPLEXITY ....................................................................................................................... 28

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29

HOW TO BEST MANAGE THE CANDIDATE ............................................................................................................. 30

INTERVIEW PROMPTS REPORT .................................................................................................................................. 33

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................................ 36

a) Explanation of the 16 personality factors

b) Diagram indicating the relationships between the 16 factors

iThemba: Training & Development

2 | P a g e

1.0 COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT

a) GENERAL REASONING

i) VERBAL REASONING (VR)

This assessment measures the person’s ability to use words in a logical way. It

therefore assesses basic vocabulary, verbal fluency and the ability to reason using

words. While this is a measure of reasoning ability rather than educational

achievement, it is generally recognized that VR scores are sensitive to educational

factors.

Score obtained: 6/9 (Just above Average)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Interpretation:

Her performance on the Verbal Reasoning test places her slightly above the

“average” when compared to the reference group. Such a score suggests that her

verbal reasoning ability is as good as, or slightly better than, that of most people.

Consequently, she should generally be able to understand relatively complicated

instructions and explanations and should be able to use words in a fairly logical,

rational way. Although it may take her a little time to fully appreciate particularly

complex verbal concepts, she should nonetheless be able to explain most ideas with

a fair degree of clarity.

ii) NUMERICAL REASONING

This assessment measures the ability to use numbers in a logical, efficient way. This test

only requires a basic level of education in order to successfully complete and is

therefore measuring numerical ability rather than educational achievement.

Score obtained: 3/9 (Below Average)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Interpretation:

Her performance on the Numerical Reasoning Test places her in the ‘below average’

category when compared to the reference group. This suggests that she will not be

as proficient as most when working with numbers and may have a little difficulty fully

understanding complex numerical problems. Although she should be able to benefit

from further training in this area such instruction will need to be structured, focusing

upon specific skills rather than abstract concepts.


3 | P a g e

iii) ABSTRACT REASONING

This assessment measures the ability to understand abstract logical problems and use

new information outside the range of previous experience. Assessing the ability to

quickly understand and assimilate new information it is likely to predict how

responsive to training the person will be. This is the purest form of mental ability and is

least affected by previous education and achievement.

Score Obtained: 7/9 (Above Average)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Interpretation:

Sometimes, specific scores make larger contributions or detractions to managerial

positions. In regard to Problem Solving Ability here are areas to consider:

This candidate demonstrates an “above average” capacity to solve problems, learn

rapidly, and manage abstract concepts rather well. This score is based on a short

measure of verbal and abstract reasoning. You will want to verify this ability with other

sources of information (i.e. school grades, honour societies, graduate record scores,

etc.), but it is likely that she is able to perform quite well in learning situations. Her

score on the Abstract Reasoning Test is within the above average category

comparing to the reference group, indicating a high level of natural or fluid ability.

This should enable her to quickly grasp new and relatively complex concepts outside

of her previous experience. Learning quickly, she would be expected to put training

and instruction to good use.

This ability is particularly important for people in managerial positions who are in

charge of complex issues and need to learn quickly and to reason effectively. High

scores on the Problem Solving dimension are generally required to perform at higher

levels of work complexities.

Her critical thinking skills are strong, and in most circumstances, she is open to

alternatives and possibilities. In fact, she has a keen eye for observing details or

aspects of a situation that appear to be out of place or which may not fit with the rest

of the plan. As a result, she has a high drive for change and may become impatient

with others if they do not move as quickly to understand a concept or to act on a

situation. This high drive can be seen as an elevated sense of urgency.


4 | P a g e

2.0 BRAIN PROFILE ANALYSIS (Thinking Preferences – not Ability)

We all naturally tend to process information, solve problems and relate to others in a particular way, and such inclinations roughly corresponds to our four different quadrants of the brain. This is the first step to know how to engage a prospect, build trust and sell. The Whole brain model examines our natural thinking preferences rather than our abilities or personalities. It deciphers the lenses through which we see the world. By knowing our own filters we are able to determine how to best communicate with people who have the same filters, and more importantly, who have differing filters. Once we understand that good communication isn’t just about communication techniques, but also about people with whom we communicating, the door opens to better personal and client relationships, team work, creativity, problem solving and other aspects of personal and interpersonal development. The Whole Brain model is therefore an effective tool for understanding the differences between our preferences and that of our customers and colleagues. This tool therefore helps us to understand our own filters and to be able to determine our client’s filters. This will help build stronger and deeper relationships. And stronger client relationships mean growth.

b) BRAIN PROFILE ANALYSIS (Thinking Preferences)

L1: UPPER LEFT: A R1: UPPER RIGHT: D Facts Future

L2: LOWER LEFT: B R2: LOWER RIGHT: C Form Feelings

High

Average High

Average

High

Average

Strong


5 | P a g e

A brief summary of the different thinking processes relevant to each quadrant

General Preferences for L1 (Factual) (High Average)

General Preferences for R1 (Future) (High Average)

Accuracy Preciseness Exactness Focused approach Factual Reasoning Analytical thinking Objectivity Realism Critical Correct

Search for alternatives Prefers big picture Idea intuition Strategy instead of operational processes Combining of ideas Integration Risk Becomes bored quickly Diversity

Planning Must be practical Putting into action Organising Promptness Discipline Dedication Step-by-step approach Operational Tidiness

Feeling oriented Empathy Social Liaison People environment Interaction Touch Passion People communication Listening focus

General Preferences for L2 (Form) (High Average)

General Preferences for R2 (Feelings) (Strong)

Conclusion Her Brain Profile (L1) indicates that she has a high “average” preference for processes such as accuracy, preciseness, detail, exactness, factual reasoning, analytical thinking, and concrete information. This means that she will feel quite comfortable working in an environment where such processes are required. However, this does not mean she has developed the required skills to a similar degree.

Her (L2) score also indicates a high “average” preference for processes such as planning, organizing, step-by-step approach, being practical, dedication, procedures, routine, etc. As this is one of her dominant styles of interaction she will feel very comfortable working in an environment where these processes are required.

Same applies to her score on (R1) which also indicates a high “average” preference for strategic thinking activities, diversity thinking, the combining and integration of ideas into a single conclusion, etc. She will therefore feel comfortable taking moderate risks or experimenting with new ideas and concepts.

Her score on (R2) indicates a “strong” preference working and interacting with people. She will therefore feel quite comfortable interacting and communicating with people ongoingly.


6 | P a g e

3.0 PERSONALITY PROFILE

Introduction

Use of the report Please note: decision-making using 16PF-derived information should only be undertaken by a fully qualified trained 16PF user (psychologist/psychomotrist), who will interpret an individual's results using their professional judgment. The statements contained in any computer-generated report should be viewed as hypotheses to be validated against other sources of data such as interviews, biographical data, and other assessment results. All information in the report is confidential and should be treated responsibly. It is important to consider that:

• The results are based on the respondent's description of their own personality and behaviour, which may not necessarily reflect the way other people see them. The accuracy of the results is therefore dependent on the respondent's openness in answering the questionnaire and upon their level of self-awareness.

• The results are compared against those of a large group of people who have completed the questionnaire.

• The report describes the respondent's likely style, but has not measured skills or knowledge, and therefore it does not present firm conclusions about their ability.

• There are no absolute rights or wrongs in personality – each style has its advantages and disadvantages, although some temperaments may suit some activities, jobs or interests better than others.

• Results of psychometric questionnaires like this one enable a good prediction of how people will behave in a variety of situations.

The results of the questionnaire are generally valid for 12–18 months after completion, or less if individuals undergo major changes in their work or life circumstances. Interpreting mid-range scores A person's behaviour is the product of the interaction of their personality characteristics with specific situational opportunities and constraints. This interaction effect is likely to be particularly true of 16PF sten scores in the mid-range on the profile; that is, scores laying at or between stens 4 and 7, and especially those at stens 5 and 6. Therefore, interpretation of these scores can be one of the more challenging aspects when providing feedback. References to situational factors are used in the narrative of this report to remind the professional that interpretations of scores in the mid-range are especially likely to benefit from additional information gathered during the course of the feedback session.


