Sample 16Pf Personality Report

SAMPLE 16PF PERSONALITY REPORT

PURPOSE Selection of Chief Executive Officer

SECTOR Food Manufacturing

CLIENT Ambridge Foods*

CANDIDATE Adrian*

BACKGROUND

Three candidates were shortlisted for the CEO position at Ambridge Foods* and a personality report was produced for each person.

The reports were similar in style and all included:

 Executive summary.  Main report on personality.  A number of individually designed interview questions based on analysis from 16PF report.

Adrian* was the successful candidate.

* Names changed for privacy purposes.

1 Chief Executive Officer Ambridge Foods Adrian Personality Report

Executive Summary

Adrian describes a number of traits relevant to the CEO role. Unusually for a very senior manager, Adrian describes a strong need for involvement. He appears to value on his relationships with others. He is likely to identify very strongly with the requirement in the job description to build great relationships.

His score here and elsewhere suggests therefore highly collegiate, corporate style of operating, where he puts a good deal of effort into building a strong team, close, open and informal relationships with colleagues.

Adrian’s ability to form strong relationships with others is likely also to be underpinned by a high level of social confidence. He also appears energetic, enthusiastic and very much in the market for novel challenge and opportunity.

Again, interestingly what Adrian describes is also a strong need for order and predictability. He appears to dislike ambiguity. Adrian’s responses suggest he identifies strongly with laws, standards and regulatory frameworks. There appears to be a strong conforming streak in his nature, which suggests dependable, reliable hard-working individual with a strong sense of obligation to those around him. He appears in this sense to be a truly corporate operator.

In this sense, Adrian does not appear to be a true, entrepreneur. Rather he appears to be a principled, process-oriented individual, driven by the need to live up to other people’s and his own high self expectations. He appears, therefore, to be less like the stereotypical egocentric entrepreneur who is willing to bend the rules and then justify this behaviour.

He appears, therefore, to be what in the leadership literature is referred to as a ‘consolidator’, who is able to take a business from rapid growth to a steady- state. What Adrian is likely to be about is creating clarity to those around him about priorities, policies and business processes. He appears to be a natural planner and organiser.

Although affiliative, Adrian does, nonetheless, describe a strong interest in the objective and material accomplishments of people. So the affiliativeness is not

2 likely to lead to sentimentality. He appears to be driven by strong self-assertion needs. So although there is likely to be an emphasis on relationships, these are likely to have a strong influencing element in them. He is, therefore, likely to identify strongly with the leadership element of this role and be capable of being highly directive when he needs to be.

Although Adrian appears to be fairly resilient, perhaps as might be expected given the strong self expectations he describes, he appears to internalise his anxieties somewhat. This means he is never likely to be accused of being complacent as part of his motivational make up appears to be a fear of failure. He does not appear to be blessed by a rugged level of self-assurance in the way many senior managers are.

Main report

Adrian has been open and honest about himself when responding to the personality questionnaire. This means he has provided Robert and other interviewers with an accurate picture of how he currently sees himself and how he would respond to the challenging, complex and varied demands of the CEO role.

Adrian, interestingly and somewhat unusually for a very senior manager, describes himself as having very strong affiliative needs. This is based on his responses to questions distinguishing those who are driven by a need for involvement with others from those who are much happier with more formal, arms length relationships. Adrian's responses produce an extreme score placing him at the former end of the scale.

More often than not, senior managers describe either a degree of detachment or a modest level of affiliativeness. Typically, they describe a motivational make up comprised much more of needs of status, power and authority over and above needs for involvement. So at face value, according to his responses here, Adrian appears to place much greater emphasis on building close, personal relationships with those around him than is often the case. He appears to derive a significant proportion of his job satisfaction from the quality of the relationships he forms.

In the current context, this suggests that people are important to him. His responses here suggest he is genuinely interested in people. As a manager, indeed as very senior manager, he is likely to demonstrate one of the key ingredients that some leadership writers have argued as the key to effective leadership: individualised consideration. The way he describes himself here suggests he is likely to give those around him the feeling that he is genuinely

3 interested in them as individuals rather than functionaries, valued solely for their objective contribution.

Here and elsewhere on the questionnaire his responses suggest a preference for relating to those around him, in a friendly, informal and open manner. For example, on the questions distinguishing those who are very open and straightforward in the way they communicate from those who are much more guarded and careful about what they say and how they say it, Adrian describes himself as being towards the former end of the scale.

Thus, both scores point in the same direction suggesting a strong preference for openness and transparency in his dealings with others. Clearly, according to his responses he is not a Chief Executive who operates from behind some very carefully constructed and maintained professional persona.

