A chronotype quiz helps you understand the biological clock that controls your body’s rhythms. Your Chronotype may be why you feel grumpy in the morning or at your best at 5 am. It may be why you feel exhausted in the evening or focused by 8 pm. This genetic, biological clock affects more than your sleep pattern. It affects when your optimal times to work, perform, eat, plan, exercise, and more.
Are you a Starter, Pacer, or Anchor? Take this quiz to find out. Discover your Chronotype today by taking the Energy Rhythm Assessment.
What Does Chronotype Mean?
Unlike a standard clock, not every person’s biological clock keeps the same time or pace. Of course, there’s a reason why people say they’re not a ‘morning person.’
Some individuals are more productive in the morning than others, while some function better in the evening. Everyone has an individual sleep schedule that affects their day-to-day performance.
Your body is programmed to wake, sleep, and function much better at certain times of the day than others. People fall into different ‘Chronotypes’ based on general awake and sleep preferences or needs. Your Chronotype reveals what rhythms are optimal for you to work positively with your body, not against it.
A chronotype quiz can help you understand your biological programming better and discover which Chronotype you relate to the most.
What Are The Three Chronotypes?
There are three primary Chronotypes – Starter, Pacer, and Anchor. These Chronotypes correspond with your unique biological clock.
In the workplace, Chronotype matters because it affects the times of day an individual will feel most alert, focus on tasks the best, and what jobs they do best during certain times of the day.
Having varied chronotypes on a team can benefit the team’s productivity and creativity if every team member knows their differences. Teams can get knowledge of their differences, use it to their advantage, and understand how they will feel through healthy collaboration.
The Cloverleaf Chronotype quiz can reveal a lot about a person concerning their energy patterns over a typical 9-5 workday, what tasks are most manageable for them to excel at during specific times of the day, and what their team’s flow may look like daily.
Using the Cloverleaf Chronotype Quiz, you can discover your Chronotype in just 90 seconds. The quiz includes questions to better understand your biological programming to reveal your Chronotype.
Cloverleaf’s Energy Rhythm Assessment draws from research about circadian rhythm and circadian typology. Circadian rhythm refers to the internal processes which regulate the sleep/wake cycle and affect people’s biological and psychological functioning in everyday life, health, and disease (Adan et al., 2012).
Your chronotype is one of three types:
- Morning type (the Starter)
- Midday type (the Pacer)
- Evening type (the Anchor)
The Starter Chronotype is about 15-25 percent of the population.
Starters are morning-type people. The Starter is an individual who enjoys an early sleep schedule and early wake time. Their peak happens in the early morning, and they experience their trough in the middle of the afternoon. This is around 12-1 pm time (lunch hours). Their recovery tends to occur in the late afternoon to early evening, around the end of their 9-5 workday.
The Pacer Chronotype is about 50 percent of the population.
Pacers are most productive during mid-morning. Pacers have a similar energy rhythm to Starters, but their peak happens in the mid-morning portion of the day. Pacers get up early and have their trough mid-afternoon, with a recovery period from late afternoon to early evening towards the end of their 9-5 workday.
The Anchor Chronotype is about 15-25 percent of the population.
Anchors are commonly known as the ‘Night Owl.’ The Anchor will often sleep in and be ready to sleep late in the evening. Their energy rhythm is similar to those that are considered Starters. Anchors experience their peak in the late afternoon to early evening at the end of a typical 9-5 day.
Anchors may have more variability during their trough than Starters or Pacers, but that trough may also be longer. Their trough happens early to mid-afternoon, with a recovery period in the morning (beginning of a typical 9-5 workday). The Anchor will often go to bed late into the night.
Pacers are the most common type among adults. And it’s important to remember that all Starters, Pacers, and Anchors experience a peak, trough, and recovery period in their day.
Understanding Your Chronotype Quiz Results
Knowing your Energy Rhythm can help you determine the amount of sleep and energy you need to excel. Learning more about your team member’s assessment results can help improve collaborative efforts.
Peak time is best for analyzing tasks, requiring lots of analytical and strategic brainpower.
