John McLaughlin

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.