Lewis & Clark Moodle

Here are the results of my personality test:

Lion:                            44

Otter:                          45

Golden Retriever:      39

Beaver:                       39

I guess I’m an Otter with Lion tendencies.  That would be close to what I would have predicted.  Some of the strengths I feel I’m aware that I display would be optimistic, future oriented, enjoys change.  Weaknesses that I need to be mindful of are impulsive, avoids details, unrealistic, daydreamer and need to be attentive to mate’s needs (my wife’s feelings are important to my overall emotional well being).  The strengths are good to know but I think the areas for improvement are more critical to becoming effective in leadership. 

Gregoric Style

I came out strongest in the Abstract Random category with Concrete Random and Concrete Sequential tying for second.  Being “mediocre, average and unnoticed” struck a chord with me.  I have never thought of myself this way but reflecting on it I think that is what often drives me to take risks or to make changes in my life.  I have always wondered if people who are highly driven are really insecure (they have to be better or different than everybody else) or are they just bored, maybe a little of both.   

Weaknesses I’m going be more aware of now:

Loosing sight and feel for the vision

Failing to evaluate and deliberate when appropriate

Substituting personal vision for the vision of the organization

Leadership Beliefs Inventory

Directive                     33.5

Collaborative             33.5

Nondirective              33.5

Hmm.  I’d like to think that I use a broad range of strategies when dealing with people/teachers.  I could see this interpreted as conforming too much to what I think others want to hear or do.  Maybe too flexible?  Not sure.

Questions I have:

• Is there a one size fits all leadership style or does it depend on the organization?
• To what extent should one try to change their “style” or is some of it part of their personality, who they really.  At what point should someone reflect and self assess and say to themselves “I shouldn’t change my leadership style or my personality, I should find a different organization, job, career”?
• How accurate and valid are we when we self assess?

I took the Smalley Center Personality Test and came out an otter.  I’m pretty sure that this was the same outcome that occurred when we took this test in class.  As I took the test, I felt like I could sense where it was going.  I found myself trying to steer the results a bit, which makes sense for a “manipulator or pushy” personality. 

I wasn’t feeling like the test was offering a tremendous amount of insight until I read the “strengths out of balance” section.  I’ve definitely been out of balance for the past ten weeks and it has been extremely hard for me to deal with details or follow through on things, hence the week late timeline on this assignment.  This section felt validating to me because it gave me hope and reminded me that all people get out of balance at times.  This train of thought helped me to focus on the actions I’ve been taking to bring myself back into balance.

The Gregoric Style Delineator was much more in depth and a bit unsettling.  It took me a while to work my way through it because I felt like the directions were slightly unclear.  This makes sense for a concrete sequential learner who wants information presented in successively connected parts.  I also felt a bit out of sorts trying to rate the word lists.  The directions were to use who you are deep down as a reference.  This kept going through my head causing me to question my true values along the way.  I guess I was really in my head as I was doing this exercise.

I took some time to read through all the learner and leadership characteristics, putting check marks next to attributes that resonated strongly with me.  I also circled the attributes that jumped off the page at me.  It seems as though my greatest dislikes are when my ideas are watered down so that others can understand them / being criticized.  My greatest desire is to have my vision become a reality in every day life. 

It took me a while to wrap my brain around the Leadership Beliefs Inventory.  I ended up having to flip through all the pages of that section several times to digest the vocabulary.  I completed the inventory twice.  The first time, I just read the descriptions of each of the styles and put an X where I thought I would land.  The second time, I added up the totals in section 4.4.  I ended up favoring a non-directive approach, which surprised me because I predicted myself to be 75% in the collaborative approach.

I hope you all enjoy your Vetern's Day weekend.

Mark

..greetings All,

honestly speaking, my initial thoughts when i read the assignment were: not another personality test (i'm just saying...) BUT i did them anyway. 

earlier in the summer (in another class), we did the Smalley personality test and to my surprize, i had shifted from being 'total lion' to half lion and half otter (LOTTER - i love your idea noelle!)...

and as for the Gregoric Style Delineator, there were no surprizes - here's how my 'style' adds up:

1st Concrete Ran 2nd Concrete Seq and tying for 3rd Abstract Seq & Ran

to keep it simple, i'm still discovering me

Completing the Gregorian Style Delineator and the “free personality test” was interesting, but I fear that it didn’t clarify anything that I did not already know.  For the GSD I rated as predominantly “Concrete Sequential”, outscoring my other category, “Abstract Sequential”, by 7 points.  The rest of the drawing for my profile followed the “pointy head” example.  So, it looks like I can be either concrete or abstract, but certainly sequential.  I can agree with that.  Looking at either of the two categories left me wondering, because neither seemed to capture who I am.  There also seemed to be some contradictory qualities of the CS leader.  For one thing, a strength is that I should be prone to turning group vision into a reality in everyday life.  Unfortunately, one of my downsides is that I may fail to recognize the vision.  This sounds like a terrible error.  Another incongruous element is that I may have a knack for managing resources in an organization, yet a downside is that my type is prone to not manage resources by failing to monitor and adjust daily activities.  Curious.  Additionally, if anyone is likely to hire people who are inappropriate or incompetent for a task, that would be me and my ilk.  I’m not sure that I would agree with that, but then again there is always my abstract side that can help complete the picture.

                As for the “free personality test”, I seemed to have two equally dominant strengths.  I’m apparently equal parts Golden Retriever and Beaver.  I’m not clear on how that lines up with the CS/AS split, but at first glance they do not seem terribly similar. 

                In the end I’m relatively pleased to not have an abundance of points in one category or to be overwhelmingly any one type of animal.  An effective leader may score really high in one of these categories at the expense of some of the other qualities and flavors that people come in.  It seems like the really important thing is that an effective leader must recognize that there are different types of learners and fellow leaders that they will interact with daily and that not everyone will approach their work with the same skills or personality types.  Nowhere in the profiles does it hint that one type of personality is overwhelmingly better than another for educational leadership.   When working with teachers it’s essential to not assume that they will agree with or even follow your style of communicating and decision making.  It would be smart and suggested to assume that in day to day interactions there will be chasms of difference between and among teachers and administrators.  I believe that some of this comes naturally by the roles we take in schools, but much of it is a natural product of people being wired differently, with varied experiences, values and perspectives.

According to Smalley's personality test, my scores were: Otter 47, Beaver 46, Lion 45, Golden Retriever 41.  I am definitely optimistic, inspirational, attentive and impatient from the otter's characteristics.  Being a math teacher, the beaver hits the bullseye.  Ranking high as a lion makes me wonder if this has been developed more as I am operating as a Dean of Students this year.  I also see elements of the golden retriever in my classroom as a teacher.  I am curious as to what my scores would have been a year ago as opposed to my split-contract role as teacher and administrator this year.  On a daily basis I feel like Harvey Dent, teaching, nurturing, encouraging, and inspiring students on one hand, then five minutes later I am listening to students, keeping control of the school, holding students accountable to school rules, and handing out consequences for behavioral issues.  This personality test shows me that all four sets of characteristics are a part of me as I fulfill both roles.

According to the Gregoric Style Delineator, I am dominant in the concrete random spectrum.  The important qualities that support being an administrator are: using insight to ...find the "big picture", une intuition to uncover...deception, stand independently of other's..., create new ideas, approaches..., conform to established rules..., function well...in open-ended activities, and thrive in conditions that offer choice, chance, challenge and change.  To me, that last portion "thrive in conditions that offer choice, chance, challenge and change" coupled with using "insight ... to find the 'big picture' " are the tenets for an administrator of the schools today.  Having my secondary spectrum be concrete sequential, it feels like the scaffolding supporting my dominant characteristics.  I feel fortunate that I can find a vision (CR) and for the vision becoming reality in every day life (CS).  This actually gives me inspiration and helps my self-confidence for being an effective administrator.

My high score for Abstract Random seemed to fit me very well, especially in regards to my what I am able to do as a leader and how I might elaborate best as a leader.  That said, as a learn I struggle to create "imaginative products through art, music, poetry, prose, etc".  This has been evident since my sophomore year in high school when my football coach (who was also my art teacher) game me a "C" in his class, apparently because l can't draw.  Additionally, I found the section on how Dominate AR leaders might be "fired" concerning. To begin with, I'm not very religious so to think I might blame my being fired on it being "God's will" seems unlikely. Likewise, I don't see myself inattentive to the group morale, or deliberately looking past "dangerous" forces.  Here's the good news, I didn't feel like any of the other mind styles for this category fit me, so I'm feeling pretty good right now!  Lastly, I could see myself being too concerned with the desires/wishes of all those I am leading, which might lead to my "loosing sight and feel for the vision" of my organization. This will be something I need to monitor, but hopefully I will surround myself with an admin team with strong "AS" and "CS" characteristics, which in turn, may protect me from this scenario.