A Trough is best for maintenance tasks – those low-brainpower, straightforward tasks like adding to your calendar or answering emails.
Recovery is best for Creating Tasks.
People experience a rise in energy, mood, and vigilance during their peak. People typically experience a dip in energy, mood, sleep performance, and care during their trough. During recovery, energy and mood take a sharp rise. The peak, trough, and recovery periods occur at different times for people, depending on their Chronotype.
Discover your Chronotype today with Cloverleaf. Take the Chronotype quiz to find out which Chronotype you are to start maximizing your effort and better utilizing your energy.
HUMAN SKILL PROGRAMS ARE HITTING LIMITATIONS...
- Close the widening gap between learning and on-the-job application
- Overcome the tension of pausing productivity for development opportunities
- Integrate learning so it is actually in the flow of work
- The evolution of human skill development
- What Automated Coaching™ is and how it works.
Introduction
The 16 Types assessment is based on Carl Jung’s Theory of Psychological Types (Jung, 1921), which proposes that there are four primary dimensions among which we can evaluate personality traits. The benefit of the 16 Types assessment is that it broadly covers the most prominent personality traits. This is particularly helpful because personality traits are relatively consistent across time and situation, and can be reliably be connected to observable workplace behaviors.
Cloverleaf uses the Keirsey Temperament Sorter® II (KTS) (Keirsey, 1998), which is based on self-reporting of observable behaviors. Across several studies, external researchers (i.e., unaffiliated with the assessment entity) illustrate construct validity and reliability for the assessment (e.g., Abramson, 2010; Dodd & Bayne, 2007; Kelly & Jugovic, 2001; Quinn et al., 1992; Tucker & Gillespie, 1993; Waskel, 1995). What follows is a construct validity evaluation using Cloverleaf’s 16 Types participants.
The four dimensions of the 16 Types assessment include energy, perception, judgment, and orientation. Each dimension operates along a theoretical continuum with two polar anchors. The energy dimension addresses the degree to which sensory perception is draining (introverted) or energizing (extroverted). The perception dimension addresses the degree to which we process information using micro-level facts and details (sensor) or macro-level abstraction and patterns (intuition). The judgment dimension addresses the degree we place importance on logic-based information (thinker) or values-based information (feeler). The orientation dimension addresses the extent to which we prefer to have a fluid and adaptable approach (perceiver) or an orderly and controlled approach (judger) to our lives.
Respondents are given a series of 70 questions. Each question is specific to one of the four dimensions. For each question, the respondent is asked to select one of two responses. The two response options are representative of each anchor (e.g., introversion versus extroversion, sensor versus intuit, feeler versus thinker, and perceiver versus judger).
The energy dimension has a total of 10 questions, and the remaining three dimensions each have a total of 20 questions. The percentage of the responses representing one anchor or the other dictates their final score for each dimension. The user is then given their type (e.g., INTJ) based upon which of the anchors for each of the four dimensions had the highest percentage.
Sample and Methodology
The sample consisted of 176,424 participants that completed the 16 Types assessment using the Cloverleaf platform. To illustrate construct validity, I employed several techniques. First, I assessed inter-item reliability for each of the four dimensions. Second, I assessed the overall factor structure by conducting confirmatory factor analyses. Third, I assessed convergent and divergent validity by evaluating correlations among related assessment dimensions. Fourth, I assessed test-retest reliability among a subset of users that have taken the assessment multiple times.
Reliability Analyses
I conducted reliability analyses to evaluate the degree to which the items within the assessment were reliably evaluating the dimensions of interest. Each question offers two options. The first is representative of one endpoint of the continuum (e.g., introverted) and the second is representative of the other endpoint of the continuum (e.g., extroverted). The selections were coded such that the first option was -1 (i.e., introverted, sensor, feeler, and perceiver) and the second option was +1 (extroverted, intuition, thinker, and judger). The 10-item energy dimension (α = .80), the 20-item perception dimension (α = .76), the 20-item judgment dimension (α = .85), and the 20-item orientation dimension (α = .82), all had Cronbach alpha reliabilities above the traditional .70 threshold. Further, the findings illustrated that removal of any one item would not substantially enhance the overall reliability (see Table 1).
