The Journey of Self-Awareness Continues

My very first blog for MSLD520 centers on self-awareness (the theme of the 1^st 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.