7 | P a g e

3.1 PERSONALITY PROFILE

Primary Factors

Low Score Raw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

High Score

A

Distant Aloof:

Reserved, Distant,

Detached, Impersonal

8

Empathic: Outgoing

Affable, Participating,

Warm-hearted

A

B

Low Intellectance Lacking confidence in own

intellectual abilities

5

High Intellectance Confident in own

intellectual abilities

B

C

Affected by Feelings Emotional, Changeable,

Labile, Moody

7

Emotionally Stable Mature, Calm, Phlegmatic

C

E

Accommodating Passive, Mild, Humble,

Deferential

6

Dominant Assertive, Competitive,

Aggressive, Forceful

E

F

Sober Serious Restrained, Taciturn,

Cautious

5

Enthusiastic Lively, Cheerful, Happy-go-

Lucky, Carefree

F

G

Expedient Spontaneous, Disregarding

of rules & obligations

5

Conscientious Persevering, Dutiful, Detail

conscious

G

H

Retiring, Shy

Timid, Self-conscious,

hesitant in social settings

4

Socially-bold Venturesome, Talkative,

Socially confident

H

I

Hard-headed Utilitarian, Unsentimental,

Lacks aesthetic sensitivity

5

Tender-Minded Sensitive, Aesthetically

aware, Sentimental

I

L

Trusting Accepting, Unsuspecting,

Credulous, Tolerant

5

Suspicious Sceptical, Cynical,

Doubting, Critical

L

M

Concrete Solution-focused, Realistic,

Practical, Down-to-earth

5

Abstract Imaginative, Absent-

minded, Impractical

M

N

Direct Genuine Artless, Open,

Forthright, Straightforward

7

Restrained Shrewd Diplomatic Socially astute,

Socially aware, Discreet

N

O

Confident Placid Secure, Self-assured,

Unworried, Guilt-free

5

Self-doubting Worrying, Insecure,

Apprehensive

O

Q1

Conventional Traditional, Conservative,

Comforting

6

Radical Experimenting, Open to

change, Unconventional

Q1

Q2

Group-oriented Sociable, Group dependent,

a ‘joiner’

6

Self-Sufficient Solitary, Self-reliant,

Individualistic

Q2

Q3

Informal Undisciplined, Uncontrolled,

Lax, Follows own urges

10

Self-disciplined Compulsive, Fastidious,

Exacting willpower

Q3

Q4

Composed Relaxed, Placid, Patient

1

Tense-Driven Impatient, Low frustration

tolerance, Irritable

Q4

Low Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High Score


8 | P a g e

3.2 Major Factors

Sten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Depicting the target range defined by scores of successful leaders/managers) (Depicting the candidate’s scores)

Global Factors Definitions Contributing primary factors

Interpersonal Skills (Relating to others) Indicates the extent to which an individual’s time and energy are focused on interpersonal relationships, as opposed to seeking more time alone and working independently on tasks

A: Warmth F: Liveliness H: Social Boldness N: Social Awareness (-) Q2: Self-reliance (-)

Workplace Coping Skills (Management of Pressure) Indicates different styles of coping with pressure, disappointments, challenges, setbacks and other stressful circumstances

C: Emotional Stability (-) L: Vigilance O: Apprehension Q4: Tension

Tough-Mindedness (Thinking Style) Indicates the tendency to have an intuitive, creative thinking style, or a more objective, realistic way of thinking (practical)

A: Warmth (-) I: Sensitivity (-) M: Abstractedness (-) Q1: Openness to change (-)

Independence & Collaboration Indicates the extent to which an individual has a forceful, assertive and independent influence on their environment, or a more cooperative, collaborative style of functioning.

E: Dominance H: Social Boldness L: Vigilance Q1: Openness to change

Relating to Others

Management of

Pressure

Tough-

Mindedness

Influence &

Collaboration

Discretion

Structure &

Flexibility

5.3

2.9

5.7

5.4

6.8

7.4

Introverted

Low Anxiety

Receptive

Accommodating

Negative

Unrestrained

Extraversion

High Anxiety

Tough

Minded

Independent

Self-

Controlled

Positive


9 | P a g e

Discretion (Organisational Citizen’s Behaviour- OCB) Response to client; being helpful, creating Win/Win relationships; strongly positive. Creating client satisfaction.

A: Warmth N: Socially Awareness) H: Social Boldness E: Accommodating Q4: Composed

Self-control (Structure & Flexibility) Indicates the tendency for self-discipline and self-control, or adopting a more unrestrained, flexible approach

F: Liveliness (-) G: Rule-Consciousness M: Abstractedness (-) Q3: Perfectionism

(-) Indicate a negative relationship between the Global and Primary Factor.

3.3 AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (Behavioural)

This section is designed to help spot certain behaviours that could impact productivity

and bring into question someone's ability to perform ANY job. This profile yielded one

area of potential concern that need to be evaluated and understood before making

a decision. More than one area of concern is quite unusual in successful employees,

so these should be considered carefully, especially in light of the demands and

responsibilities of this particular job. There should be supportive material from other

sources (e.g., background investigation, second interviews, and reference checks) to

validate a positive hiring decision.

1. Factor Q4: (Score = 1) (Placid)

Composed, Relaxed, Placid, Patient

Low scorers tend to be relaxed and composed, dealing with

frustrations in a calm, steady, easy-going manner. They can work

under pressure without getting unduly ‘wound-up’ or tense. They

are unlikely to become short-tempered or irritable if things go

wrong. In general, they will be patient with friends and colleagues

and tolerant of interruptions. They do not easily lose their temper

and are not prone to angry out-bursts or fits of rage. They are not

easily frustrated by set-backs or failures and are rarely irritable or

short-tempered. Others may view them as lacking motivation or

drive, with them possibly appearing to be somewhat complacent

when things go wrong. In general, they will find it easy to relax and

unwind after a hard day and are unlikely to experience stress

related health problems.

Low scorers say:

They rarely raise their voice or shout. They can’t remember the last

time they got really angry. They rarely get impatient with slow or

indecisive people.


10 | P a g e

Career Theme Scales

Career-Themes are based on the work of Holland. These provide a match between the candidate’s personality profile and those of the broad occupational groups listed. The scores take no account of other important factors such as interests, aptitudes, qualifications and work experience.

Scale Raw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Enterprising

6.2

Artistic

3.0

Investigative

7.0

Social

5.8

Conventional

7.8

Realistic

7.0

Consistency Indexes

Scale Raw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Extraversion

85%

Anxiety

64%

Cortertia (Tough

Mindedness)

80%

Independence

95%


11 | P a g e

Performance Indexes

Scale Raw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Leadership

Potential

7.0

Creativity

4.3

Achievement

(academic)

7.7

3.4 PERSONALITY REPORT

Ego Development (Emotional Stability)

Shirley Mortassagne has a notably low degree of anxiety.

She also has sufficient ego strength and as such is stable and adjustable.

Consciously she feels remarkably relaxed and untroubled.

However, as her very low score on Factor Q4 is somewhat unusual the

Motivational Distortion Score should be checked for any possibility of

faking.

Interpersonal Relationships

In her relationship to other people she is "middle of the road" without being

either introverted or extraverted and as such can be expected to work on

her own or in group context with equal ease. Others will find her fairly

outgoing, participating and warm-hearted.

In her interaction with others she portrays a moderately high degree of

social sophistication with a well-developed insight into the motives of

others. In their association with her others will find her reasonably polished

and worldly.

Locus of Control

Concerning her general locus of control she is neither too dependent nor

too independent and can be expected to show initiative without clinging

to or being too dependent on others.

Value Orientation

In her general management of the world around her, she takes a well

balanced view of matters and considers both rational argument as well as

her feelings in handling problems. Her general value orientation indicates


12 | P a g e

that she is quite middle of the road without being conservative or liberal as

far as the general values of the society are concerned.

Superego (Internal Control)

Concerning her conscientiousness she has a moderately high level of

internal control to meet any set expectations and obligations.

Furthermore, she is exceptionally controlled and socially precise. There is a

strong compulsive element to her behaviour which forces her to stick to a

problem till it is solved.