Table 1. Reliability Analysis
Factor Analyses
We conducted factor analyses to assess the overall dimensionality of the assessment (see Table 2). Specifically, to investigate whether there is empirical support for the four theoretically derived dimensions, I conducted a forced, four-factor analysis with varimax rotation. Overall, the factor loadings aligned well with the theoretical factor structure.
Within the energy dimension, there were no significant cross-loadings. Within the perception dimension, there were four items with cross-loadings on the judgment dimension (i.e., items 10, 12, 13, and 20). Within the judgment dimension, there was one item with a cross-loading on the perception dimension (i.e., item 17). Within the orientation dimension, there were two cross-loading items, one for the perception dimension (i.e., item 13) and one for the judgment dimension (i.e., item 10). In each case, the cross-loadings were relatively minor. Further, in each case, the cross-loadings align with the expected relationships among dimensions. Specifically, correlational analyses illustrate that the perception and judgment dimensions (r = .45, p < .01), the perception and orientation dimensions (r = .39, p < .01), and the judgment and orientation dimensions (r = .30, p < .01), have low to moderate positive associations (see Table 3).
Table 2. Factor Analysis
Table 3. Bi-Variate Correlations
Convergent and Divergent Validity
Of the 176,424 participants that completed the 16 Types assessment, 19,466 have completed the DISC personality assessment (Marston, 1928/2013; Merenda & Clarke, 1965), and 8,071 have completed the Instinctive Drive assessment (De Raad & Doddema-Winsemius, 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 2006; Fitzgerald et al., 2011) within the Cloverleaf platform. We conducted correlation analyses within these sub-groups to instigate convergent and divergent validity.
The DISC assesses traits, but with a focus on the approach and outlook one is likely to have when interacting with others. Individuals higher in dominance (D) tend to be confident, blunt, demanding, and task-focused. Individuals higher in influence (I) tend to be enthusiastic, persuasive, optimistic, and relationship-focused. Individuals higher in steadiness (S) tend to be calm, deliberate, loyal, and dependable. Individuals higher in conscientiousness (C) tend to be independent, competent, and detail-focused.
The Instinctive Drives assessment evaluates individuals’ innate behavioral tendencies. Instincts are similar to traits in that they dictate specific sets of behaviors. However, instincts also address why such behaviors are preferred (i.e., what drives the behavior). The assessment determines whether respondents prefer to “use” or “avoid” four instinctive drives: verify, authenticate, complete, and improvise. Individuals that use verify need clarity and are driven to “get it right.” Individuals that use authenticate need open and direct communication and are driven to see tangible results. Individuals that use complete need time to focus and are driven to make progress. Individuals that use improvise need to create and interact with others and are driven to make things possible.
Extroverts are more socially driven than their introverted counterparts. As expected, the findings illustrate that extroversion (higher on energy dimension) was strongly associated with influence (r = .647, p < .01), authenticate (r = .124, p < .01), and improvise (r = .245, p < .01), all of which involve more communicative and relational tendencies. Alternatively, introverts prefer deep-thinking activities that can be done in solitude. Along those lines, introversion (lower on energy dimension) was associated with steadiness (r = -.354, p < .01), conscientiousness (r = -.460, p < .01), verify (r = -.134, p < .01), and complete (r = -.460, p < .01), all of which entail task-focused tendencies.
Intuits notice patterns, focus on the big picture, and are forward-looking. As expected, I found that intuition (higher on perception dimension) was associated with improvise (r = -.393, p < .01), which also entails seeing and pursuing opportunities. Alternatively, sensors focus on facts and details. Along those lines, we found that sensor (lower on perception) was associated with conscientiousness (r = -.118, p < .01), verify (r = -.218, p < .01), authenticate (r = -.159, p < .01), and complete (r = -.221, p < .01), all of which entail the same focus on finding and applying evidence to decision-making.
