Resume

1107 Springwater Ct, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215·513-348-9752·swest0729@yahoo.com

Sheila West

Objective

To obtain a management position where I can utilize my skills along with my education and experience; to obtain a role that offers opportunity for advancement through contributions and successful business results.

Experience

Dec 2013 – Current

Liberty National Life

Cincinnati, Ohio

Life & Health Agent

Seeks opportunities to present and implement Worksite Advantage Program to Employers

Sells insurance products to customers based on Needs Analysis

Point-of-Contact for customer service, claim resolution, etc.

Builds and maintains relationships with Employers to conserve business for re-enrollment

 

 

July 2008 – Apr 2013

Humana Health Insurance

Cincinnati, Ohio

Customer Care Specialist

Guide for high-profile employer groups regarding claim resolutions and benefits

Inbound and outbound calls to members and medical providers

Builds relationships with members and medical providers by providing Humana Perfect Service

Claim research to ensure accuracy of processing based on provider contracts and member benefits

 

Nov 2006 – Apr 2008                        Kastle Systems                         Arlington, Virginia

Senior Account Manager

Supervised team of  Client Services Account Managers

Reviewed client proposals for content based on system design

Provided support to Account Managers with offsite client visits

Implemented and supervised improvement projects for client satisfaction

Member of Client Services Interview Team

 

May 2006 – Nov 2006

Kastle Systems

Arlington, Virginia

Account Manager

Proposal writing for system installations

Conducted client briefings in metropolitan Virginia, Maryland & Wash., D.C.

Handled daily client requests via email and phone

Traveled to client sites to establish and maintain excellent customer relationships

 

Oct 2004 – Apr 2006

Procter & Gamble Distributing Company

Cincinnati, Ohio

Customer Logistics Financial Coordinator

Order-through-delivery customer service management, including continuous replenishment processing for major retail customer

Customer Service Satisfaction Team Leader; provided flow-to-the- work processes for team

Consistently met service and turn level goals

Maintained client relationships via phone, email and travel when necessary

 

Jul 1973 – Oct 2004

              Western Southern Life            

Cincinnati, Ohio

Support Specialist (4 years)

Resolved declined credit card payments to prevent policy lapse ; met goals of conservation

Application processing – obtained Life & Health Agent license

Client phone inquiries for policy conservation, policy values

Senior Non-forfeiture Analyst (2 Years)

Serviced policyholders by supplying nonforfeiture values to conserve policy

Created excel programs to comply with daily requests for policy quotes

Collaboration with medical agencies and funeral homes concerning policy values

Actuarial Supervisor (19 years) & Various Clerical Positions (6 years)

Supervisor- responsible for performance of up to 18 associates – performance evaluations, policy inquiries, periodical reports to Vice Pres of Actuarial, process improvements

Clerical positions – calculation of policy inquiries and periodical reports

 

Education

Associate of Science

University of Cincinnati  

Cincinnati, OH

 

Bachelor of Science  (HR Mgt.)             Bellevue University                                       Bellevue, NE

 

 

Masters of Science in Mgt. (HR)          Bellevue University                                        Bellevue, NE

 

Technical and Organizational Skills

Word, Excel, Power Point, Continuous Replenishment Program, Leadership, Customer Service, Analytical, Oral & Written Communication, Problem Resolution, Planning & Prioritization

License &Honors

 

Life & Health Insurance License

Cincinnati Black Achievers Recipient (Western Southern Life Insurance)

Special Merit Award for Contributions (Western Southern Life Insurance)

Dean’s List – Bellevue University

Graduation Honors – Magna Cum Laude – Bellevue University

 

MSM 510 Empirical Project

Ambiguity in Workplace Sexual Harassment: Perception vs. Reality
Sheila West & Cristina Guzman
MSM 510 Foundations of Management Processes