The following problems can be expected in connection with her internal

control:

• a low degree of natural tension would probably have a negative

effect on her level of internal control

Vocational Orientation

Her general interest is reflected by the following:

She is rather commonplace without any strong leaning towards

unconventional ideas and artistic fancies, but who is not so "down to

earth" as to reject all such notions. This is supported by her emotional style

as she is rather intermediate without being tender- or being tough-

minded.

Her personality profile correlates with the following Holland Career Theme:

Conventional

Prefers:

• work with structure and order regulated by precise directives and

rules

• activities that gives her power and status

Avoids:

• all activity without definite structure (e.g. clear objectives)

• work involving change, either the circumstances or the work itself

Favourite activities:

• data processing and organizing information

• office practice and clerical activity

• organizing tasks according to prescribed plans

• well-established procedures and systems

Representative occupations:

• secretary, accountant, business teacher, clerk, data-processing

worker, financial advisor

Leadership Potential

Her general leadership potential may be summarized as follows:

A. General Potential.

She portrays a well-developed measure of leadership potential.


13 | P a g e

B. Decision Making.

As she is neither too dependent or independent she can be expected

to take the initiative to make decisions if there is not too much risk

involved and if the situation calls for it.

C. Skill in analysing the motives of others.

She has adequate natural interpersonal skills as well as sufficient

intellectual competence to understand others.

D. Capacity for close interpersonal association.

She has no problem to associate with others and as such will have no

difficulty to form close interpersonal relationships.

Intellectual Potential

Her general intellectual potential is reflected by the following:

She has a high measure of (academic) achievement potential but an

under-developed level of creative ability.

Certain aspects of the (Leary) Interpersonal Communication Model may

be predicted by using the Dominant-Submissive and Warm-Cold

dimensions.

According to this model Shirley Mortassagne will display the following

pattern of interactions:

This person is too much "middle of the road" on all scores to make any

particular interpretation of her interpersonal style of interaction. The

following should be noted:

• that if this is such a "genuine average person" then she does not

have any definite preferences of her own and can thus be

expected to be particularly susceptible to environmental

influences. In practical terms it would mean that her behaviour

would primarily be regulated by the demands of the situation or by

the requirements set by others.

Shirley Mortassagne is subject to the following personality and/or

interpersonal problems not mentioned in the Cattell report:

No additional problems found.


14 | P a g e

Interpersonal Communication Model 10 9 8 7 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 3 2 1 Temperament Style 10 9 8 7 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 3 2 1 Talkative, communicative carefree & buoyant

COMPETITIVE Pushy Over Controls Narcissistic

SELF-ASSURED Assertive Supportive Guiding

Suspicious Unconventional Indecisive

WITHDRAWN

Cooperative Friendly

Optimistic

EASY GOING

Dominant

Extro

verte

d

Submissive

People Oriented

Task Oriented

PHLEGMATIC

Reasonable High Principled

Controlled Persistent

Calm

SANGUINE Easy Going Playful Contented Carefree Sociable Hopeful

Anxious Worried Unhappy Suspicious Serious Thoughtful MELANCHOLIC

Histrionic

Hot Headed Exhibitionist

Egocentric Touchy

CHOLERIC

Extro

verte

d

Intro

verte

d

In

troverte

d


15 | P a g e

4.0 Supervisory Competence (In-Tray Exercise)

a) Action Oriented Competencies

i) Initiative Definition:

This position requires the person to originate ideas spontaneously without having to be asked to do so. Person must be able to put forward different solutions to problems, and exploit opportunities where possible, but is not required to be creative and original in his /her thinking on solutions to problems. Person must display reasonable level of proactive thinking in anticipating problems and identifying new opportunities, which will benefit own function. The person should generally be able to take action on problems before they arise.

Number of responses to “Initiative” issues (out of 8 possibilities): 4

Positive indicators the person should identify and implement.

Negative indicators arising had the person not demonstrated the behaviour

• Organizes a memo to be circulated to

staff informing them of Lesley’s absence and stand-in arrangements.

• Identifies another time slot to continue interview if required (item 1).

• Identify ways of sponsoring money to the Society for Handicapped Children.

• Finds out about history of complaints and sets direction in dealing with it.

• Asks for suggestions how problem could be resolved without upsetting Union and put plans in action.

• Asks that matters be investigated and proper solutions be implemented as a matter of urgency.

• Suggested various options to consider ensuring the delivery of goods are on time and make sure it happens.

• Asks that proper preparation be done for Moonsamy’s visit.

• Did not go beyond the call of duty (what an average supervisor would do) to address matters.

• Did not deal with items proactively to prevent similar problems from coming up again.

General comment on candidate performance

Compared to the norm group, the respondent’s demonstration of this competency in the in-tray exercise is acceptable. The respondent took sufficient actions that are fairly effective on the messages related to this competency.

Score Achieved for Initiative 3


16 | P a g e

ii) Decisiveness Definition: This position requires that the person make decisions that affect own tasks. Also, most of the time is required to make decisions which affect the tasks of others. There are various alternatives to decisions, but they are not always obvious. The person must not hesitate to take responsibility for decisions, and must display the ability to reach conclusions from given sources of data.

Number of responses to Decisiveness issues (out of 8 possibilities): 5



• Arrives at a single focused solution rather than multiple or prioritized solutions.

• Takes specific action for the late coming matter of an employee (item 1).

• Acknowledges the request from the National Society for Handicapped Children and takes definite action to address matter (item 2).

• Takes immediate action on customer complaints (item 3 & 4).

• Suggests definite action only after requesting further information on Business Development (item 5).

• Recognizes the importance of these items and the need for some clear action (items 6 & 7).

• Recognizes the significance of the moral problems in terms of its potential impact on sales (items 8 & 9).

• Decides to take definite action to ensure maximum benefit for Moonsamy’s visit (item 10).

• Seemed hesitant in making positive decisions.


Compared to the norm group, the respondent’s demonstration of this competency in the in-tray exercise is adequate. The respondent took sufficient actions that are effective on the messages related to this competency.

Score Achieved for Decisiveness 4


17 | P a g e

b) Thinking Competencies

i) Analysis and Problem solving

Definition:

The position requires the person to demonstrate the ability to analyse situations where clues and information are directed. The superior usually gives alternative causes but have to be developed further by the person. At times person must be able to develop own alternative causes of problems, by utilising appropriate questioning techniques to assimilate data, looking both at the broader picture and detail. Person must quickly understand the requirements of an instruction.

Number of responses to Analysis & Problem Solving (out of 14 possibilities): 9



• Identifies potential Diary clashes

• Identifies Lucky Dube as No 2 in the Store Organisation Chart.

• Checks to make sure company disciplinary procedure has been followed by asking Lucky Dube for the necessary background information.

• Checks whether the company has a policy (Grand-in-Aid) in place. Also if payment was made and what process was followed.

• Checks to see if contact with client was made.

• Early follow-up required as this is an “old” item

• Checks with Audrey Smit to see if the issue has been resolved.

• Needs to be related to item 3, hence the priority

• Report needs to be available for Sandile by Wednesday when Moonsamy arrives.

• Checks to see if an investigation has been done and whether a report has been drafted.

• Checks with Luck Dube the status of the Business Development initiative

• Request Audrey Smit what has been done as these are “old” items. Suggest appropriate action on Items 6, 7 & 8.

• Ask Lucky Dube on the status of the problem – suggesting a proper investigation with a recommended action plan.

• Checks with John Allen on the status of the problem and to investigate with a recommended action plan.

• Request all senior staff to draft a list of concerns to be discussed with Moonsamy.

• Did not request investigations on all critical matters that impacts on the company’s image, customer care and financial position.

• Did not request a plan of action to be compiled based on the outcome of various investigations.



Score Achieved for Analysis and Problem Solving 3


18 | P a g e

ii) Judgement Definition:

This position requires that the person display the ability to consider alternative courses of action. The alternatives are limited, but the implications are not always known. The person is required to look at implications as these could impact other people’s activities, sections, etc.

Number of responses to Judgement (out of 6 possibilities): 4



• Decides not to accept the golf invitation but decide rather to spend the 12

th with Moonsamy on his visit to

the store.