Feelers tend to be warm and compassionate. The findings support this direction, illustrating that feeler (higher on judgement) is associated with influence (r = .271, p < .01) and steadiness (r = .248 p < .01), which entail being interested in and kind towards others. Alternatively, thinkers tend to focus on logic and seeking the truth. The findings support this direction, illustrating that thinker (lower on judgment) is associated with verify (r = -.319, p < .01), which is also about seeking out the truth through facts. This need for truth and logic can also come across as lacking compassion or empathy, which aligns with findings illustrating that thinking is associated with dominance (r = -.420, p < .01), which can come across as being blunt.
Perceivers like to keep things open-ended. The findings support this direction, illustrating that perceiver (higher on orientation) is positively associated with influence (r = .159, p < .01) and improvise (r = .533, p < .01), which both entail a capacity to be more adaptable. Alternatively, judgers like order and process. Along those lines, the findings illustrate that judger (lower on orientation) is associated with conscientiousness (r = -.226, p < .01), verify (r = -.414, p < .01), and complete (r = .385, p < .01), all of which entail being steadfast in keeping things organized and under control.
Table 4. Bi-Variate Correlations with Related Constructs
Test-Retest Reliability
References
Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II: Temperament, character, intelligence. Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
Abramson, N. R. (2010). Internal reliability of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter® II: Cross-national application to American, Canadian, and Korean samples. Journal of Psychological Type, 70(2), 19–30.
De Raad, B., & Doddema-Winsemius, M. (1999). Instincts and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(2), 293–305.
Dodd, N., & Bayne, R. (2007). Internal reliability and item analysis of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. Journal of Psychological Type, 67(8), 71–83.
Fitzgerald, J. A., Ferres, N., Dadich, A., & Hamilton, K. (2005). The Instinctive Drives System™: A reliable and valid catalyst for improving team performance. Sydney, NSW: InCITe Research Group, College of Law and Business, University of Western Sydney.
Fitzgerald, A., Sloan, T. R., Hayes, K. J., Dadich, A. M., & Chapman, G. R. (2011). Instinctive Drives® Profiles: Exploring data, presenting results and expanding horizons. Sydney, NSW: InCITe Research Group, College of Law and Business, University of Western Sydney.
Jung, C. (1921). Psychological types. Routledge.
Kelly, K. R., & Jugovic, H. (2001). Concurrent validity of the online version of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(1), 49–59.
Marston, W. M. (1928/2013). Emotions of normal people. Vol. 158. Routledge.
Merenda, P. F., & Clarke, W. V. (1965). Self-description and personality measurement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 52–56.
Quinn, M. T., Lewis, R. J., & Fischer, K. L. (1992). A cross-correlation of the Myers-Briggs and Keirsey instruments. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 279-280.
Tucker, I. F., & Gillespie, B. V. (1993). Correlations among three measures of personality type. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 650.
Waskel, S. A. (1995). Temperament types: Midlife death concerns, demographics, and intensity of crisis. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 221-233.
Introduction
The theory underlying DISC comes from William Marston’s work (Marston, 1928/2013), which proposes that individuals’ tendencies can be traced to their emotional responses to environmental stressors. The DISC assessment focuses on (a) how individuals view their environment, and (b) how individuals prefer to influence others within that environment. Along these lines, the DISC is particularly helpful in explaining why individuals react and behave in certain ways when interacting with others at work. Cloverleaf uses Cleaver Company’s version of the DISC, which is based on the original theory and assessment of DISC (Merenda & Clarke, 1965). This version entails four dimensions: Dominance (D), Influence (I), Steadiness (S), and Conscientiousness (C). To verify the validity and reliability of the DISC assessment, Cloverleaf conducted an independent analysis with its existing user base (sample size = 48,158).
Description of the DISC Assessment
Reliability Analysis
Within each of the 24 question blocks, the four items are not independent. Thus, the forced-choice question approach of the assessment does not allow for the traditional reliability analyses applied to Likert-style assessments. Nonetheless, it is possible to approximate this approach using re-coded scores. Note that this approach does not illustrate the degree to which the questions are representative of the dimensions. Instead, it allows for an investigation of individual items to evaluate whether specific items are potentially problematic.
