Personality assessments ask individuals to identify the behaviors that are typical of them. Often, individuals are asked to rate the degree a behavior or descriptor is “true” of his or her behavior. Sometimes, individuals are asked to select between two behaviors or descriptors in an “either / or” or “true, not true” response fashion. All of these assessments are assuming the individual experiences his or her behavior as consistent regardless of context.
In the last decade, with the mounting evidence that context matters in behavior and that it dramatically impacts a sense of identity, these assessments are ignoring both the science and the everyday experience of the individuals taking the inventories. The practical way this emerges when interpreting personality tools is when a participant looks at his or her report and says, “but this isn’t how I am at home.” Or, “I completed this assessment with work in mind.”
The consequence of this feeling that the results are only relevant to work or not descriptive of oneself as a general rule is that the participant easily discounts the value of the information and feels that the “science” of personality is severely limited as a source of insight and valuable information. And a more devastating outcome is the loss of opportunity to explore the participant (or coachee) experience of what it means to feel that how you behave at work isn’t how you live your life outside of work. From a developmental point of view, this loss of information could result in missing important action steps to facilitate growth and individual effectiveness.
Recently I was coaching an individual who reported on her Pearman Personality Integrator (PPI) that her Natural behaviors were more Introverting, Intuiting, and Thinking while her Demonstrated behavior on a daily basis was Extraverting, Sensing, and Thinking. As we discussed the results, she became aware of the tremendous amount of energy she was putting into behaving in ways that her work setting required. The PPI also has a factor looking at Flexibility, which in this case was pretty low in a couple of areas. In her sharing, there was a definitive link between the required work energies and her ability to flex more consistently. Looking at her reported Introverting and Extraverting, and Sensing and Intuiting differences, we examined whether her constant tension affected the quality of her focus and engagement with others.
Because we had data to review that revealed the reported differences of what is Natural and what is Demonstrated, we were able to identify needs for renewal, energy management at work and home, and core needs for personal satisfaction that were being ignored. Combined with the Flexibility Indices, we were able to clarify ways to organize her work and approaches to daily challenges what would have been ignored or hidden without the information.
“The What”—-scores on what is Natural and what is Demonstrated— leads to several potential “So Whats.” If there are differences, it is useful to examine how this affects personal well being. It could be exciting or draining. If these conditions (Natural and Demonstrated) are the same, the congruence leads to clarity and affirmation about behaviors. Having both kinds of information makes it is easy to discuss the implications in everyday life. The “Now What” is different for each of the cases, in part because the scores in each condition can vary significantly. As a coach, you will need to carefully examine the degrees of intensity in the differences and explore the impact of the scores.
The goal is personality clarity and insight, which we can approach by having a more complete picture. And in the process, you are congruent with the science of personality and social context.
If you want to take the Pearman, let me know. I’ll do the interpretation free, if you’ll pay for the assessment. Let me know at pearman@teamtelligent.com.
Comments
Post a Comment