The process of generating an action plan based on my values, awareness, goal-setting, reflection, and plan for my individual development in the context of my education, career, self- improvement, or relationship stimulates me. I have always been a creative and resilient individual that stays with a plan of action until I achieve my desired objective. My ability to tolerate stress normally makes me very resourceful in solving both challenging and new problems, but I am easily bored by the routine. The process of creating my personal development plan (PDP) started with numerous individual evaluations that helped me recognize who I am in the present day and the individual I will become tomorrow.
Before starting my personal development plan, I took Myers- Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) evaluation that captures individuality preferences in four crucial areas. These areas included the way I get my energy and focus my attention (extraversion or introversion), how I take in or perceive information (intuition or sensing), how I choose to make important decisions (thinking or feeling), and the way I orient myself to the world around me (perceiving or judging). My extraversion and intuition were slight clear. My thinking was moderate, and my perceiving was clear. My individual MBTI outcomes pointed out that I am an ENTP, and, as such, I have a preference to gain energy by the outside world (extraversion), attend to and trust the theories, interrelationships, and future possibilities (intuition), make my decisions using logic (thinking), and keep my options open (perception). Collectively, all these personality preferences make me innovative, visionary, originator, explorer, lawyer, and inventor.
As an ENTP, I am verbally and cerebrally quick, clever, resourceful, outgoing, flexible, enthusiastic, and loyal. I am motivated by a longing to comprehend as well as improving the world. I am usually correct in sizing up a condition. In addition, I am adept and ingenious at directing the relationships between the ends and means. What’s more, as an ENTP, I devise fresh and unexpected solutions to the hard problems (Briggs & Myers, 1998, p. 65). Nevertheless, I am less interested in creating as well as following through with the detailed plans than in creating possibilities and ideas. In a team environment, I am most effective in the role where I can draw my abilities to provide a deep understanding, innovative solution to the problems, and a high degree of litheness. T/F results of my MBTI surprised me because I recognized that, in the past three years, I relied on the feeling/thinking area more than other areas, but I have changed at present. Nevertheless, the difference in the rate of thinking is a big surprise to me. In general, I totally agree with my overall results.
In a bid to gain a comprehensive evaluation of my personality, I undertook another approach referred to as Thomas- Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). TKI appraises how an individual behaves while solving conflicts among his or her peers. A person is assessed on the basis of assertiveness and cooperativeness (Thomas & Kilmann, 2002, p. 81). In other words, an individual is evaluated on his or her tactical approach. in balancing his or her egoism and incorporating other people’s concerns. TKI instrument revolves around five methods of handling conflict that include competing, collaborating, accommodating compromising and avoiding.
Following the assessment test, I attained a high score in competing and the lowest score in compromising. Avoiding, Collaborating and accommodating lagged behind Compromising respectively. With respect to the assessment, I tend to differ with the outcome .My concern is the closeness of competing and avoiding methods. Competing is described as an assertive and uncooperative method of resolving conflict (Thomas & Kilmann, 2002, p. 84). An individual does not value other people’s concerns and only serves only what is best for him or her. Contrary, avoiding is an indication of unassertiveness and uncooperativeness thus implying that I would choose to remain neutral on both parties whenever a conflict arises. These two assessments contradict each other on my real personality.
However, my expectation was that I would score highly in compromising approach and score lowly in avoiding method. My peers have always applauded my nature of compromise to accommodate their pleas. Moreover, my conscience has always guided me to be candid when making any ambiguous decision. For instance, whenever I get involved in a managerial conflict with my fellow employees, I would listen to their sentiments or opinions and harmonize them with my suggestions to arrive at common stance. This action compromised on my priorities despite their high level of confidence in terms of effectiveness.
However, I would not discard the assessment results completely because they highlight that, at times, it would be imperative to apply competitiveness to a certain extent at the expense of comprising. This situation would be applicable especially when the issue affects the security of individuals. Therefore, it would be illogical to concur with the findings of the test because my past behaviors are always inclined towards comprising rather than avoiding the problem.
After undertaking an assessment on Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TIK), I undertook an evaluation on Emotional Intelligence Leadership inventory for students: Inventory (EILS-I). The assessment revolves around the cognitive ability of a person to comprehend his or her emotions and those of others with an objective to comprise on them while thinking and making appropriate leadership decisions. This approach combines three facets that play a role in the leadership problem (Shankman & Allen, 2010, p. 45). These facets include Conscience of others, conscience of self and conscience of context. The three facets interrelate mutually with each other to achieve at the desired objective.