Introduction
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates a hostile, intimidating work environment”(U.S. EEOC, 1980). Since there is not a universally accepted definition of harassment, it does leave open space for ambiguity and different interpretations. This empirical project will reference information researched in an effort to determine whether or not there is ambiguity in sexual harassment and whether or not the harassment is perceived versus a reality.
Ambiguity due to Physical Attractiveness
A research on sexism and beautyism from the Journal of Applied Psychology notes that appearance cues are associated in ambiguous sexual harassment incidents (Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977; Clifford & Walster 1973; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams & Rottman, 1966). Physical attractiveness has been stereotyped with the implication that what is beautiful is good (Dion Berscheid & Walster, 1972) and is perceived as a positive attribute.
Would sexual harassment be a perception versus reality when the defendant or harasser is less attractive and the plaintiff or victim is more attractive? More specifically, would sexual harassment be a perception versus reality with the combination of an unattractive boss and an attractive secretary or an attractive boss with an unattractive secretary?
A research article by Castellow, Wuensch, and Moore (1990) examines how physical attractiveness, or the lack thereof, actually influences the perceptions of guilt regarding sexual harassment. The participants in this study were 18-30 year old psychology students from the northeastern United States. The students consisted of fifty-nine male and 91 female students; 71% of students were Caucasians. The participants were presented with a trial summary based on real sexual harassment trials. These trials were already assessed to be a possible, “it’s her word against his” scenario (Castello, Wuensch, and Moore, 1990).
Along with the trial summaries, the participants received photos that had already been rated as least and most attractive by a separate participant pool. The photos were rated on a 5-point scale that was anchored by extremely unattractive and extremely attractive. The participant pool chose two unattractive and two attractive photos for each gender. These photos revealed the head and shoulders of professionally dressed individuals who were in their mid-to-late twenties. The photos were put into pairs to create four conditions: attractive male paired with attractive female, attractive male paired with unattractive female, unattractive male paired with attractive female and unattractive male paired with unattractive female.
Each study participant received a four-series packet that was a representation of the four created conditions named above. Each packet contained photos of the attractive and unattractive male and females. The researchers applied the implicit personality theory which builds the expectation that one would know more about that person once the traits were assessed. The attractive and unattractive, males and females were rated on the following 11 bipolar adjective pairs of traits: bright/dull, sincere/insincere, successful/unsuccessful, assertive/unassertive, warm/cold, honest/deceitful, outgoing/shy, happy/sad, helpful/unhelpful, dominant/submissive, and cooperative/competitive (Golden, Johnson & Lopez, 2001). The traits would mediate the effect of attractiveness on perceptions of sexual harassment (Golden, Johnson & Lopez, 2001).
Next, the participants actually read the ambiguous sexual harassment scenarios that involved the manager (perpetrator) and his female secretary (victim). Out of fifty scenarios that could potentially be used for the study, four ambiguous scenarios were selected. These four scenarios were selected based on a 5 – point scale; a middle- meaning rating was used to select these scenarios. The scenarios presented a range of possible harassment behaviors.
Below are the scenarios:
1. The boss frequently watches secretary as she passes his office; she notices that he has a strange smile as he watches her.
2. Boss told his colleague an inappropriate, sexually explicit joke in her presence.
3. Boss repeatedly calls the secretary “honey”.
4. Boss invited secretary to his house to discuss a work related project
After the scenarios were read, the photos appeared again along with the description of the ambiguous sexual harassment incident. The participants were now presented a 5 – point scale that was anchored by “definitely not sexual harassment” and “definitely sexual harassment”. They were now asked to assess whether or not the defendant was guilty of sexual harassment.
The study results indicated that the attractive plaintiff and unattractive defendant yielded the highest percentage of guilty judgments. The combination of unattractive plaintiff and attractive defendant yield the opposite, a lower percentage of guilt. The study concluded that “the attractiveness cues may impact whether the perceiver interprets a given action as harassment or not” (Castellow et al. 1990).
To further conclude, it is our opinion that the participating population used in the physical attractiveness study could have been more diverse. It was noted that 71% of the population used was Caucasian. A more diverse population may have shown different results based on the various types of culture represented by the population.
Yet another study by LaRocca and Kromrey (1999) examined an ambiguous incident of sexual harassment involving a college professor and a student. In this study, the photos were adjusted to present the perpetrator and the victim as unattractive. This study found that an attractive perpetrator was rated as less harassing when judged by someone from the opposite sex. This was true of males and females. Furthermore, it was noted that males rated an incident as more harassing when it pertains to an unattractive victim; females rated an incident as more harassing when there was an attractive victim than unattractive. The scenarios were limited in that they always depicted the college professor (perpetrator) and the student (victim). Thus, it could not be determined from the study what reactions to an ambiguous incident would be the same in other settings. There was nothing presented in this study as to how the perceptions evolved. Furthermore, this study actually presents an interesting pairing of individuals as it is highly un-ethical for a college professor/student relationship to exist outside of the classroom.
Ambiguity due to Age
Attributes implicated in sexual harassment have indicated that a woman is least likely to be harassed as she ages, and after the age of 50 years, it lowers much more significantly or altogether stops (Riger, 1991). It is suggested that the reasoning behind this is that women over the age of 50 are no longer looked at as powerless; another reason could simply be that older women are perceived as more mature.
A review conducted by the National Council for Research on Women exposed that 85% of working women expected to encounter some form of sexual harassment. The council also found that women in lower level positions; students, service workers, aides, were the most vulnerable. However, women in higher positions have also experienced some form of sexual harassment (Siegal 1991). A National Law Journal article reports that out of 3,000 women at top U.S. law firms, 60% reported that they had in fact been victims of sexual harassment (Wallach & Marx, 1989). The demographics of the report however did not indicate the women’s ages or positions (Wallach & Marx, 1989). By doing so, we could have possibly seen if age would present any ambiguity in the sexual harassment.
Ambiguity based on Race
Scholars have often studied the impact that gender has on sexual harassment outcomes but have never explored the effects that race has on the perceptions of sexual harassment (Harsh, K. L., Tata, J., & Kwesiga, E., 2009). Studies of sexual harassment have often focused on white women’s experiences. Studies of ethnic harassment have been conducted and have been compared with the prevalence of Whites’ and non-Whites’ experiences but do not make a mention of how sex has also influenced the harassment (Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C., 2006).
A research study in the Journal of College Counseling examines the influence of race on the perception of sexual harassment; it also notes recommended punitive measures for the potential harasser by college judicial boards (Nelson & Sydell, 1998). The study was designed to investigate whether the gender of the observer and the race of the harasser influence perceptions of an ambiguous sexual harassment incident.
The reason for the study was due in fact to an incident that occurred at Swarthmore College. The incident involved a female Caucasian student who accused a male Hispanic student of sexual harassment. The female reported that she felt threatened by the male’s aggressiveness; the male in turn claimed that he was only acting in his usual manner and meant no harm to the female. This study was to determine if there was a measurable, racially based bias in Caucasian college students.
For the purposes of the study, Caucasians, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics were used as potential harassers in an ambiguous sexual harassment vignette. Three main hypotheses were used to deal with the race of the potential harasser:
1. Participants will view the potential victim’s behavior differently depending on the race of the potential harasser.
2. Participants will view the potential harasser’s behavior differently depending on the race of the potential harasser.
3. Participants will recommend different punitive outcomes depending on the race of the potential harasser.
The hypotheses were based on related findings of several past researchers who had dealt with perceptions of crime and racism. The independent variable was the race of the potential harasser. The dependant variable was the numerical sum of each of the participant’s scores.
The following vignette was used in the study to depict a possible sexual harassment situation:
Julie, a Caucasian female attending college, reported to the
collegiate judicial board that she had been repeatedly
sexually harassed and intimidated by George, a Caucasian
male attending the same school. Julie claimed that George
had been calling her on the phone and appearing at her dorm
room for about two months, although Julie had tried to
discourage and stop this behavior. Additionally, Julie felt
threatened by George’s manner, which had seemed
unnecessarily aggressive and suggestive to her. George, in
his statement, claimed that the manner in which he acted was
simply his usual manner and that his actions were not meant
to seem intimidating or suggestive, just friendly.
Each participant read the scenario, however George’s race was manipulated to be Caucasian, African American, Asian American, or Hispanic. The vignette was designed in a way to be ambiguous regarding the male character’s guilt or innocence. By doing so, it allowed the participants to freely implement the scenario with possible bias, on any level. Participants then completed a 25 item survey with their responses measured on a 7 point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree).
The data was analyzed and the results suggested that Caucasians’ attitudes toward characters in the vignette were not inclined by the race of the harasser. Results also suggested that there were no significant differences by the race of the harasser in the perception of harassment or recommendation of punitive measures, suggesting a shift in race relations among college students (Nelson & Sydell, 1998).
According to the study noted above and the thoroughness of the research provided, there does not appear to be any bias in perceptions of sexual harassment and race. Race seems not to play a significant role in sexual harassment in this study; only gender.
Conclusion
Based upon the studies noted in this project, there appears to be some degree of ambiguity due to physical attractiveness. A physically attractive person could undoubtedly receive compliments regarding their physical beauty and could perceive that they are being sexually harassed.
Regarding the possibility of ambiguity due to age, our findings did indicate that more mature women, over the age of 50, are not as likely to perceive sexual harassment. The implication is that women younger than 50 are more susceptible to being sexually harassed or at least perceive that they are being sexually harassed.
Based on the study presented, there doesn’t appear to be any bias in perceptions of sexual harassment regarding a particular race. In an effort to explore the various aspects of perceived or “real” sexual harassment, we conclude that ambiguity does exist in some instances.

References:
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 426-436.
Cash. T., Gillen, B., & Burns, D. (1977). Sexism and ‘beautyism’ in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301-310.
Castellow, W., Wuensch, K., & Moore, C. (1990). Effects of physical attractiveness on the plaintiff and defendant in sexual harassment judgments. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 547-562.
Clifford, M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effects of physical attractiveness on teacher expectation. Sociology of Education, 46, 248.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Ford, C., Donis, F. (1996, November 01). The relationship between age and gender in workers’ attitudes toward sexual harassment. Journal of Psychology, ({130}) 627(7)
Golden, J. J., Johnson, C., Lopez, R. (2001). Sexual harassment in the workplace: exploring the effects of attractiveness on perception of harassment. Sociology, Psychology, 45, 767-784.
Harsh, K. L., Tata, J., & Kwesiga, E. (2009). A model for predicting outcomes of sexual harassment complaints by race and gender. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21(1), 21-35.
LaRocca, M. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1999). The perception of sexual harassment in higher education: Impact of gender and attractiveness. Sex Roles, 40, 921-932.
Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. American Psychologist, 46, 497-505.
Siegal, D. L. (1991). Sexual harassment: Research and resources. New York: National Council for Research on Women.
Sydell, E. J., & Nelson, E. S. (1998). Gender and Race Differences in the Perceptions of Sexual Harassment. Journal Of College Counseling, 1(2), 99.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980, November). Final amendment to guidelines on discrimination because of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 29 CFR Part 1604. Federal Register, 45, 74675-74677.
Wallach, E. J., & Marx, J. S. (1989). Discrimination. The National Law Journal, 11(23), 21.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). The importance of physical attractiveness on dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508516.

