Interpreting Your Assessment Results

The 16PF, BCII, and CAQ are copyrighted assessment instruments.  The narratives below, however, which are for your private and personal use only, were written by me personally to assist you with this process.  They are not a substitute for an individualized assessment interpretation session with a qualified professional.

Interpreting Your 16PF Results

 The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) measures sixteen different dimensions of normal personality – the sixteen major ways that ordinary people differ from one another.  The 16PF is not a clinical instrument.  There are no “better” or “worse” results in the abstract;  the world needs all types.  However, the 16PF can help you to assess the degree of "fit" between yourself and the demands of your present or anticipated future work role, to help you avoid becoming a "square peg in a round hole". Common uses of the 16PF include:

 Ø      Facilitating self-understanding and an appreciation of diversity

 Ø      Providing a platform for career planning and career self-management

 Ø      Enhancing effective communication, conflict resolution, problem solving, and decision making

Your scores are presented as percentile ranks.  A percentile rank compares you to the general American adult population as a whole.  For instance, if you have a score of 60, that means that 60% of American adults obtained a score lower (closer to the left-hand pole of the factor) than you did;  the remaining 40% of the general population scored higher (closer to the right-hand pole of the factor).  Percentile ranks lower than 33% can be thought of as "low";  from 33% to 67%, "moderate";  higher than 67%, "high".  Low does not mean “bad”;  high does not mean “good”.   Again, this is not a “better or worse” kind of instrument, but is designed to identify the unique traits that make you the one-of-a-kind individual you are.

The sixteen factors of the instrument are as follows.

Factor A (Warmth) measures a person's emotional orientation toward others - the degree to which contact with others is sought and found rewarding as an end in itself.  This is sometimes known as a person's "affiliative tendency". 

High scorers like and need to be with others.  They rarely like to be alone, and may indicate that spending large amounts of time alone is very difficult or demotivating for them.  They need and want high levels of interpersonal contact and have a "the more, the merrier" approach to life.

Low scorers are more interested in tasks or ideas than in people-interaction.  They may like and value other people, but don't enjoy "small talk" or superficial social interactions.  They are more prone to spend longer periods of time in solitary activities and to enjoy that.  They may or may not be shy, but simply don't tend to find social interaction rewarding.

All of us have needs for both sociability and solitude, but a high A person has a large "sociability bucket" and a small "solitude bucket";  the reverse is true of a low A person.  High A types quickly become bored or lonely when alone;  low A types tend to enjoy private or solitary activities, but can feel "lonely in a crowd".  High A types are often strongly motivated by social rewards, while low A types tend not to respond to such rewards.

Factor B (Reasoning) measures a person's way of thinking and reasoning.  It is correlated with what we conventionally think of as intelligence or problem-solving ability, but low scorers should not be thought of as lacking in intelligence.  It's better  to  think of them as having a different kind or style of intelligence - as being "street smart" as opposed to "book smart".

High scorers are mentally quick and absorb new information rapidly and efficiently.  As a result, they are often easily bored by mundane or routine tasks and often have a high need for intellectual challenge.  They often enjoy mental complexity or difficulty.  They may enjoy formal or academic learning contexts. 

Low scorers are most comfortable with familiar, well-known tasks in which they can draw heavily on past experience and can utilize a concrete style of learning by doing.  They may be very effective hands-on learners but often need more time to assimilate and adjust to new information.  They may find mental complexity aversive or unpleasant.  They may prefer practical, experiential learning contexts.

Factor C (Emotional Stability) measures a person's proneness to mood swings or "ups and downs" in the emotional life.  High scorers are less likely to experience wide variations in mood, and are more emotionally stable or "steady as she goes" in their emotional experience.  Low scorers more characteristically experience a wider range of emotional fluctations - peaks and valleys on the "roller coaster" of life.

As a result, high scorers are usually better able to manage stress in a positive, proactive way - to remain solution-focused under stress or to "keep their cool" in a crisis.  However, for the same reason, some others may experience or perceive them as unduly stoic or "above it all" in a fashion that could be seen as either reassuring or annoying, depending on the perceiver's own personality and needs.

Low scorers typically struggle more with stress, yet may also experience a richer and fuller emotional life (the bitter as well as the sweet).  In some cases, low scorers can be strong advocates for others because of their capacity to empathize with the "underdog" - they know from experience what it means to struggle.  (A high proportion of effective counselors score on the low side of factor C for this reason.)