I first created 96 variable scores that represented each of the four dimensions within each of the 24 question blocks. Within the question block, if the user rated a specific adjective that aligned with D, I, S or C as most like them, that specific dimension received a score of 2. Within the same question block, if the user rated a specific adjective aligned with D, I, S, or C as least like them, that specific dimension received a score of 0. The remaining dimensions received a score of 1. Thus, across each of the four dimensions (D, I, S, and C) there are 24 variables (e.g., D_1, D_2…D_24) with scores of 0, 1, or 2, with higher scores representing responses more representative of its dimension.
I first conducted a reliability analysis using the 24 variables for each dimension. The alpha reliabilities were .80 for Dominance, .72 for Influence, .72 for Steadiness, and .60 for Conscientiousness. I then investigated whether the alpha reliability would change when deleting any of the 24 items. For all four dimensions, there was no single item that could be deleted that would increase the alpha reliability by .1 or more (see Appendices A-D). I also evaluated the bi-variate correlation between each item and the overall dimension score (see Appendices E-H). All of the correlations were positive and statistically significant (p < .001). The average item-dimension correlation included .40 (range: .17, .60) for Dominance, .35 (range: .04, .63) for Influence, .36 (range: .10, .55) for Steadiness, and .30 (range: .09, .52) for Conscientiousness. In total, these analyses suggest that none of the variables are particularly problematic in their association with the dimension score.
Dimensionality of the DISC Assessment
The DISC is theorized as a circumplex along two continuums. The first is whether individuals view themselves as more powerful or less powerful than their environment (i.e., akin to internal versus external locus of control). The second is whether individuals view their environment as favorable or unfavorable. Dominance entails feeling more powerful than one’s environment and operating within an unfavorable environment. Influence entails feeling more powerful than one’s environment and operating within a favorable environment. Steadiness entails feeling less powerful than one’s environment and operating within a favorable environment. Conscientiousness entails feeling less powerful than one’s environment and operating within an unfavorable environment. Given this dimensionality, we would expect that each dimension is related but relatively unique.
The forced-choice question approach of the assessment does not allow for the traditional factor analysis approach applied to Likert-style assessments. I, therefore, employed a cluster analysis approach to approximate the factor structure. Cluster analyses allow for an investigation of the characteristics of a specified number of profiles (i.e., clusters) within the sample data based on a specified number of dimensions (Scott & Knott, 1974). In this case, I specified two profiles based on two dimensions at a time. I did this for each possible pair (i.e., D and I, D and S, D and C, I and S, I and C, S and C). The underlying theory of DISC would suggest that the two profiles should differ such that the first profile has a higher mean score on one dimension compared to an alternative dimension, and the second profile is the inverse.
I used the mean, dimension-level score for D, I, S, and C in the cluster analyses. The findings of the cluster analyses (see Table 1) generally support a priori expectations. For example, when comparing Dominance and Influence, cluster 1 Dominance (.75) is lower than cluster 1 Influence (1.00), and cluster 2 Dominance (1.21) is higher than cluster 1 Influence (1.01). This suggests that Dominance and Influence are divergent dimensions. This expected pattern does not hold for the Steadiness and Conscientiousness comparison where the cluster scores are similar. However, each of these dimensions shows appropriate differences between the Dominance and Influence dimensions. This suggests that when users feel that they are less powerful than their environment, they might find it challenging to differentiate between their environment being favorable (Steadiness) versus unfavorable (Conscientiousness).
Test-Retest Reliability
A total of 138 users within the sample completed the DISC assessment two or more times. This allowed for investigating whether there were significant differences between the dimension scores across time. Across the 138 users, I conducted a one-sample mean difference t-test. As expected, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the four dimensions (see Table 2 below). This offers support for test-retest reliability.
