One candidate - two different reports: a professional challenge!
Written on the 10 June 2014 by EDA Newsletter LibraryThis is an interesting case study because we were unaware of the background and seriously doubted the accuracy of a second report produced some two years after an initial report. Because the Extended DISC questionnaire is extremely difficult to “manipulate” in an effort to generate a report that the candidate believes management would prefer, it required experienced professional input on the part of the consultant involved to understand the message contained in the two reports.
It is very unusual to receive a second report from a candidate within a two year period that contradicts the original report. In fact, we have experienced this only on a couple of occasions in some fifteen years and in each case there was an interesting reason for the change Because we obviously don’t look at every report produced as they are forwarded direct from our server to our clients (and candidates when instructed by the consultant), there would obviously be other similar cases, but we can only assume the consultants involved have considered the circumstances, drilled down to the cause and understood the reasons.
For there to be a significant change in Profile II (the Profile that illustrates a person’s natural response to an external stimulus), the individual must have experienced significant events or changes in the immediate environment, forcing him/her to seek new ways to succeed. Compare the above 2012 Profiles with the 2014 Profiles shown opposite. Without knowing the reason for the change, the difference to us was a little scary! It will be immediately obvious to anyone with the knowledge of the four quadrant model that there are significant changes. Probably the most important adjustment is the change in shape of Profile II but the strengthening of Profile I together with the emphasis on the D traits tells part of the story. And indeed this is exactly what happened in this case. Let’s call the candidate Ken. Shown opposite are the Profiles of Ken’s Behavioural Report generated in 2012 after he had been employed by the organisation in the same role for some seven years. The report was obtained as part of a project that looked at a retention and motivation problem. Apart from an indication that he was uncertain of his role (tight Profile I) at the time the reportHowever the give-away is the feeling of the need for him to be more competitive and bolder in Profile I, (his perceived need to adjust), although the elevation of the “C” style in Profile II tells us that he still feels the need to be more careful, precise and systematic. There is much to learn from this case study, but here are just a couple of conclusions. The initial report would have conveyed the message that Ken was more than likely in the wrong job and needed support. So the change in role (after seven years!) was well overdue. His “S” type style probably added to his feeling of suppression because of the emotional traits of that style and although we are not fully conversant with all the circumstances, it is possible that his manager added to his feeling of being repressed. We think Ken has some way to go yet because of the indication of some insecurity evident in Profile II of the second report, but this again may be something to do with his work environment. Interestingly, the consultant has told us that he is conducting an Open 360 on the manager Ken reports to, so he too must have arrived at this conclusion. Behavioural reports can tell us much more than just an individual’s behavioural style! was generated, the report appeared to be reliable as Profile II was relatively strong. But it did help management understand that even after some seven years Ken was not certain of his responsibilities and lacked direction.
The consultant tells us that the individual has experienced some very significant changes in his life over the last twelve months, but not in a negative way. His explanation follows . When the original report was generated, the individual said his life was “heading downhill”. He had been with the company for a significant period with no promotion and he was most unhappy. The 2012 report wasn’t necessarily the sole reason for a change in his role, but obviously management took the report into account in promoting him in 2013 to a new position and his life changed considerably. His circle of friends increased, he felt much more comfortable in his new role as it gave him more responsibility and confidence. He even found a lady he intends to marry and is buying a house. Instead of a feeling of suppression, he now looks forward to new opportunities and is clearly enjoying his job. The consultant tells us that Ken was very defensive at the start of the debriefing session, but began to understand how important it was for him to understand himself. He is however still growing into the role as there is some indication of insecurity in Profile II.
However the give-away is the feeling of the need for him to be more competitive and bolder in Profile I, (his perceived need to adjust), although the elevation of the “C” style in Profile II tells us that he still feels the need to be more careful, precise and systematic.
Author:EDA Newsletter Library