Factor C is sometimes called "ego strength" because it is associated with a person's ability to tolerate stresses and difficulties without becoming emotionally overwhelmed.  However, factor C is not a measure of mental health or neuroticism.  Both high and low scores are normal variants of personality.

Factor E (Dominance) measures a person's place on the "pecking order" of interpersonal assertiveness.  It is a measure of dominance versus submissiveness in an interpersonal context.  It is also a measure of the extent to which a person likes to be in control of situations involving other people.

High scorers enjoy being in control and value power.  They are often seen as "natural leaders" by others (but may, if scores are excessive, strike others as domineering or autocratic if their control orientation is not moderated by other factors).  It is common for high scorers to use competitive terms like "mastering" a subject or "conquering" a problem;  a positive correlate is tenacity and force of will.  High scorers tend to like competition and to think of interpersonal situations in primarily competitive terms.

Low scorers make few demands on others and instead like to accommodate the needs and wishes of other people, sometimes making insufficient room for their own to be expressed.  They dislike conflict, enjoy pleasing others, and like cooperativeness and harmony-seeking.  They may not enjoy or seek leadership roles, and if placed in such roles, may not be seen as "conventional" or "strong" leaders;  they lead, not by the force of their will or personality, but by other traits such as positional authority and responsibility.

While high scorers need to be careful not to overwhelm others with excessive assertiveness (or aggressiveness), low scorers can profit from learning how to be more direct and assertive.  High scorers can benefit from learning how to be more cooperative and conciliatory, while low scorers can productively gain by learning how to be more competitive and positively confronting.

Factor F (Liveliness) measures a person's natural exuberance or energy level.  Thinking of the same factor in a different way, it provides a measure of deliberateness and caution (low scores) versus impulsivity and lack of inhibition (high scores). 

High scorers are usually uninhibited, playful, adventurous types who enjoy being the center of attention.  They may become bored easily and like to jump from one thing to another.  As a result, they are at their best in "generalist" work roles that allow them to wear many different hats and to move from one activity to another without investing too deeply in any one of them.   As a result, they need to watch their tendency to overgeneralize ("jack of all trades, master of none") and may need to strengthen their ability to maintain interest and attention in the face of difficulty or complexity.  "Variety is the spice of life" is a high F slogan.  In extreme cases, high F types can be seen as rather fickle, self-focused, or superficial by others who have a different pattern of traits.

Low scorers are usually deliberate, cautious, careful, focused, and serious-minded types.  Their sense of humor is more of the wry, subtle form, and even if they have a dry wit, others are likely to perceive them as sober, serious, even perhaps rather dour people.  They usually like to "dig deep" into what interests them, having longer attention spans than high F types, and so are at their best in "specialist" work roles that allow them to become technical experts in a chosen field of endeavor.  However, they need to watch their tendency to overspecialize ("learning more and more about less and less") and may need to strengthen their ability to deal well with more casual, superficial interactions and roles.  In extreme cases, low F cases can be seen as rather dull, plodding, or one-sided (monomanically devoted to a single cause, issue, value, or role) by others who have a different pattern of traits.

Factor G (Rule Consciousness) measures a person's orientation to rules, procedures, and social expectations.  To a considerable extent, it is a measure of ethical and moral responsibility and dutifulness.  High scorers are usually highly ethically driven and responsible, although the reverse is not always the case:  low scorers are not necessarily irresponsible or unethical, but are, at a minimum, prone to think of ethics in unconventional terms.  High scorers are more rule- or principle-governed, while low scorers are more results-governed.

Thus, a high scorer is likely to stick to the rules even if this means that a desired result cannot be obtained.  "I'd rather be right than President" is a high G dictum.  High scorers' dutifulness and moral conventionality make them desirable in the eyes of most employers, which is why factor G correlates with employer ratings of workers to a stronger degree than any other personality factor.  However, very high scorers may become unnecessarily rigid or unbending about the rules - a "Regulation Charlie" (or Charlene).

Low scorers are prone to think that rules are made to be broken (or at least bent) if this is what it takes to achieve a desired result.  This does not necessarily translate into unethical behavior (though very low scorers are statistically likely to strike others as ethically challenged or, in the extreme case, even rather conscienceless), but it does suggest a different kind of focus - on in which outcomes, not rules, are the major emphasis.

Factor H (Social Boldness) measures social initiative taking and, to a lesser extent, a general orientation toward risk taking of any sort.  "Shyness" versus "social boldness" is one way to think of this factor.  However, other kinds of risks besides social risks are also in view in this factor.

