Are You Introverted or Extraverted
In this assessment, the aim is to understand whether my traits fall under introvert or extrovert personality. An introvert person is quiet and less sociable than an extrovert person. I will use the ‘IPIP Introversion-Extroversion Scale’ that has ten items designed to categorize people as introvert or extrovert. My total score is 32 points. The score falls within the range of 28-34, implying moderate extroversion. There are five scales of rating the results based on the IPIP introversion-Extroversion Scale. They include extroversion (35-40), Moderate extroversion (28-34), In-between extroversion and introversion (21-27), Moderate introversion (7-20), and High introversion (0-6). In this sense, my score is moderate extroversion because it falls between 28-34 points.
The personality of Extroversion implies people who are outgoing, talkative, and friendly. These are people who have numerous friends and are generally assertive. It includes several facets, including friendliness, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity level, excitement-seeking, and cheerfulness (Goldberg et al., 2006). Therefore, the score of the average extraversion means that I am sociable, friendly, assertive, and cheerful. However, I do not possess these traits in abundance or to the extreme. I possess them and am I can express them but in a moderate manner. It also means that even though I am sociable, friendly, and cheerful, I can still improve on such traits to go to a level where I can be extremely extroverted. The results from this assessment can help impact the church, where I work as an admin positively. Since I am sociable, I can create a cheerful church environment where all people feel happy and a sense of togetherness. Since I am active and have the influence, I can organize tasks, deploy friends at the church and also influence people to volunteer so that we can join hands to accomplish tasks that will be critical for the development of the church.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
How Do You Cope With Stressful Situations
Self-assessment aims to understand how I behave in a stressful situation. People tend to react differently to stress. Understandably, reaction to a stressful situation depends on the condition the person is or the stressors and the environment under which the person lives or was brought up. However, this tool underlines the possible reaction for a variety of people under a similar situation. Cumulatively, I have an average score. My rating is between eight and nine for problem-solving. Therefore, it is average. I scored nine points on social support, which is also an average score in this case. Also, my score is ten points of avoidance, which is a high score. Lastly, my rating is average on blaming others. I score six points out of ten. Therefore, I averagely blame others when I am faced with a lot of stress. From the entire assessment, therefore, my score stands at average because, in most elements, I score average.
My results imply that I can cope well with a stressful situation, but to some extent, I may need help to solve some extremely stressful issues that affect my life. The score further implies that when faced with a lot of stress, I actively attempt to remove the stressor by changing the situation where I am ( Lyne & Roger, 2000). I also tend to seek emotional support and try to gather information or guidance from others when I face a stressful situation. It also implies that I strive to seek justice for others as well as avoiding the source of stress, and these are qualities that define my stress-coping mechanism. In a church environment, a stressful situation sometimes arises because of management issues. Therefore, it is critical to have stress management, mechanism, and have a high ability to deal with stressful situations. The score from this assessment can, thus, help understand the stressful situation, and avoid them if possible, or try to eliminate them to create a stress-free environment.
How Strong Are Your Growth Needs?
This assessment aims to understand how a strong desire to grow is inbuilt into an individual. The self-assessment gives an individual a chance to say just what it is about a job that is most important to them ( Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Therefore, it will be critical to understanding my strength and desire to get a job where I can develop my career or grow professionally. My Growth need rate or score is 36 points. The score is, therefore, average. The tool for this assessment has a rating of zero to sixty. The score between zeros to thirty points means low growth needs. The score between thirty to forty-two is average, and the score above forty means high growth needs. At thirty-six points, the implication is that they have a common desire to expand career-wise.
My score implies that I have an average desire to develop professionally in a job that I desire. Growth need strength indicates the strength of my growth needs, including self-esteem, personal achievement, and self-actualization are average. Self-esteem and actualization are critical as they tend to give a person the courage to face issues and solve them based on their conviction. Therefore, the average score on self-actualization and self-esteem means that I will be in a position to confront the problems at the church and also making decisions that will be based on my strong will and conviction. It also means that I value personal achievements, and therefore, I will strive at the church to achieve positive milestones that will add into my resume, boost my confidence and increase my achievements at the church.
What Is Your Preferred Decision-Making Style?
At some point in life, a person must make a decision. Therefore, understanding the style of decision making is critical. In this assessment, the aim is to understand the approach I use to make a decision when a necessity arises. The objective is to understand my score regarding rational and intuitive decision-making approaches. My score for rational decision making is at 16 points, which implies that my score is strong for sound decision making. On the other side, my score is 14 points for intuitive decision-making preferences. It means that I averagely prefer making intuitive decisions. Therefore, I make more rational decisions than intuitive decisions based on the results from the scores.