• Took actions considered to be most appropriate given the specific information available to them in the in-basket exercise.

• Requests further information before making any decision on items 3, 4 & 5.

• Recognizing the importance of this item and the need for some clear action (item 7);

• Recognizes the significance of the morale problems in terms of its potential impact on sales (item 9).

• Takes appropriate action to inform all managers of Moonsamy’s visit and put steps in place to maximize benefit of the visit.

• Made decisions and took actions that might not have been entirely justified or appropriate in a particular situation

• Did not take appropriate action on any of the customer/product complains received.

• Did not respond to the alleged theft concern made by the Regional manager.

• Did not make any stand-in arrangements when away attending 2-day workshop.



Score Achieved for Judgement 3


19 | P a g e

c) Supervisory Competencies

i) Planning/Organising and Prioritising

Definition:

The position requires that the person be able to set objectives on his/her own and must implement and prioritise the steps of planning and organising effectively. Must not only control own activities, but is also required to co-ordinate the activities of immediate subordinates in own section towards goals achievement where applicable. Prioritises tasks according to their urgency and/or importance.

Number of responses to Organising and Prioritising issues (out of 19 decisions): 11



• Prioritised each item rather than attempting to tackle them in the order they were placed.

• Followed a specific structure to complete the exercise within the prescribed time.

• Made use of planning tools by utilizing monthly calendar or preparing an action item list of meeting dates and phone calls to be made.

• Scheduled meetings in diary

• Recognised that 3 scheduled meetings clashes with 2-day workshop.

• Arranges to talk to Lucky Dube before interview

• Took steps to determine whether sufficient funds are available for donation.

• Note that Ready Made Meals complaint has been around for a while no action recorded.

• Took steps to investigate complaints on Ready-made meals and Bread Rolls.

• Schedules time in diary to meet angry client about piece of plastic in bread rolls

• Identifies need to talk to someone regarding the history on Bread Rolls complaints)

• Notes that Business Dev request long overdue.

• Identifies someone to prepare report to discuss at meeting the next day.

• Recognised practical steps need to be taken to address poor relationships between Packers.

• Recognises the seriousness of the problem and ensures that urgent steps are taken to address possible theft at the Bela-Bela store.

• Took steps to stop Shop Floor lunches.

• Recognises the need for training of Packers to improve on their customer care.

• Note the problem with late deliveries and initiate specific steps to address it.

• Realises the importance of Moonsamy’s visit and took various actions to maximise the benefit of his visit.

• Omits high priority items

• Fails to complete exercise

• Conducts meetings as scheduled

• Did not sufficiently accommodate Mr Moonsamy’s visit on 12 Feb – realises clashes with other meetings



Score Achieved for Planning/Organising and Prioritising 3


20 | P a g e

ii) Follow-Up/Administrative Control Definition: The position requires the person to set the necessary managerial controls over arrangements and be able to address contingencies. The conception of procedures to regulate or monitor the tasks and/or activities of others. The measure of results and the taking of correction action. The provision of deadlines and requests for specific feedback is important. From time-to-time may be called upon to assist in the formulation and implementation of Organisational policies and strategies.

Number of responses to Follow-Up/Administrative Control (out of 8 possibilities): 4



• Wrote notes on their calendars to check on the progress of an assignment.

• Delegates a task with a specific outcome and ask to report on progress by a specific date and time.

• Asks Sarah to give feedback on when matter with Sandra has been finalized.

• Requests feedback on the outcome of the suggested investigation by 10 Feb (item 2).

• Asks feedback on investigation by 13 Feb and how matter was resolved with customer (item 3 & 4).

• Requests feedback before 12 Feb to be discussed at manager’s meeting (item 5, 6 & 7).

• Asks for feedback coupled to a specific due date on matters pertaining to items 8, 9 & 10.

• Requests feedback on the preparation for Moonsamy’s visit.

• Did not ask for any feedback on arrangements made or instructions given.

• Did not couple any of the feedback requested to a specific due-date and time.]

• Did not use the calendar to check/monitor the progress of any assignment



Score Achieved for Follow-up/ Administrative Control 3


21 | P a g e

iii) Delegation

Definition: Delegation is defined as the ability to allocate necessary authority and resources to others in order to accomplish a task, assignment, or project in a timely and effective manner. Delegation involves the proper matching of an individual to a task with clearly established performance expectations and standards. The position therefore requires the person to, from time-to-time, utilise people, and spend some time developing individual potential, using the job situation as a tool within own section/division. A basic knowledge of motivational techniques is required.

Number of responses to Delegation issues (out of 6 possibilities): 3



• Appoints a specific person as a stand-in when away on the 2-day workshop.

• Ask Sarah to initiates a “Task List” for each direct reports to help monitor delegation.

• Delegates items 1, 2, 6, 8 & 9 to Lucky Dube for his investigation and conclusion.

• Delegates items 3, 4 & 5 to Audrey Smit for his investigation and the submission of an action plan.

• Delegates item 7 & 11 to Audrey, Lucky, Clive and John for their input.

• Delegates item 10 to John Allen for his investigation and implementation.

• Did not refer or delegate any task/matter to any relevant person for their possible investigation and/or conclusion.



Score Achieved for Delegation 3


22 | P a g e

d) Interpersonal Competencies

i) Interpersonal Sensitivity

Definition: The position requires the person to reconsider and be open to new sources of information and viewpoints and to, at times, actively demonstrate this by displaying some understanding of the feelings and attitudes of others, displaying the ability to view things from another person’s perspective. The position requires the person to build and maintain meaningful relationships and interactions with others by effectively assessing how people think and feel. Required to make meaningful contributions in a situation, and build a relationship of trust through personal involvement.

Number of responses to Interpersonal Sensitivity issues (out of 6 possibilities): 4



• Arranges to introduce self to store supervisors first thing on Wednesday morning.

• Thanks Sandile for the Welcoming letter and the opportunity to be given the acting position.

• Determined the Store’s position in terms of giving donations and act accordingly.

• Dealt with both customers complains in a constructive and definite manner.

• Takes definite steps to deal with poor relationships between Packers.

• Dealt with all matters in a constructive and respectable manner with the intention of building and maintaining meaningful relationships.

• Did not thank any person for bringing a specific matter to his attention

• Did not show any concern for people queries or issues.

• Made no attempt to deal with matters in a constructive and meaningful manner.



Score Achieved for Interpersonal Sensitivity 3


23 | P a g e

ii) Written Communication

Definition: The person is required to effectively understand a written message and must be concise and clear (specific) in communicating ideas to others in the written form. The person should have a basic knowledge of the appropriate writing styles to ensure impact with the reader, but need not be articulate on paper.

Number of responses to Written Communication issues (out of 8 possibilities): 6



• All memos written to colleagues are easy to read.

• Instructions/memos are clear and unambiguous.

• All items carry some form of instruction from the participant.

• Tone of response is appropriate.

• Instructions and requests for further information are clear.

• Any letter written is well constructed and carefully/clearly expressed.

• Urgency of action is clear.

• Memos and letters demonstrate an appropriate writing style.

• No letters or memos were written to any inside or outside person.


Compared to the norm group, the respondent’s demonstration of this competency in the in-tray exercise is adequate. The respondent took sufficient actions that are effective on the messages related to this competency.

Score Achieved for Written Communication 4


24 | P a g e

iii) Customer Care

Definition:

The position requires that the person be able to identify customer needs prior to customer contact so that the person can react to these and satisfy them in a professional manner. The person must, from time-to-time, be able to identify customer needs by analysing the subtle clues and indicators that the customer projects. The person must then be able to sell a product/service, etc. to the customer through the identification and analysis of these clues. From time-to-time the person must expand on existing business.

Number of responses to Customer Care issues (out of 5 possibilities): 3



• Utilises the Society for Handicapped Children as a possible means to build relationships with the community.

• Arranged to meet or speak with Ms Patel and Mowne personally to finalise their product concerns.

• Encourages supervisors to drive the proposed extension of range for Ready-Made meals to start making customers aware of what is to come.

• Suggests that something specific such as a training program be put in place to train Packers in proper customer care principles.

