Evaluation of Survey Instruments

Evaluation of Survey Instruments

Response to Timothy

Hello Timothy,

Thank you for your post. I would like to do the enneagram test as well, as you have noted that it’s Christian in context, and it has helped you, over time, to assess yourself and improve in some of your leadership areas. You also mentioned that not all leaders should be emotionally and relationally intelligent. I initially had a problem with this statement, but after reflecting on some of the powerful and impactful leaders of the century, it is indeed true that the two (emotional and relational aspects) have their context. For example, one of the most influential persons in the world is Oprah Winfrey; she is the epitome of emotional and relational intelligence. But there is also our current president, Mr. Trump; he lacks, to a very large extent, these two aspects ( Mayer, Wilson, & Hazelwood, 2010), yet is making a major impact in our country and across the globe.

I also agree that the reliability of the online assessments is subjective. However, I believe that taking several tests on the same areas of leadership can provide a clearer picture of the leadership traits that one possesses. I found a set of 60 assessments offered by Mindtools, and I (together with the enneagram test) intend to go through all of them to get a more vivid profile of my leadership qualities.

Reference

Mayer, J. D., Wilson, R., & Hazelwood, M. (2010). Personal intelligence expressed: A multiple case study of business leaders. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 30(2), 201-224.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Evaluation of Survey Instruments

Timothy’s Post

What are the similarities across the five surveys?

Evaluation of Survey Instruments

Each of the models I considered have one very important distinction: they are geared towards people who are willing to learn something about themselves and presumably use that information to improve upon their current career or relationship as it pertains to themselves and those around them. Each test/ survey requires the person taking it to be as objective as possible or else you run the risk of skewing the results. Most of the tests were based on a five point, “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” scale and used an algorithm to determine your results. As greener and Martelli make clear, there are numerous ways to structure a survey or questionnaire (Greener & Martelli, 2018)..

How are they different?

Not all surveys are created equal or offer the same level of validity- especially when it comes to free tests found online. Each test has a different focus and with that a different method of acquiring data. The Myers-Briggs test for example was about 64 questions with a “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” five point scale. The Fiedler’s Contingency Model by contrast was a 1-8 point system between two contrasting traits based around the mental model of your least favorite co-worker. This was a very interesting model and was very good at illustrating your leadership style with difficult people. A different yet effective approach.

What are the constraints or limitations of the surveys?

These surveys depend on copious amounts of self-awareness and objectivity. They would not matter on any level if the person taking the test is not honest with themselves. Most of the tests are intuitive, with questions that are fairly obvious what they lead to. It is also difficult at times for the person taking the test to separate an ideal personality trait and a realistic personality trait. For example, (From the Meyers-Briggs test): “I sympathize with the homeless.” This question is more complicated than a 1-5 scale in my opinion. Typically, yes, I do sympathize with the homeless. But each situation is contextual and there are plenty of situations I observe that my sympathy for the homeless is markedly less pronounced than others. Also as previously mentioned, these tests require a certain level of willingness to learn about oneself, which would eliminate a large portion of people in general who may not share that desire. I have also found that a personality test can be skewed depending on my mood, if I had lunch, or if it is raining outside. Very subjective.

Are they valid? Reliable?

The validity of these tests are subjective. I would be much more willing to trust a paid for, lengthy test than a free test online. Validity comes from the source in my opinion. A 30 question personality test from the internet does offer a snapshot of who you are, and may confirm biases that are more pronounced one day to the next. In that instance these tests are not much different than a daily horoscope, allowing the subject to pick their truth out of general commentary. Do I think they are reliable? Yes. The algorithm of these tests will give you the same results time after time as long as your input is the same. As previously mentioned, the subjectivity of your temperament can skew the results. These tests are only as reliable as your honesty and subjectivity.

Which seems more useful in identifying leadership traits and why?

The most useful measure of leadership traits begins within. A leader who lacks self-awareness has a limited shelf-life. To be fair, aa task-oriented leader has a place in the professional world. Not all leaders can or should be highly relational and emotionally intelligent. Sometimes you need to get the job done with as little emotion as possible. This is where your leadership type depends on the context. As the Fiedler’s contingency model explained, “The model states that there is no one best style of leadership. Instead, a leader’s effectiveness is based on the situation. This is the result of two factors – “leadership style” and “situational favorableness” (later called “situational control”) (Mindtools, 2019). I personally felt the most empowered as a leader by taking the enneagram test (which admittedly may be a slight deviation from the assignment, but chosen for its Christian connections). I have taken this test several times for work and for personal reasons, with fairly consistent results. This helps me know myself much better and as a result it helps me relate to those around me in a much more meaningful and authentic way (Berkers, 2019). It has helped me refine areas of strength in my leadership as well as be intentional about improving areas of weakness.

References

Berkers, E. (2019). Enneagram Tests (free). https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/evaltest.

Greener, S., & Martelli, J. (2018). An introduction to business research methods (3rd ed.).

The TypeFinder® Personality Test. (2019, November 26).  https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model: Matching Leadership Style to a Situation. (2019). https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/fiedler.htm.

Mind Tools Content Team. (2019). How Well Do You Delegate?: Sharing the Workload to Get More Done.  https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_60.htm.

Mind Tools Content Team. (2019). How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?: Boosting Your People Skills.  from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/ei-quiz.htm.