The high level of affiliativeness he describes suggests that Adrian is likely, at the very least, to identify strongly with the requirement in the job description here to build great relationships. So the unit of value for him is likely, given the rather extreme way he describes himself here, to be the customer relationship. Indeed, his score here suggests he makes no clear divide between his professional and personal existences and so it may well be that customers and colleagues do become genuine friends for him and contacts are therefore maintained over the years. In short, his score here suggests that work relationships are not simply a means to an end, but are seemingly an end in themselves. This suggests he is likely to respond very positively to the social opportunities afforded to him in this role, such as building strong personal relationships with key customers.

His score here suggests that at a very basic, day-to-day level, he is likely to be generous with his time and collaborative and helpful with colleagues. Here and elsewhere on the questionnaire his responses suggest a preference for a fairly collegiate approach to senior management. In appearing to give himself fairly freely, and investing heavily in building close and effective relationships with others, Adrian appears to be quite trusting of others. Indeed, responses elsewhere suggest he tends to internalise his anxieties and take them out on himself, rather than on those around him. There is no hint in his nature, according to the way he describes himself here, of either any negative or alienated feelings about those around him. He describes himself being less likely to be mistrustful of others. Instead, his responses here suggest he takes others at face value and is much less suspicious of the motives of others.

His relationships, therefore, are less likely to be undermined by strong negative emotions, which could, for example, fuel being overly critical or contemptuous. When working with those around him, he is much less likely to be defensive,

4 wary or mistrustful. Thus, he is likely to build a healthy psychological environment. He is likely, therefore, to provide the conditions for effective teamwork where individuals feel they can be frank with him. He is not likely to build a blame culture or be excessively focused, for example, on competitor activity to the detriment of considering internal processes. Given the requirement to read and assess the market, when he does this, he is likely to be highly rational, rather than undermined and distorted by jealousy of competitor activities.

It may even be the case that he finds it particularly difficult, when people let him down given the investment and trust he appears capable of. It may well be worth exploring how he deals with this.

Q. Your responses to the personality questionnaire suggest that you place a good deal of effort into building strong relationships with colleagues. How do you respond when people let you down and, in one way or another, abuse your trust? Can you give an example of when this has happened with a colleague and what you did?

Affiliativeness is also seen in his responses to questions distinguishing those who identify strongly with teams and team working arrangements from those who are much more self-reliant and individualistic. Adrian describes himself as being very much at the former end of the scale. Thus, Adrian appears to identify as strongly with teams as he does with individuals. He clearly enjoys working in corporate settings. As the Chief Executive, his responses here suggest that he is likely to recognise instinctively to recognise his dependency upon others to achieve results.

Adrian's ability to build strong and effective relations with others is based, not only on what appears to be a high level of affiliativeness, but also on a fair amount of social confidence. On the questions distinguishing those who are socially anxious from those who are more socially confident, Adrian describes himself as being towards the former end of the scale. Interestingly, his score is not an extreme one, suggesting he is not likely to be seen as arrogant and overconfident. However, the way he describes himself does suggest an ability to build rapport quickly. It suggests an ability to make a positive first impression. His score here suggests he should be able to work effectively when meeting others for the first time. So, he should be able to exercise a fair amount of personal charm.

His score here suggests he should interview well. He appears to have the confidence often seen in stereotypical salespeople. This means he appears not to mind being the centre of attention. He should, therefore, be able to talk up his accomplishments and achievements with little embarrassment. Given the

5 value placed on social confidence in western cultures, it may even be the case that Adrian wittingly or unwittingly encourages a degree of positive projection on to him. This form of projection is the basis of what is often referred to as charisma. Adrian does not, fortunately, appear to possess the negative traits often associated with charisma e.g. arousing jealousy, having little sense of obligation to others.

However, particularly when combined with the openness and affiliativeness he describes, his score here lends weight to the suggestion of an open, familiar, friendly and easy-going style of working with others. This is seen elsewhere in his responses. On the questions distinguishing those who are lively, talkative and energetic from those who are much more quiet, considered and lacking spontaneity, Adrian describes himself as being towards the former end of the scale.

His score here is not an extreme one which suggests he is not easily bored and distracted. However, his score is sufficient to suggest a reasonably lively, animated style which is likely to give rise, as is required in the job description, to bias for results and action. The way he describes himself on these questions suggest he has the basic 'stimulus hunger', which fuels a desire for constant and novel challenge. It indicates the capacity for multitasking. His score here suggests an ability to spread his attention across a number of competing priorities. So, the way he describes himself here suggests that he is likely to fulfil the requirement in the job description to be ' high-energy'. Although, that said, his score here is not an extreme one which suggests he is not likely to be seen as impulsive, flighty, easily distracted or lightweight.