MSM 500 Diagnostic Instruments

Behavioral Diagnostic Instruments
Sheila West
Bellevue University

ABSTRACT
There are several behavioral diagnostic instruments that can have a profound impact on how we manage people in the workplace. It is important that these instruments be used to further our understanding of ourselves as well as those we lead. This writing includes my results from testing on the following instruments: Brain Dominance, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Locust of Control, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Learning Style and Emotional Intelligence. Each instrument proved to be beneficial and useful in education and in the workplace.
Brain Dominance Instrument

Nobel Prize winner Roger Sperry studied the relationship between the brain’s right and left hemisphere. He discovered that each side functioned differently in the thinking process. The left side of the brain processes information analytically, rationally, logically and sequentially. The right side of the brain functions by recognizing relationships and also by processing information based on intuitiveness. It puts information together to get the entire picture and then resolves problems based on insights and perceptions.
Dr. Ned Herrmann developed a methodology that measures thinking preferences. This measuring tool is known as the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI).
The thinking preference influences the way you communicate, solve problems and make decisions in the workplace. According to the Elephant at Work website (2012), “One of the biggest mistakes I find when someone first starts to apply the HBDI model is that the action or behavior is being assessed vs. the thinking style”. Neither thinking preference is incorrect.
“Fundamentally, creative managers must be aware of how to incorporate the talents of both brain hemispheres to maximize personal effectiveness” (Dew, 1996). “Although it’s not difficult to determine which hemisphere dominates your thinking, identifying ways to harness the power of the other side can be” (Dew, 1996). This will allow one to shift from one thinking process to another as needed.
“Growth should also come through self-awareness of your thinking processes and through understanding how your comfortable thinking patterns influence your views and your ability to learn and perform” (Dew, 1996).
Managers manage based on their thinking preferences; they actually view things through “lenses of personal mental preferences” (Clayton & Kimbrell, 2007). Knowing your management style can “also cultivate situational awareness in areas of management weaknesses” (Clayton & Kimbrell, 2007). Ones thinking preference will also determine personal decision styles used in management.
As part of curriculum design, universities may wish to adapt requirements such that it emphasizes experience in such areas as creative problem solving. This would involve using an integrated thinking style in order to solve problems.
I scored an 8 on the right side of the brain. I scored 7 on the left side. Actually, I believe I am using the left side of my brain as I organize this paper.
Myers & Briggs Type Indicator
According to an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education website (2010), “The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MTBI) is a psychometric tool based upon Jung’s theory of psychological types”. It identifies your personality as being either extravert or introvert, sensing or intuitive, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving.
The following are my MTBI results: Extraversion over Introversion (slight 22 % preference), Intuition over Sensing (distinctive 62% preference), Feeling over Thinking (moderate 50% preference), and Judging over Perceiving (moderate 44% preference).
The extraversion psychological preference indicates that my attention and energy are obtained from active involvement in events and various activities. I am outgoing and a people-person; I like to make things happen. The Myers & Briggs Foundation website (1997) indicates that “I sometimes jump too quickly into an activity and don’t allow enough time to think it over”. I really don’t believe this applies to me. To the contrary, I often allow too much time to think things over. Also, this article made mention that an extravert may not stop long enough to get clear understanding before starting a project. That is definitely not true in my case. I’m very detailed and seek to understand what I am to do in a project or assignment.
The intuitive psychological preference indicates that I pay “the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation website (1997). I like to find out the facts and the bigger picture. Once I find out the objective, I then am able to back-up and determine what steps to take to get to that objective. Whenever I encounter something that is very difficult, I often wonder if there is a better way to achieve the objective; I am very interested in doing things that are new and different.
This psychological preference indicates that I am one who has “the ability to build relationships and to be persuasive” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation website, (1997). I have a strong desire to build relationships; that is one of the reasons that I am in pursuit of a career in Human Resources. After many years of working in corporate America, I have seen the “stoic” relationship between employees and management. It is my desire to help bridge the gap somehow and bring about a better understanding of how employees and management can work better together.
The judging psychological preference indicates that I want my life planned and in order. I push to get things settled and decided. This is true. Perhaps this is because I don’t easily embrace surprises that affect me negatively. This may be done in an effort to control outcomes. This is not necessarily something to be proud of because perhaps I control out of fear of what could happen otherwise.
As I pursue my educational degree, my diagnosed preferences can certainly benefit me. As an extravert, I outwardly direct my energy in balancing a full time job along with my educational pursuit. I struggle in determining how the “feeling” preference applies in my educational pursuit other than in my interaction with my fellow students, especially in the group projects. On the other hand, the characteristics in the judging preference lends to my ability to organize, plan and follow through on projects.
As a feeling- extravert, I have been able to form many valuable relationships in my work and personal life. I am very close to my children and grandchildren, often sacrificing for the needs of my family and friends. I love to travel, have fun, and invest in relationships. As an extravert, I feel it is important to choose the level or intimacies of relationships. Extraverts are more easily drawn to people and could hastily make wrong decisions forming relationships.
As an intuitive person, I love to try what hasn’t been tried before whether it is on a personal level or in the workplace. My current manager is accepting of the new ideas that I bring to our team. This allows my creative juices to flow.
The judging preference heavily impacts my workplace environment. It is imperative that I plan, follow through and am organized.
The MTBI can be used in employee selection and to improve the work environment. The MBTI can assist in developing leaders as well as assist with training and coaching needs.
I am not currently in a management position at my company however, I do believe that if this sort of testing could be implemented to determine selection for some of the positions, it would give better insight into the candidate. As an ENFJ, I know that I am and could be even a greater asset to my organization. According to the ENFJ website (2005), “ENFJ’s can juggle an amazing number of responsibilities or projects simultaneously; entrepreneurial ability”.
Although there are many positive attributes of the ENFJ’s, there are challenges as well. ENFJ’s are charismatic and have the power to be manipulative with their “phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship” (ENFJ website, 2005). All in all, I am in the ENFJ category with President Barack O’Bama, Dick Van Dyke and Oprah Winfrey!
Locus of Control

One can attribute their successes or failures to be a result of their own behaviors or from forces outside of their control. This orientation is called your “locust of control”.
My locust of control, or how I perceive the cause of my life events, is more internal than external. My overall scoring is 76. I am not surprise with the results of the assessment. I take responsibility for my actions. I am certainly not a prisoner of the concept of “luck”, fate genetic make-up. The results note that this attitude generates motivation, effort, perseverance and willingness to take risks. The following are my results:
Success Orientation – 77 – success as a result of my skills, intelligence or nice personality.
Success Stability – 53 – at times I may attribute success to unstable factors. This is a mis-conception as I don’t believe my success is due to luck.
Failure Orientation – 77 – At times may interpret failure as result of my actions or characteristics but also may attribute it to luck. Again, this is a mis-conception as I don’t believe my success is based on luck.
Failure Stability – 37 – Attributes failures due to unstable forces such as lack of effort. Again, a mis-conception. I may have hastily answered questions that brought about this result.
Global Locust of Control – 82 – Believes that by speaking mind in a cause, you can have significant impact
Impact of Upbringing and Heredity – 79 – Believe can overcome background and genetics
Belief in Luck or Destiny – 28 – Believe most events that happen in my life are determined by behavior and effort
Self –efficacy – 97 – Have excellent belief in my own abilities and feel able to handle obstacles that come my way
Career or Academic Related Locus of Control – 81 – Believes these achievements are within my control
Relationship Locust of Control – 70 – Feels can have more successful relationships by being respectful and keeping positive attitude
Health Related Locust of Control – 93 – How I behave presently can impact my long term/short term health
Impression Management – 14 – Answered questions honestly in this test
The assessment did note that more effective managers have an internal locust of control. I certainly understand why this is so. A manager has to be ok with taking risks. Someone who is more externally focused may not be able to do so. When management decisions need to be made and deadlines are to be met, there is no time to focus on externals such as blaming others. Internal locust of control individuals is accountable and persevering.
Tolerance of Ambiguity