As for The Smalley Center Personality Test, the Otter in me runs strong. I guess I know what to be for Halloween.  Interestingly, I'm not a great swimmer and the thought of swimming around in kelp all day isn't appealing. As such, I would have thought (simply based on my perceptions of the animal categories chosen) that I would have been a Golden Retriever. Alas, it was not to be. Instead, an Otter I am, and based on the explanations of how my personality would play out in regards to my relational strengths/needs & communication style the Otter fits me well.  I do see myself being able to inspire others through my optimism, energy, & motivational abilities.  However, I also see myself needing approval of others, which may be a serious weakness I need to work out as an administrator.  In regards to other weaknesses, I feel those of the Golden Retriever, fit me as well, if not better, than the Otter.  I don't like to think of myself as unproductive, egocentric, or unstable, but would acknowledge that I am sometimes a procrastinator, indecisive, and occasionally stingy. 

A happy Halloween to all. 

Scott Roosevelt

With a high score for Abstract Sequential, and Concrete Sequential in a close second, it is safe to say that I am definitely Sequential according to the Gregoric Style Delineator. According to The Free Personality Test, the lion dominates my personality. It comes as no surprise that I like to have things in order, as it helps to see the big picture. The statement about seeming the forest ­­and the trees especially resonated with me.

I laughed when reading that Abstract Sequential personalities do not like touchy-feely activities. It has always been difficult to take these types o f activities seriously, and I have promised myself to not use them with my future staff. This could be an obstacle for my staff that thrive in a touchy-feely environment. The direct and blunt nature of the lion will also be an obstacle for working with those that are more sensitive. I can envision it being easier to build relationships with those who are focused and goal driven.

I have taken numerous personality tests over the years, and have spent much time studying and teaching the Myers-Briggs type indicator based on Jung's work.  Therefore, I wasn't all that excited to do more work in this area on another, very foreign model.  But I figured, it could give me insights into leadership styles which could be informative.  So...I came out very close in 3 different areas: Lion 40, Otter 42, Golden Retriever 41 (still having difficulty w/ the monikers here). I could be any of these three as they are so close.  As I read the descriptors of each (and they are brief) I find that I can throw out the Lion for the most part as it really doesn't fit me. I can fluctuate between the Otter & the Retriever.  I find these categories too general to be of any real use besides a VERY general assessment of one's tendencies.  I do believe (as the writer indicates in his notes) that these are more applicable for children to grasp and use than professional school leaders.

I came out as an Abstract Random/Concrete Random individual as these were almost tied.  It was accurate as to my learning styles..."dislike, restrictive, & antiseptic environs" and "having their intuitive flashes & insights demeaned".  I can use insight to skip details & find the big picture and see beauty in the darkest of events & in 'diamonds in the rough'. More telling for me were to leadership results...particularly the positive results of these styles of leadership (shared vision w/in a caring, cooperative & dynamic community = where I am at presently in my teaching-Jesuit High School; and clarity of vision, continual evolution & body, mind, spirit safety = what I teach subject-wise as a theologian).  So these were affirming.  But the darker side was frighteningly accurate as well...'w/holding contributions b/c they've been demeaned or discounted', accommodating others for fear of abuse & social rejection', 'substituting personal vision for the organization's vision', 'jumping ship when the going gets tough or glamour fades'. These all speak to my dark side which I must guard against and attend to in clear self-assessment & reflection.  

The Instructional Leadership Beliefs Inventory was spot on as well, as it indicated I tend to be in a collaborative approach over 53% of the time, which is accurate.  I know my department sees my leadership as more collaborative than directive, yet I can be directive when needed.  I scored 27% on this area of leadership belief.  I feel I get more out of my department members when I focus on collaboration rather than direction.  They feel respected as professionals and USUALLY rise to the occassion.  Of course there are the times when I must be directive w/ teachers who are not successful,  not growing in their profession, and are actually harmful to the learning environment.  Here directiveness is necessary and imperative.  

     Like many, I'm sure, I found the descriptions of my "personalities" to be pretty accurate. I have done an exercise similar to the Gregorc and found this result to be similar to what I have previously done. I am "Concrete Random" dominant, which accurately represents my goal of presenting even the most random or even controversial ideas if only to spark conversation about how things could be done differently. I am also very adaptable, and welcome change but, and my personality test scoring me as a pretty strong "lion" would suggest that any change be well structured. 

      As I read through the descriptions of each Gregorc category, I was interested to see that my weakest category was "Abstract Random." As a musician the fact that this learning characteristic was the art/music focus stood out to me directly. While I have had much success with performance in music, I have always struggled with composition, which the AR learners appear to have strength in. Perhaps these learning categories could evaluate strengths in certain subject areas, and could be used (in a water down format) to help place students in subjects that would give them the most success.