A person can either in incline more on the rational decision or intuitive. In some cases, some people have the potential to score high in both approaches to decision making. In my case, I scored 16 points on rational decision making, which rates under strong in the scale. The implication is that, in most cases, my decisions are based on facts and logical analysis. While approaching an issue that needs my attention and decision making, I use logic and not instinct while making a decision ( Scott & Bruce, 1995). My average score on an intuitive decision-making approach means that even though I use logic, I also tend to rely on my feeling or instincts while making some decisions in some cases.
Decision making is critical in an institution such as a church where resources are sometimes limited, and a proper rational decision must be made to allocate resources appropriately. Therefore, my strong score in rational decision making is critical for this church because I will be able to rely on facts and not instinct when making essential decisions. Also, I will be able to understand issues from my emotions when necessary, as this will also be critical when making church-related decisions.
What Team Roles Do You Prefer?
In this self-assessment process, my aim to use Team Roles Preferences Scale to estimate my preferred roles in meetings and similar team activities. The five functions that will be used to assess how I perform or impact a team include Encouraging, Gatekeeping, Harmonizing, Initiating, and Summarizing. My total score is 53 points. Note that the Team Roles Preferences Scale has a rating between 15-75 points. The breakdown of the scores is as follows: Encouraging (ten points), Gatekeeping (eleven points), Harmonizing (ten points), initiators (thirteen points), and summarizing (nine points). My score is rated as moderate for all the elements but initiation.
The scores imply that when I engage in a team, I am active, I appreciate the decision that others make and clap for them. It also means that I have a strong tendency to mediate intragroup conflicts and reduce tension. Further, it also means that while in a group, a strong tendency to identify goals for the meeting, including ways to work on those goals to ensure that the team achieves them. My average score on summarizing also implies that after the meeting, I understand and summarize the points in the discussion.
My score, in this case, is critical for the church that I represent. The rating implies that I can take a good role in teamwork, and this is vital mostly when I represent a church in specific meetings or lobby for some resource that could be essential for the development of the church. Since I encourage people to talk freely in a session, also contribute, understand, and can summarize the meeting agenda, I am in pole position to present my argument in a manner that could make me win lobbies for the church or influence decisions that can affect the church positively.
Are You An Active Listener?
The assessment shows my behaviours during communication with my colleague inside and outside the church setting. The intent is to assess the degree of my listening skills while having a face to face conversations. The point of focus is having an interest in listening, organizing information, postponing evaluation, and maintaining attention, as well as avoiding interruptions. The total score from the entire self-assessments is 36 points. The score ranges between 29-36 points, which, from the scale, has a rating of good active listening. In avoiding instructions, my score is high at nine out of ten. For maintaining interest, my score is also high at seven out of nine (Steven L. McShane). I have an average rating regarding Postponing Evaluation at four out of six. I also have an average score of regarding organizing Information as I score six points out of seven. Out of six points, I have accumulated five, which is average regarding Showing Interest.
The score means that while having face to face communication with my colleagues both within the church and outside, I tend to listen to them actively. It implies that I understand the need to listen to others, avoid interruption, organize information in the best means possible, and also show some interest while talking to my colleagues. Active listening is critical for any organization leader. Since my position in the church is administrative, it implies that I have a significant role in managing people, which include listening to them and making decisions that are good to them and the organization. Therefore, excellent listening skills mean that I will be able to boots my authority at the church, be able to handle decisions keenly, and also be able to solve petty conflicts that may arise at the church.
What's Your Approach To Influencing Co-Workers?
While working as a team or in an organization, there are instances where people make decisions that influence other workers or organizations. Such people can influence the workers or policymakers to make a decision that favors them (Steven L. McShane, 2011). Therefore, this assessment's aim is understanding the extent to which my choices can influence other people within the organization.
My total score for all the elements is 75 points. The scale used for these assessments ranges from 24 to 120 points. Elements that are under the focus of the study include persuasions, silent authority, exchange, Coalition information, assertiveness, and upward appeal. Influence refers to any behavior that attempts to alter someone’s attitudes or behaviors. In a typical organization setting such as a church, influence is inevitable as people interact and make joint decisions in the organizations. An average score of 75 points out of the maximum 120 is essential for this case (Steven L. McShane, 2011). It implies that my ability to change the direction of a conversation, influence other people's minds, and also make them understand my points and incorporate them into the main idea or decision is averagely strong. It means that sometimes, I try to imitate people's personalities, hoping that by acting like them, they can support my opinion. It also implies that I get average support from those above me when I air my views. An averagely strong influential trait is critical for lobbying for resources and decisions that can positively impact the church developments. As an administrative, I need to be influential for people to understand some of the choices I push forward, as this can be critical in positive management of the church and change management if possible.