Conclusion
References
Anderson, C. D., Warner, J. L., & Spencer, C. C. (1984). Inflation bias in self-assessment examinations: Implications for valid employee selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 574–580
Marston, W. M. (1928/2013). Emotions of normal people. Vol. 158. Routledge.
Merenda, P. F., & Clarke, W. V. (1965). Self-description and personality measurement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 52–56.
Scott, A. J., & Knott, M. (1974). A cluster analysis method for grouping means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics, 507-512.
Appendix A
Dominance – Item-Total Statistics
Appendix B
Influence – Item-Total Statistics
Appendix C
Steadiness – Item-Total Statistics
Appendix D
Conscientiousness – Item-Total Statistics
Appendix E
Dominance – Item-Dimension Correlations
Appendix F
Influence – Item-Dimension Correlations
Appendix G
Influence – Item-Dimension Correlations
Appendix H
Conscientiousness – Item-Dimension Correlations
The Big 5 personality traits include conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extroversion. The goal of the Big 5 was lofty—to distill all the possible personality traits into a cohesive, manageable set of factors.
The research signaled that five was ideal, although it could have been more (and some less popular models do have more than five). The selection of five was to ensure that the factors were distinct and comprehensive, such that the factors covered the vast majority of “variance” across all possible personality traits.
The Big 5 has undergone plentiful and robust construct validity analyses and has been included in all sorts of models, making it a solid approach to evaluating how personality traits relate to different types of organizational behavior. More specifically, if the goal is to understand the degree to which a personality trait (e.g., openness to experience) correlates with an outcome of interest (e.g., creativity), the Big 5 is a wise choice.
The challenge with the Big 5, however, is that’s it’s not inherently “practical,” which is the goal in applied settings. The Big 5 is built for research, where the goal is to incrementally advance theory. In applied settings, however, the goal is to facilitate behavior change. This requires a slightly different approach. The factors of interest are still grounded in evidence and have also undergone construct validity analyses. However, the selection of factors (also called dimensions) is based on user utility. Further, the way the assessments are constructed, scored, and reported is more appropriate for those interested in making day-to-day behavior changes. Below, I offer more detailed explanations of these differences.
The first difference is variability. For example, even though conscientiousness is one of the strongest predictors of performance, the mean-level across populations is relatively high. Without variation, it doesn’t add much value to applied settings. Applied, trait-based assessments, such as the dimensions of DISC, 16 types, Enneagram, and Instinctive drives, are built for ensuring that variability exists so that we can glean more specific insights on how the factors show up in work settings.
The second difference is neutrality. The applied, trait-based assessments, for the most part (if done correctly), are purposefully neutral (i.e., they are not “good” or “bad”). Several of the Big 5 have negative connotations—neuroticism in particular. Low levels of agreeableness (i.e., disagreeableness) and low levels of openness to experience (i.e., being close-minded) do as well. Again, although these are clearly universal and important traits, they don’t work well in applied settings. Participants don’t want to be told they are innately flawed. Further, negatively worded assessment questions introduce social desirability bias (i.e., we want to present ourselves to colleagues and supervisors as better than what we really are) and/or inflation bias (i.e., we are biased to think we are better than we really are).
The third difference entails the approach to assessing behavior. The Big five looks at one trait at a time and asks whether you are low to high on that trait through a series of questions. This is the best approach for research settings when you want to evaluate one trait at a time (and statistically “control” for all other traits). This is ideal for incremental science, but not for applied conversations.
Applied assessments look at a factor of interest and then evaluate the poles of that factor. The extroversion trait of the Big 5 does this, with its opposite being introversion, but the others don’t have the same degree of polarity. Being low on neuroticism doesn’t inherently suggest that you are emotionally intelligent, for example (although some have tried to prove that this is the case).
With DISC there is a two-by-two of factors that look at how you view your environment (factor 1 = favorable or unfavorable) and how you approach your environment (factor 2 = aggressive or passive). With 16 Types, the factors cover categories such as “perception” (either sensing or intuition) and “judgment” (either thinking or feeling). Overall, these pole-based approaches ensure that the insights are neutral (not good or bad, just different), people self-rate without bias (no one likes to admit they are neurotic or disagreeable, for example), and those insights can be delivered regardless of where one falls on the factor of interest.