High scorers are social initiative takers who are comfortable with such activities as networking, self-marketing, introducing themselves to others, small talk, and "schmoozing".  As a result, nearly all sales and marketing professionals are high H types.  High H types show more "courage", social and otherwise, and in the extreme show a high need for thrill seeking or "living on the edge".  Most people who engage in "extreme sports", for instance, are high H types.

Low scorers are more likely to be shy and to find social initiative taking aversive and difficult.  They prefer a small number of close relationships to a large number of more superficial ones and probably do not enjoy meeting new people in large group contexts.  They may show a more general pattern of risk aversion and timidity, and probably enjoy more quiet, "safe" pursuits.

Factor I (Sensitivity) is a complex factor that is difficult to summarize in a single phrase.  It has to do with two related qualities:  objectivity versus subjectivity, and tough-mindedness versus tender-mindedness. 

High scorers are generally emotionally sensitive, empathic, aware of feelings, and prone to make decisions on a more personal or subjective basis (focused on personal values or the needs of others).  As a result, they do well in roles that call for interpersonal sensitivities and an emphasis on "feeling" issues.  However, they may, especially in the extreme, lack objectivity, and may have a difficult time seeing the dark side of something about which they care deeply.  Others may see them as "thin-skinned" or "wearing their heart on their sleeve."

Low scorers are generally objective, analytical, logical, and prone to make decisions on a more impersonal basis (focused on cause and effect or rational consequences).  As a result, they do well in roles that call for analytical logic or impersonal objective reasoning (which are more likely to involve working with things, ideas, or data rather than with human beings and their needs and problems).  However, they may, especially in the extreme, lack sensitivity, and may seem to have an "emotional blind spot" - lacking an emotional vocabulary or the ability to sense their own needs and feelings as well as those of others.  Others may see them as "armor-plated" or "having ice in their veins".

Factor L (Vigilance) has to do with the balance between trust and skepticism. 

High scorers are more careful, vigilant, wary, or skeptical about trusting others and are less likely to assume that others' motivations are trustworthy or benign.  They are more likely to "read between the lines" in evaluating others - which means that they are less likely to be taken in by those who have a hidden agenda, but also that they are more likely to imagine a hidden agenda when, in fact, none exists.  Very high scores are associated with a tendency to blame or suspect others in unnecessary ways.  However, moderately high scores simply mean a cautious stance that says, “I will trust those who earn my trust.”

Low scorers are more prone to take others at face value and to trust others' motivations, sometimes in excessive or unrealistic ways.  The positive side of low scores is a natural tendency to feel a sense of "connectedness" with others and to "give others the benefit of the doubt" in dealings with them.  The negative side, especially with extreme scores, is a certain naivete or gullibility in dealing with others - a tendency to be taken in by those who are not worthy of trust.

Some professions require higher L scores than others:  those which require skepticism or an ability to read between the lines.  Examples of professions that reward higher than average L scores are IRS auditors, police detectives, and insurance underwriters.

Factor M (Abstractedness) has to do with practicality versus creativity, or a literal detail orientation versus an imaginative big picture orientation.  Think of a camera with two different lenses: a close-up lens that reveals fine details, and a telephoto lens that shows how elements in a scene are associated with one another.  Low scores are like the close-up view, high scores are like the wide-angle view.

High scorers are generally creative, imaginative, and insightful.  Often, they are abstract or theoretical in orientation (focused on ideas, not their practical implementation).  Their focus is generally strategic (the "thousand-year view").  However, in their ideophoria, they can miss or underattend to details and can lack practicality.  The absent-minded professor is that of a very high M person.

Low scorers are very much in touch with practical realities, live by them, make decisions on a literal and factual basis.  They tend to be focused on here-and-now results and outcomes, and ask "how", not "why".  Their focus is generally tactical (this hour, this day, this week).  However, they can be blind to wider meanings and implications, can be overly literal or even nitpicky about details, and generally can miss the forest for the trees.

According to psychiatrist David Keirsey, this factor is the biggest "psychological divide" between persons, especially in the workplace:  those who focus on what is (low M) tend not to understand those who focus on what could or might be (high M), and vice versa.  As a result, the world of work is strongly segregated along these lines:  people seek work that provides them either with a steady stream of facts and details (low M) or a steady stream of ideas and possibilities (high M).  Neither would be happy in the other role.  In the extreme, low M people can see high M types as having their head in the clouds, and high M types can see low M people as having their feet stuck in the mud.