It does however suggest he enjoys, indeed needs, the stimulus provided by face- to-face interaction. His score here suggests he is likely to inject enthusiasm and energy into the way he communicates with others. It also, pertinent here, given the specific requirement in the job description, suggests he is likely to fulfil the requirement to be a quick thinker. The way he describes himself here suggests he is never likely to be accused of being ponderous and indecisive.

Interestingly, although Adrian describes having the energy and enthusiasm of the extravert, this appears to be blended with some strong behaviour controls. This is seen, for example in his responses to questions distinguishing those who identify strongly with the rule of law and external standards from those who are much more individualistic and who enjoy finding their way around what they see as irritating constraints. Adrian describes himself as being at the former end of the scale.

Given the moral content of these questions, Adrian score here suggests a principled individual, with a strong moral compass and sense of right and

6 wrong. Indeed this may well be rooted in some religious beliefs and convictions. However, whatever the source, it suggests he has a strong sense of obligation to an employer. His score here suggests he is likely to have a strong work ethic.

He is, therefore, likely to provide a diligent, hard-working, principled role model to those around him and this is clearly likely to engender respect. He clearly is not given his score here, likely to be seen as maverick, individualistic, arbitrary or expedient in approach. Nor is he likely to be seen as simply furthering his own ends or agenda. He appears to have a collective perspective, a strong sense of obligation, a desire to give of his best, do his duty and fulfil the expectations of others. Indeed he may find it difficult to identify with individuals in his team who do not share his sense of obligation and who are not as conscientious and committed as he appears to be.

The way Adrian describes himself suggests that he is likely to be seen, as CEO, as standing for something, and thus approaching issues and making decisions in a clear and consistent manner.

At interview, it may be useful to provide him with an opportunity to state his principles explicitly.

Q. Your responses to the personality questionnaire suggest you are not likely to be an expedient decision maker, who simply takes the easiest option. The way you describe yourself suggests you have some strong principles you apply to choose between options. If so, what would be the two or three key principles you would use to inform your decision-making?

This element of his nature also suggests that Adrian is not particularly 'entrepreneurial' in the full sense of the word. This is because he does not appear to be particularly individualistic. The way he describes himself here suggests that he is not prepared to break the rules readily. Indeed, the way he describes himself on these questions suggests a high level of respect for regulatory frameworks, and thus a desire to ensure external standards and obligations reflected in the policies and processes at his place of employment.

Adrian appears, therefore, to lack the individualistic expediency and the extreme ‘self -referencing’ egotism that characterises the true entrepreneur.

If it is the case that the requirement at this stage is for a 'consolidator', someone who is moving the business from rapid growth to steady-state, then the way Adrian describes himself here could be argued to be a fit. His responses suggest he is an individual who is concerned to ensure that policy and strategies are clear and their underpinning processes are robust.

7 So even if, as the job description suggests, the incumbent has to drive continued growth in the business, the way he describes himself suggests this is likely to be achieved in an extremely methodical, well-organised, systematic and programmatic manner.

This is because, the way he describes himself here and elsewhere on the questionnaire suggests a strong need for order and predictability in his environment. So, as a manager he is likely to want to ensure that there are clear goals, roles, priorities, policies, timeframes and performance methodologies in place. His responses here suggest he will try to remove ambiguity.

From a position of rapid growth, what Adrian appears to be about is creating an environment where the delivery of customer satisfaction is ensured through the robustness of systems and procedures. Adrian is likely to focus on creating clarity for those around him.

Adrian describes being constrained not only by a desire to live up to other people’s expectations but also by a concern to live up to his own. On the questions distinguishing those who have a strong concern with standards from those who are much more tolerant of disorder, Adrian describes himself as being towards the former end of the scale.

His score here suggests he is not likely to be a fussy, perfectionistic nitpicker although the way he describes himself does indicate a concern to see things done to a high standard. It also suggests that his own work habits, his own day- to-day planning and organising should be effective. His responses suggest he is not likely to leave anything to chance or to the last moment.

Adrian appears, therefore, to be a natural planner and organiser. He appears also to have a strong concern to focus on detail. On the questions distinguishing those who are very grounded in the day-to-day realities and conscious of the detail of what is going on around them from those who prefer to look well beyond the immediate and obvious facts, Adrian describes himself as being at the former end of the scale.

His score here, therefore, suggests that he is unlikely to be seen as in any way either operating on a somewhat different intellectual wavelength or concerning himself only with strategy and losing sight of the more immediate and pressing priorities.

So Adrian’s energy and enthusiasm, given the way describes himself are likely to be channelled very effectively. He appears, therefore, to combine the benefits

8 of extraversion, with the ability to focus his energy and enthusiasm into genuine accomplishment.

