On the IPP-NEO narrative report, it tells me that I am
94 Extraversion, 97 Agreeableness, 92 Conscientiousness, 36 Neuroticism 79 Openness
For extraversion, it states that I am rated a sociable, energetic and lively. I am enthusiastic towards the external world and action-oriented, where I am willing to accept opportunities, boisterous and assertive, drawing attention to myself.
Looking at agreeableness, I am someone who works well with teams and seeks a cooperative spirit, willing to compromise and is considerate of other people and generous.
With conscientiousness, this relates to controlling and regulating impulses. People who rate high are long-term planners, organizers and goal setters who are very persistent.
Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative feelings. This means that the person has one or more primary feelings of anger, depression or anxiety. They might respond to events that the average person doesn’t normally experience. Looking at normal situations with dread, seeing it as threatening and having minor frustrations.
Expanding on openness to experience is looking at how down-to-earth, imaginative or creative people are. Being rated highly on this component means that you are more likely to be able to think about abstract ideas, whether that’s music, math, philosophy, language or any of the performing arts. They enjoy change, novelty and variety.
An employer looking at these five components would see several weaknesses in it. I would not be an A-player in police work, sales or service occupations. This type of person can handle everyday life, but may not be suitable for high-stress jobs that require quick decisions. This type of person could be considered stuffy and a rule follower, who doesn’t necessarily think outside the box and could be a perfectionist and workaholic. This type of person would not necessarily thrive as a scientist, soldier or even as a referee, who has to make disagreeable decisions and be okay with that. Being high on extraversion means that the person will work well with a team, but may not operate as strong in a position, where they need to make their own decisions stick to a task-oriented job for long periods of time.
Some of the strengths are being able to work well with a team, taking charge, as needed and being willing and able to entertain new ideas and concepts from co-workers and use it to make a decision. Well organized and a strong planner, being able to create strategy and think for the future and plan accordingly; persistence to see the project to the finish. Capable of handling everyday stress and working on a job, not letting things get them down, too much. A strong player in sticking to what is conventional, balancing out the rest of the team, who might be more willing to adopt new and untried methods without thinking it through.
We seemed to have opposite scores in almost all categories, but I think we can both offer a different perspective in the workplace. I tend to prefer working on my own than in a team, where that is where you strive. I’m not quick when it comes to making decisions, I can tend to overthink things instead of going with my instant reaction. With your scores, you pointed out many jobs/ positions that you don’t think people who scored similar to you would do well in and that may be true, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. You would undoubtedly do well in a position that allows you to be creative and work on short-term projects well in a team setting, but I think you may have discounted some of the professions that you listed. For example, if you went into the science field, you might actually strive if in the right setting, like being creative in an experiment lab with your team. There wouldn’t be a lot of high pressure quick decisions to be made, room to be creative with trial and error, and you would be able to work in a research team setting.