Ace Candidate Report - Recruit Rite

Agreeableness ()

Tyler Buttle scored low on Agreeableness. Persons scoring low on agreeableness are competitive with others, unwilling to compromise and cooperate, and tend to be hard-headed. They are described as incompatible, mean, and unkind.

Low Level of Agreeableness

To get a full picture of what low Agreeableness looks like, please also read the descriptions of moderate and high Agreeableness scorers.

• People scoring low on Agreeableness tend to be skeptical of the motives of others and are more likely to react to others’ negative behavior.
• They are less likely to cooperate with others solely for fostering social harmony.
  These individuals tend to do well in jobs requiring objective problem solving, including managers, lawyers, scientists, and soldiers, and traders.
• A low Agreeableness score can also be an asset in a sales or executive position, because highly cooperative salespeople/executives will often be too willing to accommodate others and therefore not best represent the company’s interest in dealings with customers or partners.
• Because less agreeable people can at times be uncooperative or even unfriendly, individuals with low Agreeableness are generally NOT well suited to customer service and can run into problems when working in team-based environments.
• People who score low on Agreeableness tend to be quite competitive with others, are unwilling to compromise and cooperate, and tend to be hard headed (stubborn). These traits mean that these individuals may be more likely to behave in ways that are counterproductive in the workplace, thus exhibiting less career success in the long run.
• Low Agreeableness in an employee also affects coworkers and the workplace climate, in general, as the traits and behaviors inherent in low Agreeableness can lead to increased conflict with coworkers and supervisors in the workplace.

For Comparison Purposes:

High Level of Agreeableness

• People scoring high on Agreeableness are generally well-liked by their co-workers and colleagues as they tend to interact cooperatively, try to avoid conflict, and are interpersonally pleasant.
• They are often described as “working well with others” and have the ability to establish and maintain relationships with co-workers relatively easily (Trofimova et al., 2018).
• They are also more likely to comply with rules and regulations. Unsurprisingly, this translates into better job performance and higher ratings of job satisfaction.
• These individuals are much less likely to be involved in workplace accidents and are found to be highly efficient employees (Sackett & Walmsley, 2014).
• People scoring high on Agreeableness tend to do very well in jobs requiring interpersonal skills and interactions with others (Soto, 2016), prosocial and “helping” behaviour (Lewis, 2001), and teamwork (Trofimova et al., 2018).
• However, high Agreeableness is negatively related to leadership skills (Trofimova et al., 2018) and to making changes to the work environment (Neal et al., 2011) because of the tendency to avoid conflict. People scoring high on Agreeableness, then, will not perform as well in contexts requiring active debate and discussion.

Average Level of Agreeableness

• People who have moderate (or balanced) levels of Agreeableness tend to be well-suited to most types of employment as they are able to work cooperatively while also being able to handle confrontation without being reactive.
• They are less stubborn and reactive than low scorers and more assertive than high scorers.
• Able to engage in active debate/discussion without being reactive, which results in more solution-focused problem solving (rather than emotion based reaction (low Agreeableness) or avoidance of conflict (high Agreeableness).
• Perform well in administrative positions where process and solution focused problem solving are integral to success.

Conscientiousness (3)

Tyler Buttle scored low on Conscientiousness. Persons scoring low on conscientiousness act impulsively, do not like to take responsibility, and are not concerned with details. They are described as careless, disorderly, and indifferent.

Low Level of Conscientiousness

For a complete picture of what low Conscientiousness looks like, please compare to the descriptions of moderate and high Conscientiousness.

• People scoring low on Conscientiousness are less self-motivated and goal-oriented than others.
• Often have difficulties completing given tasks on time.
• More laid back than other individuals. In non-work settings, they can be fun-loving and exciting, but in a work-related context this can be seen as unreliability and irresponsibility.
• More impulsive and spontaneous than others.
• Less organized.
• Less likely to plan things out in advance.
• Do not perform well in jobs that require high levels of organization and precision.
• Good in positions that require spontaneity, adaptability to a changing workplace (Judge et al., 2002).