Factor N (Privateness) has to do with self-disclosure, and consequently, how easy a person is to get to know, as well as how well s/he keeps private matters confidential.  Low scorers are more forthright;  high scorers are more discreet.

High scorers are careful and selective about self-disclosure (when, where, and with whom they share information).  They are slower to open up to others and, as a result, may strike others as hard to get to know.  "I respect her/him, but I really don't know her/him" is something that others may often say about high N types.  These people tend to do well in roles that require caution about the disclosure of information (such as a diplomat, a payroll clerk, or a human resource professional) or that require political "savvy".

Low scorers are "what you see is what you get" or "shoot from the lip" types who are quick to disclose information and are much less selective about when, where, and with whom they share.  They strike others as more open and forthright, but may be more politically naïve or may not keep secrets well.  People usually know exactly where they stand, but may not trust them with confidential or private information.

Note that low scorers strike others as more "artless" while high scorers can come across as "shrewd", although high N types are not inherently manipulative;  they are simply careful about sharing information.  "Loose lips sink ships" is a high N motto.

Factor O (Apprehension) has to do with apprehension in two senses.  One is a general proneness to worry.  The other is a propensity to self-doubt and self-blame (intrapunitiveness):  being hard on oneself, selling oneself short, treating oneself stringently or harshly.

High O persons tend to be merciless self-critics.  While this suggests high performance standards (and, indeed, high O types are often also high on factor G and, to a lesser extent, Q3), it also suggests a general tendency toward self-blame that is not necessarily productive.  High scorers are also prone to experience such states as worry and guilt.

Low O persons are self-assured, self-confident, and rarely worry about themselves.  They are certain of their capabilities and invest little energy in introspection of a self-evaluative sort.  However, with very low scores, these positive traits can turn into complacency, blindness to areas of needful self-improvement, arrogance, or even denial of one's true faults (so-called "anxiety binding").

In general, low O persons might profitably learn to be a bit harder on themselves, and high O persons might learn to cut themselves some slack. 

Factor Q1 (Openness to Change) has to do with a person's orientation to change, novelty, and innovation.  The Chinese word for change literally means "dangerous opportunity" - low scorers are more attuned to the danger side (and hence tend to resist change), while high scorers are more oriented to the side of opportunity (and hence tend to seek out change).

High scorers like change, respond positively to change, seek change, and want to "boldly go where no one has gone before".  They are quick to jump on the change bandwagon and tend to become bored, frustrated, or demoralized by situations that provide insufficient change.  In the extreme, they can be "change junkies" who see change for change's sake, who needlessly reinvent the wheel, or who are intolerant or dismissive of tradition, convention, and stability.

Low scorers like the known, the tried and true, and the time-tested.  At least initially, they tend to be skeptical of change or to respond negatively to it, avoid needless change, like things as they are, and say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  They are guardians of stability and constancy and tend to be threatened, frustrated, or demoralized by situations that provide excessive change.  In the extreme, they can drag their feet about change or can seem reactionary to others.

Factor Q2 (Self Reliance) has to do with a propensity to seek group support - or to strike out on one's own.  Nicholas Lore divides the vocational world into "tribals" (those who like to be "a bee in the hive") and "lone wolves" (those who like to do be a one-man or one-woman show).  This captures factor Q2 well.

High scorers like to solve problems on their own - in the extreme, they "ask for help when the request is pried out from between their cold, dead fingers" - and prize self-reliance.  They like to act independently and may be attracted to entrepreneurial roles or to individual contributor roles for this reason.  They may find it hard to delegate or may run the risk of overly isolating themselves, being seen as "not a team player" in a culture that may consist of more low Q2 types.

Low scorers like group support and group consensus, think in terms of collaborative, team-based action, and may have a hard time acting alone or independently.  They may be attracted to "corporate" roles in which there are high levels of social support for what they do and in which team outcomes, not individual outcomes, are emphasized.

There is some evidence that high scorers gravitate to smaller companies (including the ultimate in smallness, solo practitioner roles as self-employed individuals), while low scorers gravitate to larger companies.  Cultures that emphasize individual activity and achievement attract high Q2 types;  those that emphasize teamwork and collaboration, low Q2 people.

Factor Q3 (Perfectionism) is another complex factor that encompasses more than one core element.  Part of the factor has to do with "task orientation" versus "process orientation".  Another has to do with a "structure seeking" versus "structure avoidant" tendency.  A third has to do with image management.