The affiliativenes he describes does not seem likely to lead to sentimentality. Responses elsewhere suggest he may identify strongly with others and put considerable effort into building close and effective relationships, but it is not likely to blur his commercial judgment. On the questions distinguishing those who are hard-nosed, task focused and data driven from those who are much more sentimental, sensitive and values driven, Adrian describes himself as being somewhat towards the former end of the scale.

His score here is not an extreme one which suggests that he is unlikely to be emotionally illiterate, incapable of understanding the motives, feelings and sensitivities of those around him. However, his score here does suggest a strong preference for focusing on and considering the objective commercial and operational realities over and above less measurable considerations.

This does suggest that although friendly, Adrian’s thinking and decision- making is dominated by a concern with what in practical, measurable terms is actually being achieved by those around him. He is much more interested, given the way he describes himself here with objective accomplishment, therefore, than with how his team are feeling.

At interview, it may be useful to explore how he believes he gets the best out of others. It is likely, given the very high level of affiliativeness he describes that he is extremely convinced of his people skills. But it may well be the case, given the focus on the objective and material realities he describes preferring that, nonetheless, he has little insight, intuitiveness or perceptiveness about others.

Q. How do you go about getting the best out of others? Can you give an example of when you have had to manage a team or an individual who were not performing effectively? What was the issue? What did you do? What was the outcome?

This preference for focusing on the more measurable, commercial and objective realities, may also mean that he is less open to the sensitivities of a privately owned organisation. And again it may be useful to test this suggestion.

Q. What would you see as the key differences between senior management in a shareholder owned organisation and a privately owned organisation?

This part of his personality, with his preference for focusing on the objective realities and particularly when coupled with the energy and enthusiasm,

9 corroborates the earlier suggestion of a decisive style of operating. It also suggests, despite the affiliativeness he describes, that a strong task focus and directiveness is likely to characterise his style.

This is particularly likely, given the very high level of self-assertion Adrian describes. On the questions distinguishing those who have a strong sense of their own importance, who are ambitious, competitive and keen to influence from those who are much more mild mannered and receptive to contrary opinion, Adrian’s responses produce an extreme score placing him very much at the former end of the scale.

So, although describing himself as highly affiliative, Adrian appears to have the basic desire to impact on and influence others. The relationships he forms, therefore, are likely to be friendly, open and informal, but also very much about influencing.

The openness he describes suggests a willingness to state his views very straightforwardly. He does not appear to be in the business of dressing his opinions up simply to suit the sensitivities of his audience.

The way he describes himself here suggests he is likely to have strong opinions and demonstrate a willingness to get behind them with a good amount of force. His score, particularly combined with the focus on the material and objective realities he describes, suggests that although friendly, corporate and collegiate in approach, Adrian is capable of being very directive.

The high level of self-assertion he describes suggests that he will want to make things happen and happen his way.

At interview, it may be useful to test this suggestion.

Q. If we think about leadership style along a continuum running from directive and decisive at one end through to collaborative and consultative at the other, where in general would you see yourself sitting? What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of your style?

As is often the case with individuals who describe a very high level of self- assertion, Adrian also appears willing to challenge the status quo intellectually. On the questions distinguishing those who look beyond current policy and strategy from those who are much more concerned to maintain it, Adrian describes himself as being very much at the former end of the scale.

So although behaviourally very conforming, Adrian appears very open to new ideas and new ways of doing things. He is, therefore, likely to identify with the

10 requirement to be an advocate of change. His responses here suggest that he is likely to ensure that strategy, policy and processes are continually evolving.

Adrian appears to be resilient, emotionally mature and capable of taking on a demanding, challenging task. What is likely to stress him, as suggested earlier, is lack of clarity, for example about priorities. Interestingly, Adrian appears to internalise his anxieties. So, although extremely forceful and socially confident, this does not appear to be coupled with a similarly high level of self belief.

For whatever reason, Adrian does not appear to be blessed with the very high level of self-esteem and self-assurance, which normally characterises senior managerial personalities. This is seen in his responses to questions distinguishing those who are self assured from those who are much more self doubting and self-critical. Adrian describes himself as being at the median point when compare with the UK general population.

This is obviously not an extreme score which suggests any dysfunctional degree of anxiety. In fact, it suggests that what is likely to motivate Adrian is not only his competitiveness, his desires to conform to the expectations of others and his own high self expectations, but also a strong fear of failure. This suggests, as the CEO, he is never likely to be complacent. The score here is likely to be linked to his strong self expectations, such that he only accepts himself as a person of value to the extent that he performs and achieves, and thus appears to have an underlying fear of falling short of his own and others’ expectations.

At interview, although sensitive territory it may nonetheless be important to establish what is likely to undermine him.

Q. Your responses to the personality questionnaire suggest like most people you can experience a degree of anxiety and you describe tending to take things to heart rather than blaming others. What circumstances, people or events do you find more taxing emotionally?