Critically Analyze Your Own Personality. Produce An Individu ✓ Solved

Critically analyse your own personality. Produce an individu

Critically analyse your own personality. Produce an individually reflective written essay using dialogic reflection (Jenny Moon) that identifies and critically appraises your personal development needs and key competencies in leadership, team working, effective social interaction and communication, and identifies appropriate people management strategies, procedures and tools. The essay must be an individual piece of work in essay format (no headings or bullet points), written in singular first person (I, me, my), in UK English, not exceed 1,600 words, and use online test data as evidence with those tests presented in appendices. Mandatory tests: MBTI (Temperament), Big Five (Personality Insight), Personal Resilience, Assertiveness, Sound Decision-Making. Optional supplementary tests: Barrett's Value Test, Simple Personality Test, Global Emotional Intelligence Test, Conflict Handling, Locus of Control, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Problem Solving. Critically analyse all online test data: consider expectations, surprises, commonalities, value and significance. Structure your essay with introduction, main body and conclusion; support arguments with academic theory and credible sources and with your online test data; include counterarguments; reflect on learning and future changes; keep paragraph size and first-line topic sentence guidance.

Paper For Above Instructions

I begin by acknowledging the purpose of this reflective essay: to interrogate my personality through dialogic reflection and online test data, and to identify targeted development needs for leadership, team working, social interaction and communication. Using Jenny Moon's dialogic reflective approach, I adopt a conversational stance with my past self and possible alternative interpretations of test results to push beyond superficial description (Moon, 2006). My mandatory assessments returned consistent themes: MBTI indicated ENTJ temperament (extraverted, intuitive, thinking, judging) (Myers & Briggs, 1995); the Big Five showed high extraversion and conscientiousness, moderate openness, average agreeableness and low neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Resilience scores were high, assertiveness rated above average, and decision-making indicated a preference for structured, analytical approaches. I use these data as evidence while recognising the limits of self-report instruments and the need to triangulate with behavioural observation and feedback (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

On first reflection the results largely matched my self-conception as a proactive organiser who enjoys leading and setting direction. However, dialogic questioning prompted me to consider counter-evidence: colleagues sometimes perceive my directness as brusqueness, suggesting lower perceived agreeableness than my self-report implies. This discrepancy highlights a common limitation of personality inventories: they measure tendencies rather than situational enactments (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Asking 'What would a colleague say?' led me to value multi-source feedback and to question whether my analytical decision style, while efficient, may under-emphasise relational cues (Kahneman, 2011).

Critically appraising my leadership competencies, I see strengths in vision-setting, organisation and task-orientation that align with ENTJ and high conscientiousness profiles, which literature links to effective strategic leadership when combined with decisiveness (Yukl, 2013). Yet emotional intelligence gaps emerged: my Global Emotional Intelligence Test proxy and self-reflection suggested I could be less attuned to team emotional climates (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 2000). This matters because emotionally intelligent leadership supports engagement and psychological safety, which in turn enable learning and performance (Goleman, 2000). A plausible development need is therefore to cultivate empathic listening and perspective-taking through coaching and structured reflective practice.

Turning to team working and social interaction, my test profile supports active participation and initiating roles; I naturally seek responsibility and clear task structures. However, dialogic reflection revealed that my preference for quick consensus on direction can suppress dissent and creative friction. Literature on group decision-making warns against premature closure and groupthink, particularly when leaders are directive (Janis, 1982; Kahneman, 2011). A developmental response is to adopt facilitative practices: deliberate use of conflict-handling techniques (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974), structured brainstorming, and rotating facilitation to distribute voice.

Communication analysis shows that assertiveness scores enable me to express views confidently, which is valuable in negotiation and strategic discussion. Yet high assertiveness without calibrated empathy can reduce perceived approachability; my dialogic self asked, 'How would I respond if someone preferred a gentler style?' This question points to a need for adaptive communication skills and active listening training supported by role-play and 360-degree feedback (Armstrong, 2014). A counterargument is that changing style risks diluting clarity; however, evidence suggests adaptive leaders who maintain clarity while varying tone improve team cohesion and outcomes (Goleman, 2000).

My resilience result is a strength: I cope with setbacks and maintain goal focus. Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) link resilience to sustained performance under pressure, which matches my narrative of persevering through complex projects. Nonetheless, resilience should not become endurance of avoidable stressors; reflective dialogue drew attention to boundaries and delegation as skills to balance persistence with wellbeing. Practically, I plan to incorporate resilience-supporting routines (debriefs, peer support) and to employ people management tools such as workload review and clear role design (Armstrong, 2014).

Regarding people management strategies, I favour evidence-based tools: situational leadership to match support with competence levels, regular one-to-ones for development planning, structured decision-making aids (decision trees and pre-mortems) to mitigate cognitive bias (Kahneman, 2011; Yukl, 2013). I recognise the need to embed psychological safety through inclusive practices and feedback loops, using tools like 360-degree feedback and values alignment processes (Barrett, 1998). A potential counterargument is the administrative overhead of these tools; I reflect that selective, consistent application will deliver more benefit than ad hoc measures.

My appraisal of optional tests (values, emotional intelligence, conflict styles) contributed nuance. Barrett's values mapping highlighted a preference for achievement and contribution, which aligns with my leadership orientation but also indicates potential tension with others whose values emphasise security or belonging (Barrett, 1998). Emotional intelligence measures reinforced the priority of developing empathic accuracy. Conflict-handling preferences showed a tendency towards assertive accommodation of position; awareness of this enables intentional use of collaborating or compromising modes where appropriate (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).

In conclusion, dialogic reflection on my online test data reveals coherent strengths in strategic leadership, organisation and resilience, alongside development needs in empathic leadership, tolerance for ambiguity and facilitative team practices. I will translate these insights into actionable steps: seek 360 feedback, undertake emotional intelligence coaching, practise active listening, and adopt structured decision tools. I accept counterarguments that style adaptation must preserve clarity, and so will pilot changes with close evaluation. By continuing dialogic reflection and integrating academic theory with behavioural feedback, I aim to develop a leadership approach that balances task rigour with relational intelligence and inclusive team processes (Moon, 2006).

References

• Armstrong, M. (2014). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Kogan Page.
• Barrett, R. (1998). Liberating the Corporate Soul: Building a Visionary Organisation. Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts and theory. European Psychologist, 18(1), 12–23.
• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, March–April.
• Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Moon, J. A. (2006). Learning Journals: A Handbook for Reflective Practice and Professional Development. Routledge.
• Myers, I. B., & Briggs, P. B. (1995). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Davies-Black Publishing.
• Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.
• Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.