For Comparison Purposes:

High Level of Conscientiousness

• High Conscientiousness is associated with improved career advancement (Spurk and Abele, 2010) and with most measures of job performance (Trofimova et al., 2018).
• High scorers tend to be self-motivated (Mount & Barrick, 1995), organized, hardworking, efficient (Sackett & Walmsley, 2014), and dependable.
• High scorers are well suited to careers that require leadership skills (Judge et al., 2002a) and innovation (Fairweather, 2012).
• Interestingly, Conscientiousness is more predictive of success for lower-level positions that require careful, deliberate work, than it is for leadership and higher-level managerial positions that are more about the “big picture” than the day to day details.
• These individuals tend to retain more job-related knowledge and tend to make decisions carefully and thoughtfully.
• They are likely to exhibit more effort and drive than other employees, though this also means that they tend to prioritize work ahead of other goals.
• High scorers also appear to be less adaptive to a changing work environment.
• Research looking at personality in the context of law enforcement job performance found that Conscientiousness was related to job performance measures during training and on the job (Barrick & Mount, 1991), a finding replicated by Black (2000) who found a link between global job performance and Conscientiousness in policing recruits and officers.

Average Level of Conscientiousness

• People with moderate (balanced) scores on Conscientiousness are relatively well organized.
• Also adaptable to a changing workplace (Judge et al., 2002).
• They are relatively self-motivated and are able to set and achieve work-related goals.
• They also tend to complete tasks most of the time.
• More organized and diligent in completing tasks than those who score low on Conscientiousness.
• More adaptable than those scoring high on Conscientiousness.

Extraversion (1)

Tyler Buttle scored low on Extraversion. Persons scoring low on extraversion are shy about meeting new people, like solitary hobbies, and tend to be loners. They are described as quiet, bashful, and reclusive.

Low Level of Extraversion

For a complete picture of what a low score on Extraversion looks like, please compare to the descriptions for moderate and high Extraversion.

• People who score low on Extraversion enjoy solitary activities, are shy when meeting new people, and are sometimes described as “loners”. They are less likely to seek out leadership opportunities and tend to perform well at independent tasks rather than tasks requiring teamwork and collaboration.
• Do not tend to perform as well in situations requiring interactions with other.
• Good in positions where work is relatively independent.

For Comparison Purposes:

High Level of Extraversion

• People who score high on Extraversion are outgoing, outspoken and gregarious. They are comfortable in social settings and tend to enjoy others’ company.
• They appear to make friends easily and have no problem talking with strangers.
• They are more likely to have an enduring positive work experience (Mehta, 2012) which may explain why they are less likely to quit/leave the job (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2009; Maertz & Campion, 2004; O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989).
• Extraversion is also related to swift socialization within organizations (Mkoji & Sikalieh, 2012), meaning that these individuals will tend to fit into the social structure of the organization relatively quickly.
• High scorers are more assertive so it is unsurprising that they tend to seek leadership roles more than their introverted counterparts.
• Extraverts are well suited to work in jobs that require frequent social interactions Lim & Ployhart, 2004), such as sales, marketing, and public relations.
• Extraverts tend to take charge of situations and may be well suited to leadership for this reason. Research on police officer recruitment makes it clear that effective interpersonal skills are a necessary aspect to be considered (Varela et al., 2004).

Average Level of Extraversion

• Having a moderate level of Extraversion is associated with leadership ability (Judge et al., 2002b).
• These individuals are relatively outgoing and comfortable in social settings.
• They are also relatively adaptable to different social situations, which may be why they perform well in situations that require people to collaborate with people in multiple roles.
• People with moderate scores on Extraversion tend to be relatively successful in jobs requiring teamwork and collaboration.

Question Responses

What follows is a list of the responses given by Test Test to each question.