My scoring notes that I am more tolerant in the “insolubility” area. Below are my scores:
Novelty – Tolerance regarding new information or situations – 16
Tolerance regarding the new or unique. Again, this type of situation may be ambiguous but it is challenging to me. It allows for creativity.
Complexity – Tolerance regarding multiple, unrelated or distinctive information – 23
Complexity does present more of a challenge since complex situations have more un-related information.
Insolubility – Tolerance regarding resolving difficult problems – 10
I actually like to solve problems especially those that seems insoluble. I am analytical. If information given is ambiguous, that challenges me to be resourceful in finding a resolution.
An assessment such as this is useful in management. There has to be much ambiguity in regard to assigned projects and resolution of complex issues where little or no information is available. I can imagine that it wouldn’t be unusual to have deadlines set with little resources at hand. Yet and still, a manager has to be able to take the ball and run with it.
Learning Styles in Workplace
The three basic learning styles are Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic. Visual learners learn through observation, examples and documentations. Auditory learners learn best by listening. They prefer lectures and thorough explanations. There are two types of auditory learners: listening and verbal. As a listening learner, you actually learn by hearing; as verbal learner, you speak words that represent how you understand. Kinesthetic learners “have to do it to learn it” (Dolin, 2013); they learn through hands-on approach. Ann Dolin notes that “while most are typically stronger in one area than another, the trick is figuring out the preferred modality and capitalizing on strengths” (2013).
The following are benefits in knowing your learning style (Carter, C., Bishop, J., Bixby, M., & Kravits, S. L. (1999):
• You will have a better chance of avoiding problematic situations
• You will be more successful on the job
• You will be more able to target areas that need improvement
To my surprise, my highest scores were Auditory (15) and Kinesthetic (15). My Visual score was 10. I’ve always thought myself to be a visual learner.
Education is about learning and application. It just doesn’t make sense to assume that everyone learns in the same style. As I reflect back to my pre-college education, I wonder how this process can be used in the high schools. I’m glad that this is acknowledged in our higher education.
My learning style is reflected in my home and work life. Just recently, I completed 5-week training in the workplace. Since the training, I have been able to successfully apply what I’ve learned in training. As I mentioned previously, I assumed my main learning style would be “visual”. My success in training was mainly due to the notes taken. As I reflect back, I now see that the auditory learning style was prevalent as well in that I had to listen carefully to take notes!
It is very important for management to know their own learning style and that of their employees. I do believe that with the various personality types (16 different combinations), it could be quite challenging. Of course, conflicts will arise but can certainly be minimized with knowledge of the learning styles of the employees.
Emotional Intelligence

The Emotional Intelligence test measures how we recognize what emotions are and their relationships. It further measures our ability to reason and bring about resolutions to problems based on those emotions.
An article on an emotional intelligence test notes four different aspects that can be used in work place teams. First is the awareness of own emotions which “involves being in touch with our moment-to-moment feelings” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Second is the management of one’s own emotions which involves the ability to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Thirdly is the awareness of other’s emotions. This involves recognition of emotions displayed by others and also the ability to recognize false expressions of emotions (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Lastly, the article mentions the management of others’ emotions. It is noted that “a more controversial ability in teams is the ability to manage other team members’ emotions” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). “In some circumstances, emotions of other team members need to be managed to ensure that working relationships are maintained” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009).
The level of emotional intelligence that a manager possesses is proportionate to their ability to effectively lead others and deal with their emotional being. A leader must be able to deal with their own emotions as well as be able to understand the emotions of others.
After taking the Queendom Intelligence Test, my EQ score is 122; the percentile score is 93. My score is noted as “fairly good”. Overall, I am able to understand my emotions. Below are the more detailed results of the assessment.
Ability to characterize emotions in oneself and in others – 81
The test indicates that I am in tune with my emotions. I am aware of my strong areas and limitations. It also notes that I’m not that good at recognizing emotions in others. I disagree with that analogy. I tend to be very empathetic and discerning when it comes to others.
Ability/willingness to use feelings constructively; to let them guide you – 87
When I run into a problem, it is my intent to resolve the issue if at all possible. I believe it is a waste of time to dwell on an issue without at least attempting to resolve it, if at all possible. My challenge is to make sure that I give adequate thought-time to the resolution. As issues arise, I do tend to see things in a logical sense and sometimes from an emotional perspective. I don’t know that it’s always the best practice as some things just won’t be logical, even though it’s the best resolution. Finally this section notes that my beliefs guide my actions. For the most part, that is true. I’m not easily swayed from what I believe to be moral.
Ability to understand and analyze emotions, and solve emotional problems – 81
The results indicate that I understand the profoundness of emotions however there is need for improvement in my depth of understanding. I disagree with this result. I understand and appreciate the impact that emotions have in my daily life. Another result noted that I have trouble empathizing with others. That is totally incorrect. Because I am so empathetic, I sometimes find it hard to give tough-love in situations where it is warranted. Issue resolution is effective and appropriate. Actually, I love to analyze and solve problems. Lastly, this section noted that I am very insightful.
Ability to take responsibility for one’s emotions – 87
The results in this section indicate that I’m quite impulsive and don’t always consider consequences when taking an action. I disagree with this assessment. If anything, I give too much thought because I am so analytical and logical. Another result is that I have outstanding self-control and a high degree of resilience. I’m not always in control however, I try to be! I’ve been told many times that I am resilient…I bounce back.
Attaining emotional growth and maturity – 89
The results indicate that I am assertive for the most part but at times I’m not comfortable in making my needs known or heard. This is true. I tend to focus more on meeting the needs of others. In my latter years I am beginning to focus more on my needs. The results further state that I’m an independent thinker and doer and that I have very high and stable self-esteem. This is true. Finally, the results note that I treat others with respect and expect to be treated likewise. This is very important to me. I am very intolerant of dis-respect whether it’s done to me or someone else.
Strengths/Limitations
The assessment listed many strengths such as emotional self-awareness, self-motivation, flexibility, resilience, positive mindset, independent and problem solving that is conducive to resolution. Regarding limitations, it was noted that my impulse control needs improvement as well as the ability to recognize emotions. I am not in agreement with these two as limitations. As I mentioned previously, I am able to appreciate and recognize emotions in others. I can be impulsive when it comes to last-minute vacations but certainly not when it comes to problem resolution.
Conclusion
Each diagnostic instrument has proven to be useful in managing people in the workplace society. The results have allowed me to gain insight as to why I think and behave the way I do. These behaviors will have a direct impact on how I lead others. I am also challenged by my areas of weakness. As I move forward into management, it is one of my goals to have these types of instruments administered, where appropriate, in the workplace.

References:
Butt, J. (2005). Extraverted intuitive feeling judging. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://typelogic.com/enfj.html
Carter, C., Bishop, J., Bixby, M., & Kravits, S. L. (1999). Keys to study skills: Opening doors to learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Clayton, P., Kimbrell, J. (2007). Thinking preferences as diagnostic and learning tools for managerial styles and predictors of auditor success. Managerial Finance, 33, 921-934
Dessert, L. (2012). Hermann brain dominance instrument question series: part 3. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.elephantsatwork.com/herrmann-brain-dominance-instrument-question-series-part-3/
Dew, J. (1996). Are you a right-brain or left-brain thinker?. Quality Progress, 29, 91
Dolin, A. (2013). Why is learning so important. Retrieved from
http://ectutoring.com/resources/articles/why-is-learning-style-so-important/
Houston, N. (2010). Myers-Briggs: or how to learn to get along. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/myers-briggs-or-how-to-learn-to-get-along/22956
Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: development and initial validation of the short version of the workgroup emotional intelligence profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and Organization, 15, 452-469

Martin, C. (1997). Extraversion or Introversion. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.asp
Sandefer, J. (2012). The one key trait for successful entrepreneurs: a tolerance for ambiguity. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/acton/2012/05/17/the-one-key-trait-for-successful-entrepreneurs-a-tolerance-for-ambiguity/
The Meyers & Briggs Foundation. (n.d.) All types are equal. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/all-types-are-equal.asp
The Meyers & Briggs Foundation. (n.d.).Mbti basics. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp

Behavioral Diagnostic Instruments
Sheila West
Bellevue University

ABSTRACT
There are several behavioral diagnostic instruments that can have a profound impact on how we manage people in the workplace. It is important that these instruments be used to further our understanding of ourselves as well as those we lead. This writing includes my results from testing on the following instruments: Brain Dominance, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Locust of Control, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Learning Style and Emotional Intelligence. Each instrument proved to be beneficial and useful in education and in the workplace.
Brain Dominance Instrument

