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.
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 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 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 seeminglyan 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, 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 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 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.