- What am I good at?
- I am really good at not settling for “less than” what I know I am capable of. This takes a variety of forms as my skills range depending on the focus, but I am persistent and give every task my all. I am also very good at time management and understanding how to allocate my time to achieve my desired results.
- What do I value?
- I value recognition for my contributions and advancements. I do not enjoy staying in the same position for long if I know that I am not able to move up. Lastly, I am pretty motivated by money as it provides stability.
- How did I get here?
- I put myself in positions a lot of other individuals would not necessarily like to do. My path really started being defined in high school when I worked hard and was able to graduate with approximately 37 transfer credits. Then in college, I stayed very focused and engaged with campus activities to allow me to graduate in 3 years. Now, I am able to teach in the Communication department (which covers tuition and gives a living stipend) and will finish my Masters next Spring term.
- Where am I going?
- If I continue down this path, I do anticipate having career success. However, I also am trying to get more mindful to slow down and take more time to enjoy where I am at and the people around me. I am very much a workaholic but I want to try to incorporate a bit more balance in my life.
Extraversion: My score indicated that I am average in this category. This means that I enjoy being around others, but also need time alone. The test indicated avoidance of crowds, a high activity level, and expressing optimistic emotions. Agreeableness: My score indicated that I am low in this category. This means that I show less concern with others’ needs and am viewed as tough, critical, and uncompromising. The test indicated I assume people have good intentions, believe a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary, more likely to intimidate others to get their way, and have high self-confidence. Conscientiousness: My score indicated that I am high in this category. This means that I set clear goals and pursue them with determination and being viewed as reliable and hard-working. The test indicated I am confident in my ability to accomplish things, well-organized, strong sense of moral obligation, strive for excellence, strong will-power, and think before acting Neuroticism: My score indicated that I am low in this category. This means that I am exceptionally calm, composed, and unflappable. The test indicated I believe something dangerous is about to happen, free from depressive emotions, focused on long-term consequences or desires, and am more poised, confident, and clear-thinking when stressed. Openness to Experience: My score indicated that I am average in this category. This means my thinking is neither simple or complex. The test indicated I focus on facts, am uncomfortable with change, love to play with ideas, and challenge authority.
If an employer were to look at these results I believe there are a few things that would stand out as “red flags”. One of these areas and I will also state I do think this looks worse than it is, would be agreeableness. If the employer is looking for an individual who will come to work and just perform as told, I would not be a good fit for that company. Primarily because if I see a way to improve efficiency within the organization I will state my opinion. Additionally, if my name is going on a document or representing me I want it to be done to my satisfaction. I firmly believe that reputation is everything in business and as a result, I want everything my name is on to be well polished and professional.
An area I think employers would be happy to see is that I scored very high in conscientiousness and low in neuroticism. While these may not be strong characteristics in every industry, I am hoping to pursue a long-term job in consulting with Deloitte, and in this industry, it is important to establish a strong work ethic and stay steady during stressful periods.
If I was a business owner, my answer would vary depending on the job.
In a world where I would hire Avery the job would be in a high stake environment where pay is directly tied to compensation. Now to clarify, I am not staying that the job has to be sales, but Avery would have very specific targets that directly address their skill set. For instance, if this individual was very efficient at programing, they would be required to code a specific number in order to prove useful for the company. If Avery is not reaching the targets set I would see no use to keep Avery on the payroll if they are a slacker. A companies culture could be crippled if Avery sets a standard of low effort so Avery must prove usefulness using a cost-benefit analysis in order for me to keep this individual on my staff. On the other hand, I would hire a Jaime for a role that has lots of human interaction, a great deal of teamwork involved, but low risk and low stress. The main reason why hiring a Jaime would be beneficial is that it would be a boast in moral and set the standard that one must work hard doing every task. A job I could see a Jaime excelling at is working PR for different fundraisers or hosting events to connect and engage with the target customers. These are both very important and big projects for the company but involve lots more people working them, and it is not as worrisome as say if they were in accounting and didn’t know how to balance the books. However, and this is just based on the description, I would not put anything that is new or very difficult to be handled solely by this individual. I would expect a Jamie to be efficient working in a team where another person can delegate, but not something where Jamie is in full control.