I had been warned there would be personality profiling and such during this class. Just didn’t expect one to be part of the book I was to read for this upcoming leadership conference on Monday. It was one of the first books I read. Kind of bland about leadership styles and why people follow others, etc. Nothing new and or exciting until I hit the part where you were to “turn to the back of the book, reveal the code, and go take the test.”
I closed the book and tossed it aside. I had other books to read.
Then I remembered today that I had this part of the book to finish. We got the agenda for Monday which was how I was reminded.
This morning with a cup of coffee, I took the 177 question test online. It was a ” which phrase do you find more true about yourself” style test with a range of neutral about both, slightly towards one phrase over the other, or strongly towards one phrase over the other. I’m pretty sure it was really about 25 phrase in total, and they asked me them in different combinations.
The results of my leadership style test:
- There are four domains of leadership styles: execution, strategic thinking, relationship building, and influencing. Not too surprising to me that 4 of my 5 “themes” were in the Execution domain. The last one was in the “relationship building” domain.
- The four in the execution domain are not surprising: responsibility, arranger, deliberative, and restorative. Responsibility was #1. Again, not a big shock. The relationship-building domain was relator.
- Deliberative’s description starts with “chances are you do not share part of your life with most people.” That surprised me because, well, I don’t. Unlike what it supposes, that I don’t do it because I worry people won’t like me, I don’t do it because most people are not worthy of knowing. I don’t trust people to know and not judge. I don’t care if they like me or not. But to judge me on one small part of my life is something I don’t trust people to not do.
- Restorative matches my work persona the best. It is described as someone who, when people get emotional, pulls the back to the objective facts. I think of the number of times I have had to take someone in a personal space back to the reality which is “this is work, not personal” – and I don’t think I could count the times.
- Relator wasn’t too much of a surprise either given I enjoy learning what others know – getting other perspectives as I like learning more from people given their perspectives and their situations.
In short, my half-assed attempt at taking this test still resulted in something that read me correctly.
Apparently, I am to use this information to craft my leadership style around it. Given I was aware of these things about myself, It makes me shake my head that there is an assumption I wouldn’t know how to leverage it in leadership. Hell, several of these are reasons why I don’t want to go higher up the chain leadership wise. I’m good at these things. I suck at things missing – thinks like strategic thinking. I’m analytical, but to pull it up to find generalized, but directional strategies – well, not my forte. Tell me what you want done – then get out of my way and I will get it done. I’m tactical like that.
I guess I’ll find out what this will lead to in terms of discussion tomorrow.
I do find it fascinating but a little eerie how this test could nail it despite my desire to not give it my full attention. Guess that’s why I’m not in that profession.
Unlike another one I did half-assed, this one did not give me startling results. That one that gave me startling results, I learned later, gave me those results because I did it wrong. When I commented to the person giving the test that I read the directions this time, his response was “oh, well, then the second test was right because that’s what someone would have done with your results”.