Think of a person driving cross-country.  One person might have a goal of getting to the destination as quickly and efficiently as possible (the high Q3 style).  Another might have a goal of enjoying the trip, taking the scenic route, stopping along the way whenever the mood struck them (the low Q3 style).  Thus, the idea of "the destination versus the journey" is one way to differentiate high versus low scorers.

High scorers are more organized, systematic, methodical, goal oriented, focused on conventional achievement (including outward status markers of success and image), like high levels of structure, and tend to have steady work habits oriented around starting tasks promptly, working first and playing second, and taking deadlines seriously.  When taken to excess, these traits may degenerate into rigidity, inflexibility, and an inability to handle the unexpected or to stop and smell the roses.  High scorers lose efficiency as the amount of environmental structure decreases.

Low scorers are more flexible, adaptable, spontaneous, emergent, and process oriented.  They are often less focused on achievement as an end in itself, and may care less about what "the Joneses" think.  They are better starters than finishers and tend to work in "feast or famine" spurts, mixing work and play and treating deadlines flexibly.  When taken to excess, these traits may degenerate into procrastinating, drifting, waffling, and an inability to hold oneself accountable.  Low scorers lose efficiency as the amount of environmental structure decreases.

Factor Q4 (Tension) is about patience or impatience in response to environmental delays, stresses, and demands.  A good informal test for a person's Q4 score is to watch their behavior in a crowded grocery store when the "express lane" is crawling along at molasses-in-February speed.

High scorers are "always on the go", "fidgety", constantly busy, efficiency-minded, and driven to make things happen.  Delays frustrate them, producing impatience, tension, and irritability.  However, they also get things done.

Low scorers are patient, relaxed, placid - "don't worry, be happy".  They take life in stride, which means less stress, but also less of a sense of internal urgency, hence less done.

High scorers (especially if also high on Q3) tend to "somatize" stress (ulcers, migraine headaches, hypertension).  Low scorers are less likely to express stress in physiological ways.

Interpreting Your BCII Results

The BCII measures your business-related career or vocational interests, comparing your level of interest in each area to a norm group of business managers (middle management level and above) and technical business professionals.  Scores are percentile ranks relative to this norm group.

The eight interest areas are as follows.  According to Butler and Waldroop (1997), these are eight core business functions that comprise areas of central interest in building one’s career path.  These functions are broader than conventional job titles and transcend them to a considerable extent.   

·        Application of Technology (AT):  This involves the use of technology to accomplish business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include engineering, production and systems planning, and systems analysis. 

·        Quantitative Analysis (QA):  This involves the use of mathematical analysis to accomplish business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include finance, accounting, and market analysis.

·        Theory Development and Conceptual Thinking (TD):  This involves the application of broad-based conceptual approaches to business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include strategic planning, long-range forecasting, and consultancy-like roles.

·        Creative Production (CP):  This involves the generation of novel or creative products and approaches to accomplish business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include product design and development, public relations, and the creative side of marketing.

·        Counseling and Mentoring (CM):  This involves the development of one-on-one coaching or individual development relationships to accomplish business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include training and development, human resources, and team enhancement.

·        Managing People and Relationships (MP):  This involves traditionally constituted managerial, directive, or supervisory functions to accomplish business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include line management roles, particularly those in which day-to-day workplace relationships take center stage.

·        Enterprise Control (EC):  This involves exercising ultimate decision-making authority for an enterprise (company or business unit) to accomplish business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include high-level leadership roles within a hierarchal organization as well as entrepreneurial roles.

·        Influencing through Language and Ideas (IN):  This involves convincing and persuading others by means of either spoken or written language to accomplish business objectives.  Career paths traditionally associated with high scores include sales, negotiation, and the interactive/relational side of marketing.

The first four categories represent “technical” or “specialist” interests and roles.  The last four represent “interactive” or “generalist” interests and roles.  Categories six and seven are sometimes called the “managerial dyad”.

Interpreting Your CAQ Results

Edgar Schein suggests that there are eight basic, core motivators -- "career anchors", he calls them.   Think of these as what defines a good job for you, in terms of rewards (other than financial) that you seek from your work;  as “non-negotiable” elements that you’d abandon only as an absolute last resort or, as I like to say, that you’d give up only when they were pried out from between your cold, dead fingers.

The moral?  If your employer doesn't reward you in the right (psychological) currency for you, you'll be dissatisfied and will probably eventually move on.  So know what you really want.