My very first
blog for MSLD520 centers on self-awareness (the theme of the 1st week).
My blog will detail the results of a series of diagnostics tests found in Whetton & Cameron, 2011, on pages 46 thru 56. These tests are designed to
increase self-awareness and I will describe how I plan to use the results of the test for my
future benefit.
My
initial reaction to this assignment was “oh great another self-assessment like
one we took in MSLD511”, but once I engaged in this self-assessment I quickly
discovered this self-assessment involved empirical measurements versus personal
reflection and covered many topics not covered in my self-assessment of MSLD511.. I notice my results suggest that I had a few weak areas,
most notably in the cognitive style for planning. This really was not a huge surprise, as I typically
delay planning exercises until the last minute. I have always been a bit of a procrastinator
planning events that I have no enthusiasm for. I believe this has carried forward quite naturally to my current role,
lead fault isolation writer for new aircraft development. In my current position, fault isolation comes after a system is relatively
mature, and in new aircraft development this is typically a chaotic process.
The longer you can wait to develop the fault isolation procedures for that
system, the more prominent the reward is for waiting (less rework of the fault
procedure). That being said, it is unreasonable to expect to wait until all
systems are close to being fully developed before writing the first fault
isolation procedure. So a process of deciding which systems have the least
amount of risk involved is put in place and you hope you get it right or at
minimum you get most of your educate guesses right.
The results of the surveys I believe were pretty spot on. I ranked in
either the top tier or near the top in all other categories. That doesn't mean
there is not room for improvement. Just means I’m at a pretty good place in
those areas measured. I expected to rate high in emotional intelligence (top
tier). I also scored very high in the core self-evaluation and the tolerance of
high ambiguity. I have had extensive training and had real life exposures in these
areas so I really did expect to do pretty good. I would have been disappointed
had I not done well.
At of all the tests I was most surprised I did well on the
cognitive style of creating. “Individuals who score high on the creating style
tend to prefer experimentation, nonrational
thinking, and creativity.” (Whetten
& Cameron, 2011, p. 75). Nonrational? Creative? These things were not characteristics
of me! I’m a very rational thinker! Creative…well maybe, but I stink at
creating anything other than stick figures! After I saw my results for the
creating style I reflected a bit on why I might score so high in this area. After
reading a bit further, what Whetten & Cameron had to say began to make more
sense to me…” They seek uncertainty and novelty, and they are comfortable
amidst ambiguity.” (p. 75). By virtue of my task, creating fault procedures for
systems not fully developed, I was indeed surrounded by ambiguity and I had to
learn how to cope with it, so I developed skills that resulted in a high score
in this area. I believe that it is
likely that I adapted to the situation and attribute being highly adaptable to
my Air Force career. AF never allowed me to say in the same job for too long
and most jobs had many different responsibilities assigned to me. This
experience I believe helped me learn adaptation skills.
In conclusion, I have confirmed my strengths in areas I
thought to be strong and I have discovered that I’m pretty adaptable to current
situations. Skills I didn’t think I was strong in have become strengths. My
takeaway from this experience is most people are more adaptable than they
probably think they are and I would recommend taking this assessment for
anyone.
Reference:
Whetten, D. & Cameron, K., (2011). Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