Nobel Prize winner Roger Sperry studied the relationship between the brain’s right and left hemisphere. He discovered that each side functioned differently in the thinking process. The left side of the brain processes information analytically, rationally, logically and sequentially. The right side of the brain functions by recognizing relationships and also by processing information based on intuitiveness. It puts information together to get the entire picture and then resolves problems based on insights and perceptions.
Dr. Ned Herrmann developed a methodology that measures thinking preferences. This measuring tool is known as the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI).
The thinking preference influences the way you communicate, solve problems and make decisions in the workplace. According to the Elephant at Work website (2012), “One of the biggest mistakes I find when someone first starts to apply the HBDI model is that the action or behavior is being assessed vs. the thinking style”. Neither thinking preference is incorrect.
“Fundamentally, creative managers must be aware of how to incorporate the talents of both brain hemispheres to maximize personal effectiveness” (Dew, 1996). “Although it’s not difficult to determine which hemisphere dominates your thinking, identifying ways to harness the power of the other side can be” (Dew, 1996). This will allow one to shift from one thinking process to another as needed.
“Growth should also come through self-awareness of your thinking processes and through understanding how your comfortable thinking patterns influence your views and your ability to learn and perform” (Dew, 1996).
Managers manage based on their thinking preferences; they actually view things through “lenses of personal mental preferences” (Clayton & Kimbrell, 2007). Knowing your management style can “also cultivate situational awareness in areas of management weaknesses” (Clayton & Kimbrell, 2007). Ones thinking preference will also determine personal decision styles used in management.
As part of curriculum design, universities may wish to adapt requirements such that it emphasizes experience in such areas as creative problem solving. This would involve using an integrated thinking style in order to solve problems.
I scored an 8 on the right side of the brain. I scored 7 on the left side. Actually, I believe I am using the left side of my brain as I organize this paper.
Myers & Briggs Type Indicator
According to an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education website (2010), “The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MTBI) is a psychometric tool based upon Jung’s theory of psychological types”. It identifies your personality as being either extravert or introvert, sensing or intuitive, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving.
The following are my MTBI results: Extraversion over Introversion (slight 22 % preference), Intuition over Sensing (distinctive 62% preference), Feeling over Thinking (moderate 50% preference), and Judging over Perceiving (moderate 44% preference).
The extraversion psychological preference indicates that my attention and energy are obtained from active involvement in events and various activities. I am outgoing and a people-person; I like to make things happen. The Myers & Briggs Foundation website (1997) indicates that “I sometimes jump too quickly into an activity and don’t allow enough time to think it over”. I really don’t believe this applies to me. To the contrary, I often allow too much time to think things over. Also, this article made mention that an extravert may not stop long enough to get clear understanding before starting a project. That is definitely not true in my case. I’m very detailed and seek to understand what I am to do in a project or assignment.
The intuitive psychological preference indicates that I pay “the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation website (1997). I like to find out the facts and the bigger picture. Once I find out the objective, I then am able to back-up and determine what steps to take to get to that objective. Whenever I encounter something that is very difficult, I often wonder if there is a better way to achieve the objective; I am very interested in doing things that are new and different.
This psychological preference indicates that I am one who has “the ability to build relationships and to be persuasive” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation website, (1997). I have a strong desire to build relationships; that is one of the reasons that I am in pursuit of a career in Human Resources. After many years of working in corporate America, I have seen the “stoic” relationship between employees and management. It is my desire to help bridge the gap somehow and bring about a better understanding of how employees and management can work better together.
The judging psychological preference indicates that I want my life planned and in order. I push to get things settled and decided. This is true. Perhaps this is because I don’t easily embrace surprises that affect me negatively. This may be done in an effort to control outcomes. This is not necessarily something to be proud of because perhaps I control out of fear of what could happen otherwise.
As I pursue my educational degree, my diagnosed preferences can certainly benefit me. As an extravert, I outwardly direct my energy in balancing a full time job along with my educational pursuit. I struggle in determining how the “feeling” preference applies in my educational pursuit other than in my interaction with my fellow students, especially in the group projects. On the other hand, the characteristics in the judging preference lends to my ability to organize, plan and follow through on projects.
As a feeling- extravert, I have been able to form many valuable relationships in my work and personal life. I am very close to my children and grandchildren, often sacrificing for the needs of my family and friends. I love to travel, have fun, and invest in relationships. As an extravert, I feel it is important to choose the level or intimacies of relationships. Extraverts are more easily drawn to people and could hastily make wrong decisions forming relationships.
As an intuitive person, I love to try what hasn’t been tried before whether it is on a personal level or in the workplace. My current manager is accepting of the new ideas that I bring to our team. This allows my creative juices to flow.
The judging preference heavily impacts my workplace environment. It is imperative that I plan, follow through and am organized.
The MTBI can be used in employee selection and to improve the work environment. The MBTI can assist in developing leaders as well as assist with training and coaching needs.
I am not currently in a management position at my company however, I do believe that if this sort of testing could be implemented to determine selection for some of the positions, it would give better insight into the candidate. As an ENFJ, I know that I am and could be even a greater asset to my organization. According to the ENFJ website (2005), “ENFJ’s can juggle an amazing number of responsibilities or projects simultaneously; entrepreneurial ability”.
Although there are many positive attributes of the ENFJ’s, there are challenges as well. ENFJ’s are charismatic and have the power to be manipulative with their “phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship” (ENFJ website, 2005). All in all, I am in the ENFJ category with President Barack O’Bama, Dick Van Dyke and Oprah Winfrey!
Locus of Control

One can attribute their successes or failures to be a result of their own behaviors or from forces outside of their control. This orientation is called your “locust of control”.
My locust of control, or how I perceive the cause of my life events, is more internal than external. My overall scoring is 76. I am not surprise with the results of the assessment. I take responsibility for my actions. I am certainly not a prisoner of the concept of “luck”, fate genetic make-up. The results note that this attitude generates motivation, effort, perseverance and willingness to take risks. The following are my results:
Success Orientation – 77 – success as a result of my skills, intelligence or nice personality.
Success Stability – 53 – at times I may attribute success to unstable factors. This is a mis-conception as I don’t believe my success is due to luck.
Failure Orientation – 77 – At times may interpret failure as result of my actions or characteristics but also may attribute it to luck. Again, this is a mis-conception as I don’t believe my success is based on luck.
Failure Stability – 37 – Attributes failures due to unstable forces such as lack of effort. Again, a mis-conception. I may have hastily answered questions that brought about this result.
Global Locust of Control – 82 – Believes that by speaking mind in a cause, you can have significant impact
Impact of Upbringing and Heredity – 79 – Believe can overcome background and genetics
Belief in Luck or Destiny – 28 – Believe most events that happen in my life are determined by behavior and effort
Self –efficacy – 97 – Have excellent belief in my own abilities and feel able to handle obstacles that come my way
Career or Academic Related Locus of Control – 81 – Believes these achievements are within my control
Relationship Locust of Control – 70 – Feels can have more successful relationships by being respectful and keeping positive attitude
Health Related Locust of Control – 93 – How I behave presently can impact my long term/short term health
Impression Management – 14 – Answered questions honestly in this test
The assessment did note that more effective managers have an internal locust of control. I certainly understand why this is so. A manager has to be ok with taking risks. Someone who is more externally focused may not be able to do so. When management decisions need to be made and deadlines are to be met, there is no time to focus on externals such as blaming others. Internal locust of control individuals is accountable and persevering.
Tolerance of Ambiguity