What’s Your Preferred Conflict Handling Style?
In an organization where people interact, conflict is inevitable. It implies that as an administrator, understanding my approach to solving conflict could be vital in managing people within the organization where I am discharging my role. Therefore, this self-assessment process is to assess the best method I use when I am facing a conflict between friends, co-workers, or families. The scale range for this tool is 20 to 200 points, and the areas of focus for the assessment include forcing, problem-solving, and avoiding. My total score for the entire self-assessment on conflict resolution is 64 points. The breakdown for the ratings is as follows. For yielding, my score is 12, for compromising my score is 16, for forcing, my score is 13, problem-solving is thirteen, and avoiding is 12 ( Blake, Shepard & Mouton, 1964). For all the elements that are under the focus, I score moderate results, which result in an average score at the end of the entire assessment.
From the results, it is possible to understand that I averagely prefer all these approaches to handling conflicts at my position. For instance, despite that the fact that I tend to compromise when faced with a conflict, it does not rule out the fact that sometimes I force things to make them right. It also means that I sometimes prefer settling issues, but to some extent, avoidance is the best approach I use to resolve a problem or a conflict. In a church where there are over 20 people, conflict is inevitable. Therefore, understanding my best way of solving conflict could be what I need to understand the issues that arise between people and find the best way to approach them and address them appropriately.
Do Leaders Make A Difference?
This self-assessment aims to help me understand the role of a leader in the organization. Leaders have a significant role in ensuring that the organization has a vision, and there are strategies that the organization must follow to achieve such visions. However, people have a different opinion about the role of leaders in organizations. Therefore, this assessment aims to make me understand how I view leaders in organizations. My score is above average as I score 43 points out of 50 points. The implication could be that I appreciate the role of a leader in the organization, and I highly agree with their terms, decisions, and also functions in influencing the direction of the organization. It, therefore, implicate that I appreciate the role of leaders as people who have the organization's interest at heart and trigger strategies that can make the organization competitive in the business environment ( Schyns, Meindl & Croon, 2007). The romance leadership scale, which is used in this case, indicates that when a person scores more than 40 points, they have an intense romance with leaders as they believe that they can control the organization and make them achieve the organization's objectives.
Therefore, my belief in proper leadership can help me support the church leaders, the team leaders, and the group leaders and influence people to believe in them as they work to ensure that the organization meets its objective. Also, such a perception can be resourceful for me to audit leaders based on the performance scale and ensure that they meet the standard that I believe they should meet for me to regard them as performing leaders. Lastly, it is a perception that can make me influence workers to respect their leaders, engage with them, and have faith in their decisions that could influence the church positively.
What Organizational Structure Do You Prefer?
There are different structures that an organization can adopt. There are flat structures or hierarchical, all of which demand on the organization's leadership style. In this assessment, therefore, the aim is to assess the type of organizational structure I may prefer to work or be part of during my career. My total score for this assessment is 26 points. The points I accumulated in this assessment are under the category of 22-29, which under the scale used, represents an Average preference. The breakdown of the scores is as follows: For the Tall hierarchy, my rating is six out of ten. For formalization structure, the score is12 out of 15, and for centralization, my score is eight out of nine.
The results mean that I have a strong desire to be in an organization whose structure is formalization. It also means that I love working in an organization where jobs are defined with limited discretion (Steven, McShane). Therefore, my desire when selecting an organization is the degree to which it allows me to express my opinion and also have the ability to make critical decisions that affect my life in the organization. It implies that I will structure the church in a manner that allows people who volunteer to carry out tasks free to think and make a decision that influences their role as long as such decisions are made based on the church’s benefits. My role will be coming up with the major decision as an administrator, but my role will be to give direction and allow other people to have the freedom to make decisions that affect them.
References
Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Managing Intergroup Conflict in Industry (Houston, Texas.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied psychology , 60 (2), 159.
Lyne, K., & Roger, D. (2000). A psychometric re-assessment of the COPE questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences , 29 (2), 321-335.
Schyns, B., Meindl, J. R., & Croon, M. A. (2007). The romance of leadership scale: Cross-cultural testing and refinement. Leadership , 3 (1), 29-46.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and psychological measurement , 55 (5), 818-831.