The assessment exemplified that consciousness of self scored the highest score at 34; consciousness of others scored 30 while consciousness of context scored the closest least at 28. The consciousness of others indicates that there are moderate ranges of capabilities that are subject to development. The results exemplify that I am capable of improving on my conscience of self. My category of strength is the conscience of context that entails understanding the surrounding environment. Optimism and inspiration are the capacities that drive the efficiency in this category. Optimistic attitude towards life is motivated by inspiration from other people (Shankman & Allen, 2010, p. 69). Consciousness of self is my area of growth that capitalizes on health self-esteem and self-control. I assert my mind to gather courage to approach others and exercise self-control as a precautionary measure to safeguard the success of noble leadership.
I agree with the result because the outcome complements my comprising attitude, a TIK model that concentrates on the approaches undertaken by an individual in resolving conflict issues. Since my past years, I have been assertive as well as cooperative while relating with other people. My self-esteem has been weak and, therefore, the results could not appear differently. Therefore, I was not surprised.
The Strengths-Based Leadership assessment was the last assessment that I took. This assessment identified my top five Signature Themes in executing/deliberative, influencing/activator, responsibility/executing, relator/relationship building, and strategic thinking/intellection domains. The deliberative/executing is done or created to discuss and consider the reasons and facts carefully. The responsibility/executing entails satisfying work as well as passion for doing things carefully. The influencing is driven by individual talents, moving the others to actions, and taking charge. The relator/relationship building entails a person being determined to share his/her own skills, experiences, or knowledge with people. Finally, the strategic thinking/ intellection entail individuals that are introspective and appreciate the intellectual discussions (Rath & Conchie, 2008, p. 151).
I agree with the results because I have the capability. Nonetheless, I did not recognize that there are strengths that are based on leadership. I was not surprised in my strengths based leadership outcomes. Because I know the areas that I want to focus on, which are recognizing my limitations and strengths, I feel that all aspects that define and shape my personality are clear for me. I now can see the way I can use them to influence other individuals. The areas where I do not see any links or connections between the assessments include competing in Thomas- Kilmann conflict model and the relator in the strengths based leadership.
Performance Review
During my last performance review as an advisor, I was commended for my aptitude in creativity, innovativeness, visionary leadership. These qualities complemented the MBIT results that were realized during the assessment. The evaluator applauded my conflict resolution skills especially comprising and collaborating. However, my inept to synchronize competing and compromising approaches were questioned and suggested for improvement. Additionally, my strategic approach in applying emotional intelligence was commendable, and if approached with sanity, positive results would be achieved.
Peer Feedback
Nonetheless, friends and family members described me as less interested in creating and following through with the detailed plans than in creating possibilities and ideas. In addition, the feedback I received from family and friends concerning my strengths is that am resourceful, outgoing flexible enthusiastic quick and loyal. Moreover, most friends and family members described me as good at reading the other individual’s behaviors. My friends and relatives have been my greatest audience during my leadership roles. They have molded my leadership skills and have never minced their words whenever I was wrong. Most of my friends highlighted self-esteem as one of the major areas of improvement. In addition, other friends noted that I needed to synchronize my comprising approach with competing to cushion my career from intoxication by bad policies. However, most friends and family members applauded my strategic application of emotional intelligence especially in the conscience of self. This appreciation was in tandem with my assessment results on EILS-I approach.
Conclusion
A small number of tasks could have been better in preparing me for the process of personal development plan instead of taking leadership and personality evaluations. All the assessment results generate a correct depiction of who I am that is, verbally and cerebrally quick, clever, resourceful, outgoing, flexible, enthusiastic, and loyal, which made me feel proud. Nevertheless, by realizing that I am less interested in creating as well as following through with the detailed plans than in creating possibilities and ideas, I felt de-motivated. However, I am delighted because I can now develop my five year PDP to organize my individual goals and make them possible in a certain period.
References
Shankman, M. L., & Allen, S. J. (2010). Emotionally intelligent leadership for students: Facilitation and activity guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Briggs, K. D., & Myers, I. B. (1998). MBTI: Self-scorable. Palo Alto, Calif: CPP.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people follow. New York: Gallup Press.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2002). Conflict mode instrument. Sterling Forest, Tuxedo, N.Y: XICON, Inc.
Grading Rubric