• Utilises Moonsamy’s knowledge and expertise to improve on Customer Care initiatives.

• Did not make any attempt to deal with the two complaints received from customers.

• Did no see customer care as a priority.

• Did not use any information provided in the In-Tray exercise to reach out to customers or to create greater customer awareness.



Score Achieved for Customer Care 3


25 | P a g e

Overall performance against competencies A summary of the candidate's scores against the competencies measured by the In-Tray exercise is shown below.

5 = Excellent demonstration of competence in this area

4 = Adequate demonstration of competence in this area

3 = Acceptable demonstration of competence in this area

2 = Marginal demonstration of competence in this area

1 = Poor demonstration of competence in this area

COMPETENCY AREA

ACTION ORIENTATED COMPETENCIES

Initiative 3

Decisiveness 4

THINKING COMPETENCIES

Analysis & Problem Solving 3

Judgement 3

SUPERVISORY COMPETENCIES

Planning/Organising and Prioritising 3

Follow-Up/Administrative Control 3

Delegation 3

INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCIES

Empathising/Interpersonal Sensitivity 3

Written Communication 4

Customer Care 3


26 | P a g e

5.0 SUMMARY

Reasoning Ability

Shirley Mortassagne depicts a slightly above “average” ability to reason with words

and should therefore be able to deal with reasonable complex arguments with

relative ease. She further demonstrates a below “average” ability to deal with

numerical assignments indicating limited potential in dealing with such concepts.

Her learning potential for future growth and development falls within the above

“average” category indicating sound potential to benefit from further training and

instruction. This should enable her to grasp new and relatively complex concepts

outside of her previous experience quicker than most. This will undoubtedly stand the

candidate in good stead when faced with new demands and to settle with ease in a

position which is relatively foreign to her current level of expertise.

Brain Profile

In terms of her Brain profile analysis Shirley Mortassagne’s preferred thinking

preferences are the following:

� accuracy, preciseness, detail, exactness, factual reasoning, analytical

thinking, and concrete information (high average).

� planning, organizing, step-by-step approach, being methodical and

practical, dedication, following procedures, routine, etc. (high average).

� strategic thinking activities, diversity thinking, exploring boundaries, search for

alternatives, idea intuition, the combining and integration of ideas into a single

conclusion, at ease with chaos, etc. (high average).

� communicating and interacting with people (strong)

Personality

In terms of her personality, Shirley Mortassagne appears to be an emotional stable

person. In her interaction with others she portrays a moderately high degree of social

sophistication with a well-developed insight into the motives of others. In their

association with her others will find her reasonably polished and worldly. She is neither

too dependent nor too independent and can be expected to show initiative without

clinging to or being too dependent on others. She takes a well balanced view of

matters and considers both rational argument as well as her feelings in handling

problems. Her general value orientation indicates that she is quite middle of the road

without being conservative or liberal as far as the general values of the society are

concerned. She has a moderately high level of internal control to meet any set

expectations and obligations. Furthermore, she is exceptionally controlled and

socially precise. There is a strong compulsive element to her behaviour which forces

her to stick to a problem till it is solved.


27 | P a g e

In-basket

Shirley Mortassagne reflected a slightly above “average” mean in the In-basket

exercise implying sound knowledge of generic supervisory/managerial processes.

Shirley succeeded in making a number of thorough arrangements. During this process

she approached issues with the intention of wanting to deal with them as quickly as

possible. She was quite decisive in her approach getting to the point rather firmly.

One thing that stood out in her dealing with matters is her sound communication skills.

In all her memos and letters she spelled out in good detail what needs to be done.

Her letters were all well informative covering all aspects relating to the matter.

An added aspect that was quite impressing was Shirley’s level of confidence in

dealing with matters. She clearly demonstrated a high level of control of matters

portraying a sound degree of authority with some touch of sensitivity to it. She also

made a concerted effort to ensure that customers’ needs are sufficiently addressed.

In summary it can be said that generally speaking Shirley Mortassagne demonstrated

a good understanding of basic supervisory/managerial functions and should be able

to put them to good use. She demonstrated that she was well in control of matters

knowing how to deal with them in line with sound administrative principles and

practices. Well-done!


28 | P a g e

6.0 LEVEL OF STRATEGIC COMPLEXITY This is a procedure for exploring and understanding the relationship between people

and their working life. From this information a prediction is made, based on reliable

statistics, as to how the individual is likely to change his approach over time.

Individuals tend to generate increasing complexity over time.

A summary of the four levels of work/complexity is as follows:

� LEVEL I – Quality: making or doing something that can be fully specified

beforehand - has a concrete or direct output and an immediate impact on

viability. Judgement at this level is exercised through the senses, i.e. touch,

sight, etc. and discretion centers around the quality of the work done.

� LEVEL II – Service: by responding to the requirements of particular situations or

people in such a way that people at level I are supported by expertise,

response to customer/client is complete, the purpose of the organisation is

exemplified. People at this level need to perceive more than one way of

doing a specific task and judgement is exercised according to the needs of

the specific situation.

� LEVEL III – Best Practice: constructing, implementing and fine tuning the

systems and procedures to cope with both stability and change and to

engage with the future. At this level, judgement is exercised by constantly

being aware of reaching the overall goals and is a starting point for

development and improvement.

� LEVEL IV – Strategic Development: underpinning the future by addressing what

does not exist but is needed for advantageous positioning. Judgement at this

level is based on hypothesizing and testing many different clusters of

possibilities and on flexibility of the means in response to constantly changing

ends.

CURRENT LEVEL OF CAPABILITY: LEVEL II

FUTURE LEVEL OF CAPACITY :

05 YEARS HENCE : LEVEL II

10 YEARS HENCE : LEVEL III

15 YEARS HENCE : LEVEL III


29 | P a g e

7.0 CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. “Recommend”. See a fit between the individual’s assessment results

and the expectations of the role.

B. “Recommend with some reservations”. See a level of potential in the

individual with specific areas of development to address.

C. “Cautious about recommending”. Not enough to disqualify but have

clear questions and see a higher degree of potential risk.

D. “Do not recommend”. Have reservations and concerns that experience

and/or limitations do not appear to be in alignment with job

expectations and may be too much to overcome.

A

B

A C

D

A


30 | P a g e

How to best possible manage Shirley Mortassagne

should she be employed:

Understand what drives “A” players

In terms of her Abstract Reasoning score Shirley Mortassagne obtained a 7/9 which

puts her in the above “average” category. This is indicative of a person with sound

potential for further advancement. This score together with her slightly above

“average” score obtained in the in-basket makes her what is generally called an “A”

player within an organisation. But, this does not mean that she has developed all the

required skills to a similar degree.

In order to manage people of this nature one has to find out what motivates them.

Finding out what motivates your top employees on an individual level is critical. The

easiest way to figure out what motivates these employees is to simply ask them

directly. Set up frank conversations to find out what they would like to be doing, and

what drives them to do their best.

Also, be sure to find out if anything about their job situation is frustrating them, such as

too much travel, difficult colleagues, or not enough challenge from day to day. Try to

address their needs and desires—and eliminate obstacles as best you can. Help them

to develop by shaping their careers and responsibilities in the direction they’d like to

go. To move them in the right direction, you’ll have to provide them with the right

growth opportunities.

Providing the “A” players on your team appropriate challenges does not necessarily

require promoting them. Instead, the opportunity to accelerate a top employee’s

development may take the form of redefining or expanding a current role. The key is

to have them perform tasks they do not already know how to do—or don’t yet do

well. You can keep these individuals engaged and growing by increasing their

responsibilities and stretching the boundaries of their current jobs.

Ideally, you will be able to match your star performers with assignments that both

interest and challenge them. Keep in mind that job enrichment opportunities often

exist outside the boundaries of your unit or group—and as a manager; you are in a

better position to seek these opportunities out. Work with your management and

within your own organizational network to identify special assignments, teams, or

other opportunities within the company.

To keep your top players challenged, consider the following learning experiences:

• Starting a new project from scratch. For example, developing and launching

a new product or heading up a new initiative or team.

• Fixing a business or product in trouble. For example, improving the bottom line

of a new service or marketing a failed product to a new segment.

