I think, for the most part, the test gauged my management orientation right, but there is a very little discrepancy between the test results and my actual management orientation. The discrepancy exists because the options that were allocated to choose from were to the extreme of the spectrum: most and list. Usually, I am not that kind of person who stance on the extreme. Existence in moderation is my philosophy; that is doing everything in moderation is optimum except in certain extreme cases.
The test results indicated that I am a conscientious person (+5) with high in steadiness (+7); my influence is very low (-9) as well as my dominance (-5). I absolutely agree that I am a conscientious person with high steadiness in daily life. However, when I play sports I am very dominating and influential (I was captain for many times of our local cricket team). When I play cricket (an outdoor sports similar to baseball), I am very dominating as a batsman; only the bowlers (pitcher) could feel how harsh I could be (I execute any opportunity the bowlers offer). I also influence other by playing well which motivate them to do well.
Actually, I am happy for what I am. So, I don’t wish that I was another type. I think people can change if they eagerly desire to do so, but I also believe there are certain things that are not attainable by certain people. For instance, I might be able to increase my “influence” management orientation from negative nine to positive and dominance negative to positive, but I will always be a high conscientious person with high steadiness. It is somewhat important in the sense that the top authority would have a better understanding of the person (if they get the right answer), which could allow them to efficiently utilize that person’s abilities. This kind of test can be helpful in personal interactions; it would help to asses others’ personalities that would direct me to act to accommodate with their personalities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes, the way all the questions were framed made me feel as though there was no room for moderation. Also, there were several times when I was really torn between two words to describe me for most (or least) so I just made a pressurized choice because of the time constraints. I wonder how the results may have been different if we could choose two words--one for most, and another for strong.
I definitely agree with doing everything in moderation, but, I'm curious to know if your approach would be more extreme if you had to handle an emergency. For instance: you find one of your employees about to be assaulted by an irate customer who refuses to calm down would you try to "talk it over" with the irate customer or would you immediately call security? (This was a reality I faced while at work once).
I like your philosophy. I also believe success is derived from balance in life. I guess you are right. The category that you fall on will always remain the dominate one. The rest can only be increased but will never surpass the dominate trait. You are right. This test will definitely help us with interpersonal skills, especially in a team environment where different people have different personalities and knowing their management characteristics will help us accommodate to their needs.
I get what your saying and I agree with it. It true that the category you are most dominant in is what people perceive you as and it is possible to portray yourself from another category but then that wouldn't make you, you!
I totally agree with what you said: sometimes options for the possible answers are allocated to the extremes, and it may be difficult to pick the one that describes you best.
Since we sat next to each other during this exercise, I've noticed that sometimes you couldn't pick a word describing you best for this same reason. I guess, this instance showed me that you're high on steadiness, which DISC identified correctly. Also, this trait of yours showed up in our group work: you appear as a very patient and loyal person.
Your main trait turned out to be conscientiousness, which was no surprise. I am a C type as well, and we both are analitical thinkers, like to check for accuracy, and pay attention to key directives.
Post a Comment