My scoring notes that I am more tolerant in the “insolubility” area. Below are my scores:
Novelty – Tolerance regarding new information or situations – 16
Tolerance regarding the new or unique. Again, this type of situation may be ambiguous but it is challenging to me. It allows for creativity.
Complexity – Tolerance regarding multiple, unrelated or distinctive information – 23
Complexity does present more of a challenge since complex situations have more un-related information.
Insolubility – Tolerance regarding resolving difficult problems – 10
I actually like to solve problems especially those that seems insoluble. I am analytical. If information given is ambiguous, that challenges me to be resourceful in finding a resolution.
An assessment such as this is useful in management. There has to be much ambiguity in regard to assigned projects and resolution of complex issues where little or no information is available. I can imagine that it wouldn’t be unusual to have deadlines set with little resources at hand. Yet and still, a manager has to be able to take the ball and run with it.
Learning Styles in Workplace
The three basic learning styles are Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic. Visual learners learn through observation, examples and documentations. Auditory learners learn best by listening. They prefer lectures and thorough explanations. There are two types of auditory learners: listening and verbal. As a listening learner, you actually learn by hearing; as verbal learner, you speak words that represent how you understand. Kinesthetic learners “have to do it to learn it” (Dolin, 2013); they learn through hands-on approach. Ann Dolin notes that “while most are typically stronger in one area than another, the trick is figuring out the preferred modality and capitalizing on strengths” (2013).
The following are benefits in knowing your learning style (Carter, C., Bishop, J., Bixby, M., & Kravits, S. L. (1999):
• You will have a better chance of avoiding problematic situations
• You will be more successful on the job
• You will be more able to target areas that need improvement
To my surprise, my highest scores were Auditory (15) and Kinesthetic (15). My Visual score was 10. I’ve always thought myself to be a visual learner.
Education is about learning and application. It just doesn’t make sense to assume that everyone learns in the same style. As I reflect back to my pre-college education, I wonder how this process can be used in the high schools. I’m glad that this is acknowledged in our higher education.
My learning style is reflected in my home and work life. Just recently, I completed 5-week training in the workplace. Since the training, I have been able to successfully apply what I’ve learned in training. As I mentioned previously, I assumed my main learning style would be “visual”. My success in training was mainly due to the notes taken. As I reflect back, I now see that the auditory learning style was prevalent as well in that I had to listen carefully to take notes!
It is very important for management to know their own learning style and that of their employees. I do believe that with the various personality types (16 different combinations), it could be quite challenging. Of course, conflicts will arise but can certainly be minimized with knowledge of the learning styles of the employees.
Emotional Intelligence

The Emotional Intelligence test measures how we recognize what emotions are and their relationships. It further measures our ability to reason and bring about resolutions to problems based on those emotions.
An article on an emotional intelligence test notes four different aspects that can be used in work place teams. First is the awareness of own emotions which “involves being in touch with our moment-to-moment feelings” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Second is the management of one’s own emotions which involves the ability to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Thirdly is the awareness of other’s emotions. This involves recognition of emotions displayed by others and also the ability to recognize false expressions of emotions (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Lastly, the article mentions the management of others’ emotions. It is noted that “a more controversial ability in teams is the ability to manage other team members’ emotions” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). “In some circumstances, emotions of other team members need to be managed to ensure that working relationships are maintained” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009).
The level of emotional intelligence that a manager possesses is proportionate to their ability to effectively lead others and deal with their emotional being. A leader must be able to deal with their own emotions as well as be able to understand the emotions of others.
After taking the Queendom Intelligence Test, my EQ score is 122; the percentile score is 93. My score is noted as “fairly good”. Overall, I am able to understand my emotions. Below are the more detailed results of the assessment.
Ability to characterize emotions in oneself and in others – 81
The test indicates that I am in tune with my emotions. I am aware of my strong areas and limitations. It also notes that I’m not that good at recognizing emotions in others. I disagree with that analogy. I tend to be very empathetic and discerning when it comes to others.
Ability/willingness to use feelings constructively; to let them guide you – 87
When I run into a problem, it is my intent to resolve the issue if at all possible. I believe it is a waste of time to dwell on an issue without at least attempting to resolve it, if at all possible. My challenge is to make sure that I give adequate thought-time to the resolution. As issues arise, I do tend to see things in a logical sense and sometimes from an emotional perspective. I don’t know that it’s always the best practice as some things just won’t be logical, even though it’s the best resolution. Finally this section notes that my beliefs guide my actions. For the most part, that is true. I’m not easily swayed from what I believe to be moral.
Ability to understand and analyze emotions, and solve emotional problems – 81
The results indicate that I understand the profoundness of emotions however there is need for improvement in my depth of understanding. I disagree with this result. I understand and appreciate the impact that emotions have in my daily life. Another result noted that I have trouble empathizing with others. That is totally incorrect. Because I am so empathetic, I sometimes find it hard to give tough-love in situations where it is warranted. Issue resolution is effective and appropriate. Actually, I love to analyze and solve problems. Lastly, this section noted that I am very insightful.
Ability to take responsibility for one’s emotions – 87
The results in this section indicate that I’m quite impulsive and don’t always consider consequences when taking an action. I disagree with this assessment. If anything, I give too much thought because I am so analytical and logical. Another result is that I have outstanding self-control and a high degree of resilience. I’m not always in control however, I try to be! I’ve been told many times that I am resilient…I bounce back.
Attaining emotional growth and maturity – 89
The results indicate that I am assertive for the most part but at times I’m not comfortable in making my needs known or heard. This is true. I tend to focus more on meeting the needs of others. In my latter years I am beginning to focus more on my needs. The results further state that I’m an independent thinker and doer and that I have very high and stable self-esteem. This is true. Finally, the results note that I treat others with respect and expect to be treated likewise. This is very important to me. I am very intolerant of dis-respect whether it’s done to me or someone else.
Strengths/Limitations
The assessment listed many strengths such as emotional self-awareness, self-motivation, flexibility, resilience, positive mindset, independent and problem solving that is conducive to resolution. Regarding limitations, it was noted that my impulse control needs improvement as well as the ability to recognize emotions. I am not in agreement with these two as limitations. As I mentioned previously, I am able to appreciate and recognize emotions in others. I can be impulsive when it comes to last-minute vacations but certainly not when it comes to problem resolution.
Conclusion
Each diagnostic instrument has proven to be useful in managing people in the workplace society. The results have allowed me to gain insight as to why I think and behave the way I do. These behaviors will have a direct impact on how I lead others. I am also challenged by my areas of weakness. As I move forward into management, it is one of my goals to have these types of instruments administered, where appropriate, in the workplace.

References:
Butt, J. (2005). Extraverted intuitive feeling judging. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://typelogic.com/enfj.html
Carter, C., Bishop, J., Bixby, M., & Kravits, S. L. (1999). Keys to study skills: Opening doors to learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Clayton, P., Kimbrell, J. (2007). Thinking preferences as diagnostic and learning tools for managerial styles and predictors of auditor success. Managerial Finance, 33, 921-934
Dessert, L. (2012). Hermann brain dominance instrument question series: part 3. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.elephantsatwork.com/herrmann-brain-dominance-instrument-question-series-part-3/
Dew, J. (1996). Are you a right-brain or left-brain thinker?. Quality Progress, 29, 91
Dolin, A. (2013). Why is learning so important. Retrieved from
http://ectutoring.com/resources/articles/why-is-learning-style-so-important/
Houston, N. (2010). Myers-Briggs: or how to learn to get along. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/myers-briggs-or-how-to-learn-to-get-along/22956
Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: development and initial validation of the short version of the workgroup emotional intelligence profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and Organization, 15, 452-469

Martin, C. (1997). Extraversion or Introversion. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.asp
Sandefer, J. (2012). The one key trait for successful entrepreneurs: a tolerance for ambiguity. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/acton/2012/05/17/the-one-key-trait-for-successful-entrepreneurs-a-tolerance-for-ambiguity/
The Meyers & Briggs Foundation. (n.d.) All types are equal. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/all-types-are-equal.asp
The Meyers & Briggs Foundation. (n.d.).Mbti basics. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp

Behavioral Diagnostic Instruments
Sheila West
Bellevue University

ABSTRACT
There are several behavioral diagnostic instruments that can have a profound impact on how we manage people in the workplace. It is important that these instruments be used to further our understanding of ourselves as well as those we lead. This writing includes my results from testing on the following instruments: Brain Dominance, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Locust of Control, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Learning Style and Emotional Intelligence. Each instrument proved to be beneficial and useful in education and in the workplace.
Brain Dominance Instrument