• A job rotation in a different work environment. For example, assigning an

operations manager to do a sales rotation, or a short-term stint in another

region or country.

• A high-profile special project assignment. These projects, which should have

very clear objectives and a short duration, offer employees the chance to

practice targeted problem solving, work in cross-functional teams, and be

exposed to senior executives.


31 | P a g e

• Project-based assignments also offer the added benefit of flexibility. Often,

participants can work on such projects part-time, so they would not have to

give up their current duties.

You should be prepared to provide your “A” players with adequate support to meet

these challenges, whether through active coaching, mentoring, or a review-and-

feedback process.

Provide mentors for “A” players

Some organizations have established mentoring programs for high-potential

employees. These programs pair individuals with experts who are willing to guide

them in meeting certain work challenges and in defining a career path. If your

organization doesn’t have such a program, consider establishing an informal one for

your top employees.

Finding appropriate mentors for your best performers doesn’t have to be overly

complicated. Mentors do not necessarily have to be a part of your group or business

unit. In fact, mentors outside the organization may have broader perspectives.

For the high-potential individual, having a mentor can be critical. Mentors know how

to motivate employees by providing recognition for specific achievements. Beyond

just offering encouragement, however, mentors can help employees:

• Clarify their career options

• Better understand the organization and navigate its politics

• Build support networks

• Deal with work obstacles

Additional Steps:

It’s smart for leaders to take these additional steps to help manage their talent pool:

• Strive to enhance collaboration among talented people in your organization.

Since people often stay in organizations because they enjoy the company of

like-minded colleagues, invest in bringing talented people together. This can

be done informally through social networking opportunities, or more formally

through special task forces or work groups.

• Look for signs of burnout. Highly motivated employees are often prone to

overwork. Examine your actions: Is it possible that you are overloading your

star performers? Act on this quickly, or you face losing your best employees.

• Watch out for signs of arrogance, especially if you've told the rising star that

they are seen as having potential to move into a larger role. Make sure they

know that there are no guarantees, and that demonstrating leadership

potential means acting in a way that your peers would support a decision to

promote you.


32 | P a g e

Performance vs Potential

Currently exceeding expectations

4 Peak Performer

7 High Professional

9 High Flyer

2 Consistent Performer

5 Consistent Professional

8 Future High potential

Currently falling short of expectations

1 Low Performer

3 Inconsistent Performer

6 Blocked Performer

Low development potential

High development potential


33 | P a g e

8.0 INTERVIEW PROMPTS REPORT The following are questions/prompts to consider by the panel/interviewer as a result of the candidate’s personality profile with the intention of obtaining clarity on issues of possible concern to assist before a final decision can or should be taken on the applicant’s suitability for appointment.

8.1 Area: Managing Pressure & Stress (C, O, Q4, H, L)

Primary Factors

Scale sten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Affected by Feelings C

7

Emotionally Stable

Self-assured O

5

Apprehensive

Relaxed Q4

1

Tense-driven

Retiring H

4

Socially-bold

Trusting L

4

Suspicious

Area definition

This area focuses on people's emotional response to situations. Some people have a

high resistance to stress, have an optimistic view of the world and feel able to cope

with life's challenges.

Others are more sensitive to the stresses and strains of everyday life and may have a

less positive view of the world - sometimes stemming from a lack of self-belief. If

someone shows elements of both extremes it can be useful to question them in order

to understand better what they are saying about their preferences.

High scorers are therefore typically tense, overwrought and prone to worry. Low

scorers are typically relaxed and feel able to cope with their daily challenges but this

can sometimes be because they avoid putting themselves in challenging situations.

To explore this domain you may like to open with the following question:

Describe times where you celebrated your successes. Describe times where you

worried about your failures. Do you think you have got the balance right?


34 | P a g e

The following are some more specific questions from this area:

Factor C:

High:

Shirley is an emotionally stable person who will be able to cope with the most trying of

circumstances.

The ideal candidate is a fairly emotionally stable person who is relatively self-assured

and secure.

• Can you identify any stressful areas in your life?

• What sorts of things might have upset you in the last fortnight?

• When things go wrong, how do you normally react?

• What sorts of things make you feel under pressure?

Factor Q4:

Low:

Shirley has a quite relaxed attitude.

The ideal candidate has an average amount of tension and nervous energy.

• Do you think those with whom you work closest are more relaxed than you, or

less so?

• Does your present job require a sense of urgency? Give an example.

Most people need some pressure in order to do their best work.

• Describe a situation where you felt you had optimal level of pressure to bring

out the best in you.

• When did you last take the blame for something that didn't work out? Tell me

about it.

• Describe how this comes across to people that you meet.

Factor H:

Average:

• In what circumstances are you likely to give way in an argument? Give me an

example.

• What sort of person do you find most difficult to deal with?

• In an unfamiliar social situation or when dealing with strangers, how would you

feel about starting a conversation?

• Do you tend to prefer others to initiate conversations, or do you start them

yourself?

• In which social situations do you feel most at ease?

• How do you feel if you need to be the centre of attention, for example when

giving a presentation?


35 | P a g e

Factor L:

Average:

Your profile suggests that you have a healthy scepticism about when people's

intentions are good and when they are bad.

• Describe a situation where you have got this judgement wrong.


36 | P a g e

Additional Information

Explanation of the 16 Personality Factors

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) measures sixteen different dimensions of normal personality – the sixteen major ways that ordinary people differ from one another. The 16PF is not a clinical instrument. There are no “better” or “worse” results in the abstract; the world needs all types. However, the 16PF can help you to assess the degree of "fit" between yourself and the demands of your present or anticipated future work role, to help you avoid becoming a "square peg in a round hole". Common uses of the 16PF include:

• Facilitating self-understanding and an appreciation of diversity

• Providing a platform for career planning and career self-management

• Enhancing effective communication, conflict resolution, problem solving, and decision making

Your scores are presented as percentile ranks. A percentile rank compares you to the general American adult population as a whole. For instance, if you have a score of 60, that means that 60% of adults obtained a score lower (closer to the left-hand pole of the factor) than you did; the remaining 40% of the general population scored higher (closer to the right-hand pole of the factor). Percentile ranks lower than 33% can be thought of as "low"; from 33% to 67%, "moderate"; higher than 67%, "high". Low does not mean “bad”; high does not mean “good”. Again, this is not a “better or worse” kind of instrument, but is designed to identify the unique traits that make you the one-of-a-kind individual you are.

The sixteen factors of the instrument are as follows.

Factor A (Warmth) measures a person's emotional orientation toward others - the degree to which contact with others is sought and found rewarding as an end in itself. This is sometimes known as a person's "Affiliative tendency".

High scorers like and need to be with others. They rarely like to be alone, and may indicate that spending large amounts of time alone is very difficult or demotivating for them. They need and want high levels of interpersonal contact and have a "the more, the merrier" approach to life.

Low scorers are more interested in tasks or ideas than in people-interaction. They may like and value other people, but don't enjoy "small talk" or superficial social interactions. They are more prone to spend longer periods of time in solitary activities and to enjoy that. They may or may not be shy, but simply don't tend to find social interaction rewarding.

All of us have needs for both sociability and solitude, but a high A person has a large "sociability bucket" and a small "solitude bucket"; the reverse is true of a low A person. High A types quickly become bored or lonely when alone; low A types tend to enjoy private or solitary activities, but can feel "lonely in a crowd". High A types are often strongly motivated by social rewards, while low A types tend not to respond to such rewards.

Factor B (Reasoning) measures a person's way of thinking and reasoning. It is correlated with what we conventionally think of as intelligence or problem-solving ability, but low scorers should not be thought of as lacking in intelligence. It's better to think of them as having a different kind or style of intelligence - as being "street smart" as opposed to "book smart".

High scorers are mentally quick and absorb new information rapidly and efficiently. As a result, they are often easily bored by mundane or routine tasks and often have a high need for intellectual challenge. They often enjoy mental complexity or difficulty. They may enjoy formal or academic learning contexts.


