Working with others
The results of self-assessment reveal important insights into personality traits of the assessed person and present an opportunity to determine the optimal work environment and position for the candidate. The outcome of the present assessment provides an overview of various aspects of the personality.
The assessment II-A-1 shows that the candidate is able to leave impression in communication as well as to be attentive to the other person in the conversation. In face-to-face communication, friendliness is demonstrated quite strongly, as well as the ability to animate the discussion. However, none of the abovementioned characteristics is resented very strongly, therefore the person uses all the dimension of the face-to-face communication in a balanced manner. The test II-A-2characterizes the person as an average listener, whose listening skills require additional work and development. The leadership style assessment concludes that the candidate is both people and task oriented. High score on both leadership types is likely o indicate a good balance between autocratic focus on task completion and overemphasizing employee satisfaction at the expense of productivity. The assessment also shows that the candidate is likely to be perceived as a charismatic leader. Leadership qualities, in this case, are especially evident in management of self and management of the others’ feelings. The candidate is least effective in conveying the message across, which is indicated by the relatively low score on management of meaning leadership pattern. The assessment reveals very low trust in people, presented by the candidate, which might be detrimental for teamwork and people-oriented jobs. However, despite very low trust, the candidate is perceived as trustworthy by others, therefore it will be still possible to establish trusting relationships in the team under the lead of the candidate. The assessment test II-B-5 shows very low ability of the candidate to establish discipline in the workplace. This fact may be the reason for relatively low performance in team-bum building activities, which are evaluated in the assessment II-B-6. Team-building may be also hampered by strong power orientation of the candidate, which is indicated by the Machiavellianism score above the national average. Moreover, the types of the power base preferred by the candidate are expert and referent, which indicates that power distribution, according to his/her perception, is based on knowledge and skills, as well as on the ability to inspire the others to follow one’s ideas or example. The second highest power base is legitimate, which indicates that expert and referent power should be formalized in the opinion of the candidate. However, even legitimizing power relationships does not make it possible for the candidate to refer to coercive power, or to apply force in exercising power. Political skills of the candidate, as identified by the assessment II-C-3, are quite average, however, they are high enough to indicate a certain ability to gain support of the others. The candidate usually creates very friendly impression due to the extensive use of ingratiation techniques. Self-promotion is also quite significant for the candidate’s impression management strategy, which is crucial for successfully exercising of the preferred power type, the expertise. The assessment of the favored conflict-handling style indicates that the candidate is willing to look for a compromise, as the primary means of conflict resolution. The second best option for the conflict-handling is shared between collaborating, avoiding and accommodating. Equal scores on these styles show the ability of the candidate to adjust his/her behavior to the needs of a particular conflict situation. Moreover, relatively high score on the negotiating style shows that the candidate is willing to negotiate effectively, favoring direct communication, collaboration and rationality. However, the results of this assessment can be only interpreted within the framework of the national and organizational culture in the workplace.
The results of the self-assessment may be used for evaluating whether the candidate fits a particular organizational environment or not. Based on the results presented above, firstly, it is possible to conclude that the candidate is not presenting any extreme personality traits, but extremely high distrust in people. This fact could have been a strong argument against placing the candidate into people-oriented position, however further analysis suggests quite the contrary. Strong ability to convey trust, ingratiation techniques in creating an impression, friendliness and reluctance to exert power or intimidate makes the candidate perfect for working with people, especially clients and partners. However, the potential occupation should not be focused on teamwork and especially on assuming leadership in “laissez - faire” teams. Low trust in people, combined with the inability to establish discipline and communicate a message across, can impede performance of the team and of the candidate in the team. Moreover, the candidate possesses quite a strong power orientation, which is derived both from expertise and legitimate power base. Therefore, the candidate is likely to fill most comfortable in the organizational setting, where hierarchy based on the knowledge and skills clearly defines relationships between members. Power distribution through hierarchy can help to offset low trust in people, since it sets relationships standards, reduces uncertainty in the behavior of the others, and allows leveraging the ability to balance task and people orientation. Moreover, candidate’s charisma, political skills and trustworthiness can be considered a good asset for the future leadership position .
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the best position for the candidate should have clear hierarchical structure behind, but involve extensive interaction with people. Teamwork should be also governed by certain rules and power distribution mechanisms, which would help to reduce uncertainties about human behavior and interaction. Under these conditions, the candidate is likely to be very successful in assuming a leadership position, which would mostly focus on communication with people, leveraging inborn charisma and trustworthiness, while balancing task and employee orientations.
Assessment: II-A-1. What's My Face-to-Face Communication Style?
II-A-1-Score1: Dominant: -0.1
II-A-1-Score2: Dramatic: 0.2
II-A-1-Score3: Contentious: -0.2
II-A-1-Score4: Animated: 0.25
II-A-1-Score5: Impression leaving: 1
II-A-1-Score6: Relaxed: -0.2
II-A-1-Score7: Attentive: 0.8
II-A-1-Score8: Open: 0
II-A-1-Score9: Friendly: 0.75
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-A-2. How Good Are My Listening Skills?
II-A-2-Score1: Your score is: 45
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-B-1. What's My Leadership Style?
II-B-1-Score1: Concern for People: 11
II-B-1-Score2: Concern for Task: 16
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-B-2. How Charismatic Am I?
II-B-2-Score1: Management of attention: 14
II-B-2-Score2: Management of meaning: 12
II-B-2-Score3: Management of trust: 14
II-B-2-Score4: Management of self: 16
II-B-2-Score5: Management of risk: 15
II-B-2-Score6: Management of feelings: 16
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-B-3. Do I Trust Others?
II-B-3-Score1: Your score is: 5
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-B-4. Do Others See Me as Trustworthy?
II-B-4-Score1: Your score is: 54
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-B-5. How Good Am I at Disciplining Others?
II-B-5-Score1: Your score is: 18
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-B-6. How Good Am I at Building and Leading a Team?
II-B-6-Score1: Your score is: 80
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-C-1. How Power-Oriented Am I?
II-C-1-Score1: Your Machiavellianism (Mach) score is: 26
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-C-2. What's My Preferred Type of Power?
II-C-2-Score1: Reward 2.5
II-C-2-Score2: Coercive 2
II-C-2-Score3: Legitimate 3.5
II-C-2-Score4: Expert 4
II-C-2-Score5: Referent 4
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-C-3. How Good Am I at Playing Politics?
II-C-3-Score1: Your score is: 91
Status: Assessment complete
Assessment: II-C-4. How Well Do I Manage Impressions?
II-C-4-Score1: Self-promotion: 3
II-C-4-Score2: Ingratiation: 4
II-C-4-Score3: Exemplification: 2
II-C-4-Score4: Intimidation: 1
II-C-4-Score5: Supplication: 1
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-C-5. What's My Preferred Conflict-Handling Style?
II-C-5-Score1: Competing: 5
II-C-5-Score2: Collaborating: 12
II-C-5-Score3: Avoiding: 12
II-C-5-Score4: Accommodating: 12
II-C-5-Score5: Compromising: 15
Status: Assessment Complete
Assessment: II-C-6. What's My Negotiating Style?
II-C-6-Score1: Your score is: 25
Status: Assessment Complete
