james.gif ( 3021 bytes) suomi


Personality tests - Personality strengths revealed?
t u o r e i m m a t   u u t u u d e t   a p o s t o l i s e s s a   u u t i s k e o s s a

javiiva.gif (1139 bytes)

Friday 8.3.2002 , klo 18:49

Trivial tests reveal strengths and thinking styles?

    Trivial tests may reveal surprisingly many details about your strengths and your most typical ways to function. I noticed this when I used the Sefe's (Economists Union) carieer promotion services. The service is based on two personality tests: Belbin's Team Roles Descriptions and Sternberg's Allowing for Thinking Styles.

Initially I got the questionnaires by mail. Filling the forms was swift and effortless. The compostition of the team roles offered much to consider, even though the test results didn't surprise me. No doubts! My choice of profession had been justified. The mission oriented and pragmatic implementer won the dominant role - just. Sales consultancies, and sales promotion appear to be proper assignments for an encourager in human relations - the teamworker. It complements the implementer and makes it distinctly more social. A third role, the shaper gives the implementer speed. This might well be one of my life choking personal inconsistancies - role sacrifications? - Me? - slave forcing? Not me!

The result oriented and delegative coordinator influences from the background, heavily complemented by the composite and analytic evaluator. The strong entrepreneur profile (implementer&teamplayer) endorses an encouraging influencer over the harsch enforcer, ordering around. The evaluator just isn't able to play the chancy gambler? Creativety and innovativety echoes through from the planter and the resource investigator, allthough not frizzly inventive nor publicly enchantive.

Thinking styles lean heavily on independency ja critisism. The independet and evaluative thinking styles might well have irritated the executive oriented managers towards insanity. Neither the choice of the lawyers, nor the soldiers, seem to attract me professionally?

The responder Leena Simonsen (Sefe) said that the result was distinct. The team roles composition reveal strength and balance. The scoring indicates clearly the strengths and it's only logical that the opposed team roles appear as weaknesses. Leena Simonsen emphasizes the focusing on the strengths. Weaknesses aren't worth attention, unless they become essentiel for some mission. Focusing on strengths is important, especially when the testee isn't aware of the strengths. It's wise to concentrate on assignments by competence. Committance to weaknesses actually consumes the strengths. Thats when people aren't as competent they otherwise might be. When a person is forced to commit to an assignment where he or she isn't at all comfortable - a major role sacrification is appearent. There are two major role sacrifications in my own team roles composition of some actual assignments - the slave enforcer, and the lonely byrocrat.

I had a splendid opportunity to form my personal opinion about the same test theme in an an article (a jungle of tests) in a finnish weekly journal (Talouselämä). Later on I attended a comphrehencive test. The test day culminated in a rather typical recruiting interview. I had the opportunity to study the commented test material in great detail. The test resulted in similar conclusions as the ones of the instant test by Sefe. It was though much harder to comprehenh because it completely lacked structure. The instant test offered me a surprisingly well structured composition of my motives and my abilities.
The teamplayer dominates clearly in my voluntary labour.

Copyright © Cloverapilaset 1999