37 | P a g e

Low scorers are most comfortable with familiar, well-known tasks in which they can draw heavily on past experience and can utilize a concrete style of learning by doing. They may be very effective hands-on learners but often need more time to assimilate and adjust to new information. They may find mental complexity aversive or unpleasant. They may prefer practical, experiential learning contexts.

Factor C (Emotional Stability) measures a person's proneness to mood swings or "ups and downs" in the emotional life. High scorers are less likely to experience wide variations in mood, and are more emotionally stable or "steady as she goes" in their emotional experience. Low scorers more characteristically experience a wider range of emotional fluctuations - peaks and valleys on the "roller coaster" of life.

As a result, high scorers are usually better able to manage stress in a positive, proactive way - to remain solution-focused under stress or to "keep their cool" in a crisis. However, for the same reason, some others may experience or perceive them as unduly stoic or "above it all" in a fashion that could be seen as either reassuring or annoying, depending on the perceiver's own personality and needs.

Low scorers typically struggle more with stress, yet may also experience a richer and fuller emotional life (the bitter as well as the sweet). In some cases, low scorers can be strong advocates for others because of their capacity to empathize with the "underdog" - they know from experience what it means to struggle. (A high proportion of effective counsellors score on the low side of factor C for this reason.)

Factor C is sometimes called "ego strength" because it is associated with a person's ability to tolerate stresses and difficulties without becoming emotionally overwhelmed. However, factor C is not a measure of mental health or neuroticism. Both high and low scores are normal variants of personality.

Factor E (Dominance) measures a person's place on the "pecking order" of interpersonal assertiveness. It is a measure of dominance versus submissiveness in an interpersonal context. It is also a measure of the extent to which a person likes to be in control of situations involving other people.

High scorers enjoy being in control and value power. They are often seen as "natural leaders" by others (but may, if scores are excessive, strike others as domineering or autocratic if their control orientation is not moderated by other factors). It is common for high scorers to use competitive terms like "mastering" a subject or "conquering" a problem; a positive correlate is tenacity and force of will. High scorers tend to like competition and to think of interpersonal situations in primarily competitive terms.

Low scorers make few demands on others and instead like to accommodate the needs and wishes of other people, sometimes making insufficient room for their own to be expressed. They dislike conflict, enjoy pleasing others, and like cooperativeness and harmony-seeking. They may not enjoy or seek leadership roles, and if placed in such roles, may not be seen as "conventional" or "strong" leaders; they lead, not by the force of their will or personality, but by other traits such as positional authority and responsibility.

While high scorers need to be careful not to overwhelm others with excessive assertiveness (or aggressiveness), low scorers can profit from learning how to be more direct and assertive. High scorers can benefit from learning how to be more cooperative and conciliatory, while low scorers can productively gain by learning how to be more competitive and positively confronting.

Factor F (Liveliness) measures a person's natural exuberance or energy level. Thinking of the same factor in a different way, it provides a measure of deliberateness and caution (low scores) versus impulsivity and lack of inhibition (high scores).

High scorers are usually uninhibited, playful, adventurous types who enjoy being the centre of attention. They may become bored easily and like to jump from one thing to another. As a result, they are at their best in "generalist" work roles that allow them to wear many different


38 | P a g e

hats and to move from one activity to another without investing too deeply in any one of them. As a result, they need to watch their tendency to overgeneralize ("jack of all trades, master of none") and may need to strengthen their ability to maintain interest and attention in the face of difficulty or complexity. "Variety is the spice of life" is a high F slogan. In extreme cases, high F types can be seen as rather fickle, self-focused, or superficial by others who have a different pattern of traits.

Low scorers are usually deliberate, cautious, careful, focused, and serious-minded types. Their sense of humour is more of the wry, subtle form, and even if they have a dry wit, others are likely to perceive them as sober, serious, even perhaps rather dour people. They usually like to "dig deep" into what interests them, having longer attention spans than high F types, and so are at their best in "specialist" work roles that allow them to become technical experts in a chosen field of endeavour. However, they need to watch their tendency to overspecialize ("learning more and more about less and less") and may need to strengthen their ability to deal well with more casual, superficial interactions and roles. In extreme cases, low F cases can be seen as rather dull, plodding, or one-sided (monomaniacal devoted to a single cause, issue, value, or role) by others who have a different pattern of traits.

Factor G (Rule Consciousness) measures a person's orientation to rules, procedures, and social expectations. To a considerable extent, it is a measure of ethical and moral responsibility and dutifulness. High scorers are usually highly ethically driven and responsible, although the reverse is not always the case: low scorers are not necessarily irresponsible or unethical, but are, at a minimum, prone to think of ethics in unconventional terms. High scorers are more rule- or principle-governed, while low scorers are more results-governed.

Thus, a high scorer is likely to stick to the rules even if this means that a desired result cannot be obtained. "I'd rather be right than President" is a high G dictum. High scorers' dutifulness and moral conventionality make them desirable in the eyes of most employers, which is why factor G correlates with employer ratings of workers to a stronger degree than any other personality factor. However, very high scorers may become unnecessarily rigid or unbending about the rules - a "Regulation Charlie" (or Charlene).

Low scorers are prone to think that rules are made to be broken (or at least bent) if this is what it takes to achieve a desired result. This does not necessarily translate into unethical behaviour (though very low scorers are statistically likely to strike others as ethically challenged or, in the extreme case, even rather conscienceless), but it does suggest a different kind of focus - on in which outcomes, not rules, are the major emphasis.

Factor H (Social Boldness) measures social initiative taking and, to a lesser extent, a general orientation toward risk taking of any sort. "Shyness" versus "social boldness" is one way to think of this factor. However, other kinds of risks besides social risks are also in view in this factor.

High scorers are social initiative takers who are comfortable with such activities as networking, self-marketing, introducing themselves to others, small talk, and "schmoozing". As a result, nearly all sales and marketing professionals are high H types. High H types show more "courage", social and otherwise, and in the extreme show a high need for thrill seeking or "living on the edge". Most people who engage in "extreme sports", for instance, are high H types.

Low scorers are more likely to be shy and to find social initiative taking aversive and difficult. They prefer a small number of close relationships to a large number of more superficial ones and probably do not enjoy meeting new people in large group contexts. They may show a more general pattern of risk aversion and timidity, and probably enjoy more quiet, "safe" pursuits.

Factor I (Sensitivity) is a complex factor that is difficult to summarize in a single phrase. It has to do with two related qualities: objectivity versus subjectivity, and tough-mindedness versus tender-mindedness.


39 | P a g e

High scorers are generally emotionally sensitive, empathic, aware of feelings, and prone to make decisions on a more personal or subjective basis (focused on personal values or the needs of others). As a result, they do well in roles that call for interpersonal sensitivities and an emphasis on "feeling" issues. However, they may, especially in the extreme, lack objectivity, and may have a difficult time seeing the dark side of something about which they care deeply. Others may see them as "thin-skinned" or "wearing their heart on their sleeve."

Low scorers are generally objective, analytical, logical, and prone to make decisions on a more impersonal basis (focused on cause and effect or rational consequences). As a result, they do well in roles that call for analytical logic or impersonal objective reasoning (which are more likely to involve working with things, ideas, or data rather than with human beings and their needs and problems). However, they may, especially in the extreme, lack sensitivity, and may seem to have an "emotional blind spot" - lacking an emotional vocabulary or the ability to sense their own needs and feelings as well as those of others. Others may see them as "armour-plated" or "having ice in their veins".

Factor L (Vigilance) has to do with the balance between trust and scepticism.

High scorers are more careful, vigilant, wary, or sceptical about trusting others and are less likely to assume that others' motivations are trustworthy or benign. They are more likely to "read between the lines" in evaluating others - which means that they are less likely to be taken in by those who have a hidden agenda, but also that they are more likely to imagine a hidden agenda when, in fact, none exists. Very high scores are associated with a tendency to blame or suspect others in unnecessary ways. However, moderately high scores simply mean a cautious stance that says, “I will trust those who earn my trust.”