Nobel Prize winner Roger Sperry studied the relationship between the brain’s right and left hemisphere. He discovered that each side functioned differently in the thinking process. The left side of the brain processes information analytically, rationally, logically and sequentially. The right side of the brain functions by recognizing relationships and also by processing information based on intuitiveness. It puts information together to get the entire picture and then resolves problems based on insights and perceptions.
Dr. Ned Herrmann developed a methodology that measures thinking preferences. This measuring tool is known as the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI).
The thinking preference influences the way you communicate, solve problems and make decisions in the workplace. According to the Elephant at Work website (2012), “One of the biggest mistakes I find when someone first starts to apply the HBDI model is that the action or behavior is being assessed vs. the thinking style”. Neither thinking preference is incorrect.
“Fundamentally, creative managers must be aware of how to incorporate the talents of both brain hemispheres to maximize personal effectiveness” (Dew, 1996). “Although it’s not difficult to determine which hemisphere dominates your thinking, identifying ways to harness the power of the other side can be” (Dew, 1996). This will allow one to shift from one thinking process to another as needed.
“Growth should also come through self-awareness of your thinking processes and through understanding how your comfortable thinking patterns influence your views and your ability to learn and perform” (Dew, 1996).
Managers manage based on their thinking preferences; they actually view things through “lenses of personal mental preferences” (Clayton & Kimbrell, 2007). Knowing your management style can “also cultivate situational awareness in areas of management weaknesses” (Clayton & Kimbrell, 2007). Ones thinking preference will also determine personal decision styles used in management.
As part of curriculum design, universities may wish to adapt requirements such that it emphasizes experience in such areas as creative problem solving. This would involve using an integrated thinking style in order to solve problems.
I scored an 8 on the right side of the brain. I scored 7 on the left side. Actually, I believe I am using the left side of my brain as I organize this paper.
Myers & Briggs Type Indicator
According to an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education website (2010), “The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MTBI) is a psychometric tool based upon Jung’s theory of psychological types”. It identifies your personality as being either extravert or introvert, sensing or intuitive, thinking or feeling, and judging or perceiving.
The following are my MTBI results: Extraversion over Introversion (slight 22 % preference), Intuition over Sensing (distinctive 62% preference), Feeling over Thinking (moderate 50% preference), and Judging over Perceiving (moderate 44% preference).
The extraversion psychological preference indicates that my attention and energy are obtained from active involvement in events and various activities. I am outgoing and a people-person; I like to make things happen. The Myers & Briggs Foundation website (1997) indicates that “I sometimes jump too quickly into an activity and don’t allow enough time to think it over”. I really don’t believe this applies to me. To the contrary, I often allow too much time to think things over. Also, this article made mention that an extravert may not stop long enough to get clear understanding before starting a project. That is definitely not true in my case. I’m very detailed and seek to understand what I am to do in a project or assignment.
The intuitive psychological preference indicates that I pay “the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation website (1997). I like to find out the facts and the bigger picture. Once I find out the objective, I then am able to back-up and determine what steps to take to get to that objective. Whenever I encounter something that is very difficult, I often wonder if there is a better way to achieve the objective; I am very interested in doing things that are new and different.
This psychological preference indicates that I am one who has “the ability to build relationships and to be persuasive” (The Myers & Briggs Foundation website, (1997). I have a strong desire to build relationships; that is one of the reasons that I am in pursuit of a career in Human Resources. After many years of working in corporate America, I have seen the “stoic” relationship between employees and management. It is my desire to help bridge the gap somehow and bring about a better understanding of how employees and management can work better together.
The judging psychological preference indicates that I want my life planned and in order. I push to get things settled and decided. This is true. Perhaps this is because I don’t easily embrace surprises that affect me negatively. This may be done in an effort to control outcomes. This is not necessarily something to be proud of because perhaps I control out of fear of what could happen otherwise.
As I pursue my educational degree, my diagnosed preferences can certainly benefit me. As an extravert, I outwardly direct my energy in balancing a full time job along with my educational pursuit. I struggle in determining how the “feeling” preference applies in my educational pursuit other than in my interaction with my fellow students, especially in the group projects. On the other hand, the characteristics in the judging preference lends to my ability to organize, plan and follow through on projects.
As a feeling- extravert, I have been able to form many valuable relationships in my work and personal life. I am very close to my children and grandchildren, often sacrificing for the needs of my family and friends. I love to travel, have fun, and invest in relationships. As an extravert, I feel it is important to choose the level or intimacies of relationships. Extraverts are more easily drawn to people and could hastily make wrong decisions forming relationships.
As an intuitive person, I love to try what hasn’t been tried before whether it is on a personal level or in the workplace. My current manager is accepting of the new ideas that I bring to our team. This allows my creative juices to flow.
The judging preference heavily impacts my workplace environment. It is imperative that I plan, follow through and am organized.
The MTBI can be used in employee selection and to improve the work environment. The MBTI can assist in developing leaders as well as assist with training and coaching needs.
I am not currently in a management position at my company however, I do believe that if this sort of testing could be implemented to determine selection for some of the positions, it would give better insight into the candidate. As an ENFJ, I know that I am and could be even a greater asset to my organization. According to the ENFJ website (2005), “ENFJ’s can juggle an amazing number of responsibilities or projects simultaneously; entrepreneurial ability”.
Although there are many positive attributes of the ENFJ’s, there are challenges as well. ENFJ’s are charismatic and have the power to be manipulative with their “phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship” (ENFJ website, 2005). All in all, I am in the ENFJ category with President Barack O’Bama, Dick Van Dyke and Oprah Winfrey!
Locus of Control

One can attribute their successes or failures to be a result of their own behaviors or from forces outside of their control. This orientation is called your “locust of control”.
My locust of control, or how I perceive the cause of my life events, is more internal than external. My overall scoring is 76. I am not surprise with the results of the assessment. I take responsibility for my actions. I am certainly not a prisoner of the concept of “luck”, fate genetic make-up. The results note that this attitude generates motivation, effort, perseverance and willingness to take risks. The following are my results:
Success Orientation – 77 – success as a result of my skills, intelligence or nice personality.
Success Stability – 53 – at times I may attribute success to unstable factors. This is a mis-conception as I don’t believe my success is due to luck.
Failure Orientation – 77 – At times may interpret failure as result of my actions or characteristics but also may attribute it to luck. Again, this is a mis-conception as I don’t believe my success is based on luck.
Failure Stability – 37 – Attributes failures due to unstable forces such as lack of effort. Again, a mis-conception. I may have hastily answered questions that brought about this result.
Global Locust of Control – 82 – Believes that by speaking mind in a cause, you can have significant impact
Impact of Upbringing and Heredity – 79 – Believe can overcome background and genetics
Belief in Luck or Destiny – 28 – Believe most events that happen in my life are determined by behavior and effort
Self –efficacy – 97 – Have excellent belief in my own abilities and feel able to handle obstacles that come my way
Career or Academic Related Locus of Control – 81 – Believes these achievements are within my control
Relationship Locust of Control – 70 – Feels can have more successful relationships by being respectful and keeping positive attitude
Health Related Locust of Control – 93 – How I behave presently can impact my long term/short term health
Impression Management – 14 – Answered questions honestly in this test
The assessment did note that more effective managers have an internal locust of control. I certainly understand why this is so. A manager has to be ok with taking risks. Someone who is more externally focused may not be able to do so. When management decisions need to be made and deadlines are to be met, there is no time to focus on externals such as blaming others. Internal locust of control individuals is accountable and persevering.
Tolerance of Ambiguity