Also important, the personality trait assessments on the Cloverleaf platform do overlap with some of the Big 5 dimensions. In particular, extroversion-introversion is covered in 16 types, and agreeableness is covered, to some degree, in the D vs. I scores of DISC. In my opinion, those are the two most practical factors of the Big 5 in applied work settings.
I’ve heard several academics suggest that using anything except the Big 5 to assess personality is incorrect. This is oversimplified. If the goal is to advance science with respect to personality, the Big 5 is the most suitable. But this is because that is what the Big 5 was built for.
If the goal is to change behavior in applied settings, Cloverleaf’s personality trait assessments—DISC, 16 types, Enneagram, Instinctive Drives—are not only suitable, they are ideal. Academics assume that these practitioner-focused alternatives haven’t undergone construct validity analyses. This is untrue—they just don’t have the data to conduct these analyses. The assessment providers offer some analyses, independent academics have conducted analyses and published the findings in peer-reviewed outlets, and I have conducted our own analyses on our user database. The findings are sound.
In summary, the Big 5 is amazing, especially if you’re conducting research. But as of today, we are focusing on incorporating personality trait assessments that offer as much practical utility as possible.
HUMAN SKILL PROGRAMS ARE HITTING LIMITATIONS...
- Close the widening gap between learning and on-the-job application
- Overcome the tension of pausing productivity for development opportunities
- Integrate learning so it is actually in the flow of work
- The evolution of human skill development
- What Automated Coaching™ is and how it works.
There’s a lot of conversation happening in the business community around burnout and the impact on the well-being of employees. So, what is burnout and how can we recognize it in ourselves and in our team members? The World Health Organization defines burnout as “a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It can also be described as a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job. Burnout can be broken down into three dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy.
Exhaustion: Most of the time when we talk about job burnout, we are actually thinking about emotional exhaustion. This is that sense of fatigue, lack of energy, and “I don’t want to do this I really just want to take a nap”.
Cynicism: Cynicism adds to emotional exhaustion. It is recognizing that you are mad at the source of emotional exhaustion. It’s a sense of depersonalization where you become cynical about the source of that extreme work-related stress where you think “ I do not want to even be a part of this anymore.”
Inefficacy: The third dimension is a sense of inefficacy. You just don’t feel capable, you do not feel confident to do this. So, it is not just the feeling of fatigue- it is actually where you start to engage in cognitive processes that are fighting against the source of that emotional exhaustion.
The key question that a lot of people ask is feeling burnout normal? Should I just suck it up and fight through it? And the answer is absolutely not. It is important to pay attention to your mental health and think about why you are feeling burned out. I like to explain the importance of this with a story.
Peter McLeod was an acrobatic pilot for Red Bull for years. When I was growing up I used to go fishing in northern Ontario, Canada every year. Peter is the son of the outfitter where we stayed ever since I was little. When Peter was seventeen he was doing a practice run. His dad, the owner of the outfitter shop, invited us to watch Peter’s trial run. It was insane to watch, he was doing upside-down flyovers and it was absolutely unreal. After the experience, Peter landed and came back to talk with his dad. They went over every single detail of how the plane operated, from whether the noises sounded differently, to the seat adjustment, to reaching the top speed 0.1 seconds faster. It was incredible to hear the conversation. We jokingly asked, “What’s next? Can you come back and do this tomorrow”. Peter’s response was very clinical, “After doing that type of work with this machine, it’s going to take at least a week’s worth of maintenance.”
The point is that the real work is not all the acrobatic flying, the real work is taking care of the machine. Your mind and body are a machine. Like this airplane, it has to handle a lot of stress and crazy events. If you don’t take care of the machine, it’s going to fall apart and you’re going to have a dangerous crash.
Think about what we put ourselves through on a daily basis and then reflect and ask yourself, “How am I doing right now?” which is the equivalent of being able to think, “This feels off…I feel a little bit more tired than usual… I didn’t feel like my best self in this specific circumstance.”