Low scorers are more prone to take others at face value and to trust others' motivations, sometimes in excessive or unrealistic ways. The positive side of low scores is a natural tendency to feel a sense of "connectedness" with others and to "give others the benefit of the doubt" in dealings with them. The negative side, especially with extreme scores, is a certain naiveté or gullibility in dealing with others - a tendency to be taken in by those who are not worthy of trust.

Some professions require higher L scores than others: those which require scepticism or an ability to read between the lines. Examples of professions that reward higher than average L scores are IRS auditors, police detectives, and insurance underwriters.

Factor M (Abstractedness) has to do with practicality versus creativity, or a literal detail orientation versus an imaginative big picture orientation. Think of a camera with two different lenses: a close-up lens that reveals fine details, and a telephoto lens that shows how elements in a scene are associated with one another. Low scores are like the close-up view, high scores are like the wide-angle view.

High scorers are generally creative, imaginative, and insightful. Often, they are abstract or theoretical in orientation (focused on ideas, not their practical implementation). Their focus is generally strategic (the "thousand-year view"). However, in their ideophoria, they can miss or under attend to details and can lack practicality. The absent-minded professor is that of a very high M person.

Low scorers are very much in touch with practical realities, live by them, make decisions on a literal and factual basis. They tend to be focused on here-and-now results and outcomes, and ask "how", not "why". Their focus is generally tactical (this hour, this day, this week). However, they can be blind to wider meanings and implications, can be overly literal or even nit-picky about details, and generally can miss the forest for the trees.

According to psychiatrist Pieter Keirsey, this factor is the biggest "psychological divide" between persons, especially in the workplace: those who focus on what is (low M) tend not to understand those who focus on what could or might be (high M), and vice versa. As a result, the world of work is strongly segregated along these lines: people seek work that provides them either with a steady stream of facts and details (low M) or a steady stream of ideas and possibilities (high M). Neither would be happy in the other role. In the extreme, low M people


40 | P a g e

can see high M types as having their head in the clouds, and high M types can see low M people as having their feet stuck in the mud.

Factor N (Privateness) has to do with self-disclosure, and consequently, how easy a person is to get to know, as well as how well s/he keeps private matters confidential. Low scorers are more forthright; high scorers are more discreet.

High scorers are careful and selective about self-disclosure (when, where, and with whom they share information). They are slower to open up to others and, as a result, may strike others as hard to get to know. "I respect her/him, but I really don't know her/him" is something that others may often say about high N types. These people tend to do well in roles that require caution about the disclosure of information (such as a diplomat, a payroll clerk, or a human resource professional) or that require political "savvy".

Low scorers are "what you see is what you get" or "shoot from the lip" types who are quick to disclose information and are much less selective about when, where, and with whom they share. They strike others as more open and forthright, but may be more politically naïve or may not keep secrets well. People usually know exactly where they stand, but may not trust them with confidential or private information.

Note that low scorers strike others as more "artless" while high scorers can come across as "shrewd", although high N types are not inherently manipulative; they are simply careful about sharing information. "Loose lips sink ships" is a high N motto.

Factor O (Apprehension) has to do with apprehension in two senses. One is a general proneness to worry. The other is a propensity to self-doubt and self-blame (intrapunitiveness): being hard on oneself, selling oneself short, treating oneself stringently or harshly.

High O persons tend to be merciless self-critics. While this suggests high performance standards (and, indeed, high O types are often also high on factor G and, to a lesser extent, Q3), it also suggests a general tendency toward self-blame that is not necessarily productive. High scorers are also prone to experience such states as worry and guilt.

Low O persons are self-assured, self-confident, and rarely worry about themselves. They are certain of their capabilities and invest little energy in introspection of a self-evaluative sort. However, with very low scores, these positive traits can turn into complacency, blindness to areas of needful self-improvement, arrogance, or even denial of one's true faults (so-called "anxiety binding").

In general, low O persons might profitably learn to be a bit harder on themselves, and high O persons might learn to cut themselves some slack.

Factor Q1 (Openness to Change) has to do with a person's orientation to change, novelty, and innovation. The Chinese word for change literally means "dangerous opportunity" - low scorers are more attuned to the danger side (and hence tend to resist change), while high scorers are more oriented to the side of opportunity (and hence tend to seek out change).

High scorers like change, respond positively to change, seek change, and want to "boldly go where no one has gone before". They are quick to jump on the change bandwagon and tend to become bored, frustrated, or demoralized by situations that provide insufficient change. In the extreme, they can be "change junkies" who see change for change's sake, who needlessly reinvent the wheel, or who are intolerant or dismissive of tradition, convention, and stability.

Low scorers like the known, the tried and true, and the time-tested. At least initially, they tend to be sceptical of change or to respond negatively to it, avoid needless change, like things as they are, and say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They are guardians of stability and constancy and tend to be threatened, frustrated, or demoralized by situations that provide excessive change. In the extreme, they can drag their feet about change or can seem reactionary to others.


41 | P a g e

Factor Q2 (Self Reliance) has to do with a propensity to seek group support - or to strike out on one's own. Nicholas Lore divides the vocational world into "tribals" (those who like to be "a bee in the hive") and "lone wolves" (those who like to do be a one-man or one-woman show). This captures factor Q2 well.

High scorers like to solve problems on their own - in the extreme, they "ask for help when the request is pried out from between their cold, dead fingers" - and prize self-reliance. They like to act independently and may be attracted to entrepreneurial roles or to individual contributor roles for this reason. They may find it hard to delegate or may run the risk of overly isolating themselves, being seen as "not a team player" in a culture that may consist of more low Q2 types.

Low scorers like group support and group consensus, think in terms of collaborative, team-based action, and may have a hard time acting alone or independently. They may be attracted to "corporate" roles in which there are high levels of social support for what they do and in which team outcomes, not individual outcomes, are emphasized.

There is some evidence that high scorers gravitate to smaller companies (including the ultimate in smallness, solo practitioner roles as self-employed individuals), while low scorers gravitate to larger companies. Cultures that emphasize individual activity and achievement attract high Q2 types; those that emphasize teamwork and collaboration, low Q2 people.

Factor Q3 (Perfectionism) is another complex factor that encompasses more than one core element. Part of the factor has to do with "task orientation" versus "process orientation". Another has to do with a "structure seeking" versus "structure avoidant" tendency. A third has to do with image management.

Think of a person driving cross-country. One person might have a goal of getting to the destination as quickly and efficiently as possible (the high Q3 style). Another might have a goal of enjoying the trip, taking the scenic route, stopping along the way whenever the mood struck them (the low Q3 style). Thus, the idea of "the destination versus the journey" is one way to differentiate high versus low scorers.

High scorers are more organized, systematic, methodical, goal oriented, focused on conventional achievement (including outward status markers of success and image), like high levels of structure, and tend to have steady work habits oriented around starting tasks promptly, working first and playing second, and taking deadlines seriously. When taken to excess, these traits may degenerate into rigidity, inflexibility, and an inability to handle the unexpected or to stop and smell the roses. High scorers lose efficiency as the amount of environmental structure decreases.

Low scorers are more flexible, adaptable, spontaneous, emergent, and process oriented. They are often less focused on achievement as an end in itself, and may care less about what "the Joneses" think. They are better starters than finishers and tend to work in "feast or famine" spurts, mixing work and play and treating deadlines flexibly. When taken to excess, these traits may degenerate into procrastinating, drifting, waffling, and an inability to hold oneself accountable. Low scorers lose efficiency as the amount of environmental structure decreases.

Factor Q4 (Tension) is about patience or impatience in response to environmental delays, stresses, and demands. A good informal test for a person's Q4 score is to watch their behaviour in a crowded grocery store when the "express lane" is crawling along at molasses-in-February speed.

High scorers are "always on the go", "fidgety", constantly busy, efficiency-minded, and driven to make things happen. Delays frustrate them, producing impatience, tension, and irritability. However, they also get things done.

Low scorers are patient, relaxed, placid - "don't worry, be happy". They take life in stride, which means less stress, but also less of a sense of internal urgency, hence less done.


42 | P a g e

High scorers (especially if also high on Q3) tend to "somatize" stress (ulcers, migraine headaches, hypertension). Low scorers are less likely to express stress in physiological ways.

shirley mortassagne pyschometeric report-1

Documents