My scoring notes that I am more tolerant in the “insolubility” area. Below are my scores:
Novelty – Tolerance regarding new information or situations – 16
Tolerance regarding the new or unique. Again, this type of situation may be ambiguous but it is challenging to me. It allows for creativity.
Complexity – Tolerance regarding multiple, unrelated or distinctive information – 23
Complexity does present more of a challenge since complex situations have more un-related information.
Insolubility – Tolerance regarding resolving difficult problems – 10
I actually like to solve problems especially those that seems insoluble. I am analytical. If information given is ambiguous, that challenges me to be resourceful in finding a resolution.
An assessment such as this is useful in management. There has to be much ambiguity in regard to assigned projects and resolution of complex issues where little or no information is available. I can imagine that it wouldn’t be unusual to have deadlines set with little resources at hand. Yet and still, a manager has to be able to take the ball and run with it.
Learning Styles in Workplace
The three basic learning styles are Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic. Visual learners learn through observation, examples and documentations. Auditory learners learn best by listening. They prefer lectures and thorough explanations. There are two types of auditory learners: listening and verbal. As a listening learner, you actually learn by hearing; as verbal learner, you speak words that represent how you understand. Kinesthetic learners “have to do it to learn it” (Dolin, 2013); they learn through hands-on approach. Ann Dolin notes that “while most are typically stronger in one area than another, the trick is figuring out the preferred modality and capitalizing on strengths” (2013).
The following are benefits in knowing your learning style (Carter, C., Bishop, J., Bixby, M., & Kravits, S. L. (1999):
• You will have a better chance of avoiding problematic situations
• You will be more successful on the job
• You will be more able to target areas that need improvement
To my surprise, my highest scores were Auditory (15) and Kinesthetic (15). My Visual score was 10. I’ve always thought myself to be a visual learner.
Education is about learning and application. It just doesn’t make sense to assume that everyone learns in the same style. As I reflect back to my pre-college education, I wonder how this process can be used in the high schools. I’m glad that this is acknowledged in our higher education.
My learning style is reflected in my home and work life. Just recently, I completed 5-week training in the workplace. Since the training, I have been able to successfully apply what I’ve learned in training. As I mentioned previously, I assumed my main learning style would be “visual”. My success in training was mainly due to the notes taken. As I reflect back, I now see that the auditory learning style was prevalent as well in that I had to listen carefully to take notes!
It is very important for management to know their own learning style and that of their employees. I do believe that with the various personality types (16 different combinations), it could be quite challenging. Of course, conflicts will arise but can certainly be minimized with knowledge of the learning styles of the employees.
Emotional Intelligence

The Emotional Intelligence test measures how we recognize what emotions are and their relationships. It further measures our ability to reason and bring about resolutions to problems based on those emotions.
An article on an emotional intelligence test notes four different aspects that can be used in work place teams. First is the awareness of own emotions which “involves being in touch with our moment-to-moment feelings” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Second is the management of one’s own emotions which involves the ability to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Thirdly is the awareness of other’s emotions. This involves recognition of emotions displayed by others and also the ability to recognize false expressions of emotions (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). Lastly, the article mentions the management of others’ emotions. It is noted that “a more controversial ability in teams is the ability to manage other team members’ emotions” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009). “In some circumstances, emotions of other team members need to be managed to ensure that working relationships are maintained” (Jordan & Lawrence, 2009).
The level of emotional intelligence that a manager possesses is proportionate to their ability to effectively lead others and deal with their emotional being. A leader must be able to deal with their own emotions as well as be able to understand the emotions of others.
After taking the Queendom Intelligence Test, my EQ score is 122; the percentile score is 93. My score is noted as “fairly good”. Overall, I am able to understand my emotions. Below are the more detailed results of the assessment.
Ability to characterize emotions in oneself and in others – 81
The test indicates that I am in tune with my emotions. I am aware of my strong areas and limitations. It also notes that I’m not that good at recognizing emotions in others. I disagree with that analogy. I tend to be very empathetic and discerning when it comes to others.
Ability/willingness to use feelings constructively; to let them guide you – 87
When I run into a problem, it is my intent to resolve the issue if at all possible. I believe it is a waste of time to dwell on an issue without at least attempting to resolve it, if at all possible. My challenge is to make sure that I give adequate thought-time to the resolution. As issues arise, I do tend to see things in a logical sense and sometimes from an emotional perspective. I don’t know that it’s always the best practice as some things just won’t be logical, even though it’s the best resolution. Finally this section notes that my beliefs guide my actions. For the most part, that is true. I’m not easily swayed from what I believe to be moral.
Ability to understand and analyze emotions, and solve emotional problems – 81
The results indicate that I understand the profoundness of emotions however there is need for improvement in my depth of understanding. I disagree with this result. I understand and appreciate the impact that emotions have in my daily life. Another result noted that I have trouble empathizing with others. That is totally incorrect. Because I am so empathetic, I sometimes find it hard to give tough-love in situations where it is warranted. Issue resolution is effective and appropriate. Actually, I love to analyze and solve problems. Lastly, this section noted that I am very insightful.
Ability to take responsibility for one’s emotions – 87
The results in this section indicate that I’m quite impulsive and don’t always consider consequences when taking an action. I disagree with this assessment. If anything, I give too much thought because I am so analytical and logical. Another result is that I have outstanding self-control and a high degree of resilience. I’m not always in control however, I try to be! I’ve been told many times that I am resilient…I bounce back.
Attaining emotional growth and maturity – 89
The results indicate that I am assertive for the most part but at times I’m not comfortable in making my needs known or heard. This is true. I tend to focus more on meeting the needs of others. In my latter years I am beginning to focus more on my needs. The results further state that I’m an independent thinker and doer and that I have very high and stable self-esteem. This is true. Finally, the results note that I treat others with respect and expect to be treated likewise. This is very important to me. I am very intolerant of dis-respect whether it’s done to me or someone else.
Strengths/Limitations
The assessment listed many strengths such as emotional self-awareness, self-motivation, flexibility, resilience, positive mindset, independent and problem solving that is conducive to resolution. Regarding limitations, it was noted that my impulse control needs improvement as well as the ability to recognize emotions. I am not in agreement with these two as limitations. As I mentioned previously, I am able to appreciate and recognize emotions in others. I can be impulsive when it comes to last-minute vacations but certainly not when it comes to problem resolution.
Conclusion
Each diagnostic instrument has proven to be useful in managing people in the workplace society. The results have allowed me to gain insight as to why I think and behave the way I do. These behaviors will have a direct impact on how I lead others. I am also challenged by my areas of weakness. As I move forward into management, it is one of my goals to have these types of instruments administered, where appropriate, in the workplace.

References:
Butt, J. (2005). Extraverted intuitive feeling judging. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://typelogic.com/enfj.html
Carter, C., Bishop, J., Bixby, M., & Kravits, S. L. (1999). Keys to study skills: Opening doors to learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Clayton, P., Kimbrell, J. (2007). Thinking preferences as diagnostic and learning tools for managerial styles and predictors of auditor success. Managerial Finance, 33, 921-934
Dessert, L. (2012). Hermann brain dominance instrument question series: part 3. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.elephantsatwork.com/herrmann-brain-dominance-instrument-question-series-part-3/
Dew, J. (1996). Are you a right-brain or left-brain thinker?. Quality Progress, 29, 91
Dolin, A. (2013). Why is learning so important. Retrieved from
http://ectutoring.com/resources/articles/why-is-learning-style-so-important/
Houston, N. (2010). Myers-Briggs: or how to learn to get along. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/myers-briggs-or-how-to-learn-to-get-along/22956
Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: development and initial validation of the short version of the workgroup emotional intelligence profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and Organization, 15, 452-469

Martin, C. (1997). Extraversion or Introversion. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/extraversion-or-introversion.asp
Sandefer, J. (2012). The one key trait for successful entrepreneurs: a tolerance for ambiguity. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/acton/2012/05/17/the-one-key-trait-for-successful-entrepreneurs-a-tolerance-for-ambiguity/
The Meyers & Briggs Foundation. (n.d.) All types are equal. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/all-types-are-equal.asp
The Meyers & Briggs Foundation. (n.d.).Mbti basics. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.asp