All of those are signals that are trying to tell you that something is a little bit off. And these are to some degree signals of burnout. Do you need to be paying attention to your work-life balance? How much is self-care a part of your normal weekly and daily rhythms? Are you currently under a heavy workload or in a new job or work environment?
After recognizing some of the symptoms of burnout, we will cover the causes and impact of burnout in the next article.
Click here for Part Two: The Causes And Impact Of Burnout
Are you interested in trying Cloverleaf with your work team? Invite your entire team and try Cloverleaf free for 14 days.
HUMAN SKILL PROGRAMS ARE HITTING LIMITATIONS...
- Close the widening gap between learning and on-the-job application
- Overcome the tension of pausing productivity for development opportunities
- Integrate learning so it is actually in the flow of work
- The evolution of human skill development
- What Automated Coaching™ is and how it works.
Strengthscope’s® mission is to reveal the unique strengths of people across the world, enabling you to bring your most authentic and inspired selves to work and to life, every day. The Strengthscope® self-report is the first essential step on the journey to discovering and embracing your unique strengths and learning how to use them effectively.
Backed by almost 15 years of research and validation, “It is the first strengths assessment system to have achieved Registered Test Status with the UK’s British Psychological Society (BPS) and has also been verified as a valid and reliable measure of work-related strengths by City University, UK,” (Strengthscope®).
Strengthscope® defines strengths as underlying qualities that energize you and that you are great at or have potential to become great at. It helps you to perform at your best every day, and also allows you to reduce performance risks – all by developing what already exists inside of you.
The Strengthscope® system has several modules, making it more extensive than any other strengths profiling system. Other ways it separates itself from other assessments are:
Unlike other traditional personality, values or behavioural assessments, Strengthscope® is measuring what gives you energy
Strengthscope®’s simple, universal language enables quick interpretation and habit formation to bring the strengths approach to life every day
Strengthscope® is the only strengths profile to have acquired registered test status with the British Psychological Society, meaning that it’s the most valid and reliable strengths profiling tool in the world today.
What Does A Strengthscope Assessment® Show You?
Strengthscope® compiles 24 different strengths broken down into the four categories: Emotional, Relational, Thinking, and Execution. Each strength falling within these categories will have scores rated on a standardized scale from 1-10. Scores are compared to a relevant comparison group with higher scores showing areas that energize you the most.
It is more important to focus on the overall distribution of your strengths and which clusters they fall in rather than the individual scores for each strength. Significant 7 strengths are displayed as purple bars, while others are shown as blue bars. Higher bars represent those strengths that are more natural and energizing for you, whilst the lower bars represent non-strength areas or energy drainers that will provide less energy and enjoyment in your work.
Download the Cloverleaf Assessment Guide
- A comprehensive list of the assessments that Cloverleaf offers
- Summary of each assessment and what insights you get
- Anticipated time commitments for each assessment
HUMAN SKILL PROGRAMS ARE HITTING LIMITATIONS...
- Close the widening gap between learning and on-the-job application
- Overcome the tension of pausing productivity for development opportunities
- Integrate learning so it is actually in the flow of work
- The evolution of human skill development
- What Automated Coaching™ is and how it works.
How To Use A Strengthscope® Report
When you look at your Strengthscope® report, you will be guided to:
Build awareness of your unique strengths and how to optimize these to achieve exceptional results
What energizes you most and how to stretch these to perform at your best
Which strengths may become counter-productive when not used effectively
What energizes you least and which may impact your performance
Empowering strategies to help you take action to stretch yourself in areas of strength and reduce the impact of any performance risks
Positive, practical ways of working that will improve your confidence, motivation and success in any situation
How to strengthen relationships and work more effectively with people whose strengths are different from yours by allowing more honest and authentic conversations across all levels
With the report, you will also have access to an interactive course on how to understand your report.
Learn more about the Strengthscope® assessment here.
Want to do a team check-in, find out how to here!
*Learn more about how Cloverleaf use Strengthscope® and other assessment to provide Automated Coaching™.