Risk Type Compass Group Report

Team Report and Workbook

PCL | 8 Mount Ephraim | Tunbridge Wells Kent | TN4 8AS www.psychological-consultancy.com

Sample Company

Introduction

Page 3

Understanding this report

01

Part 1: Group Profile

Page 5

Interpretive Group Description A Group Risk Type Balance B Group Risk Type Influence C Centre of Gravity D Group Risk Tolerance E Development Plan

02

Part 2: Resource Materials A Individual Profiles B Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Š Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

Page 16

Introduction

Understanding this Report

Introduction This report is designed to explore the team’s predisposition to risk and it’s capacity to handle risk related decisions associated with its functional role. Risk Type Compass® assesses an individual’s disposition towards risk.

While Risk Type will have a pervasive influence on behaviour, the life experience of an individual will also have shaped these dispositions to some extent.

Individuals will, to different degrees, be aware of these tendencies and have learned consciously or subconsciously to use or restrain them to better effect.

The successful management of tendencies associated with each Risk Type requires self-awareness and also an appreciation of the range and variation in risk dispositions that is likely to be encountered amongst team members, in other colleagues and in life.

The report facilitates awareness and development at the team level. It provides objective psychometric Risk Type measures for each team member and aggregated indices for the team as a whole. These data points combine to create a robust ‘skeletal’ framework for the team that reflects the basic dispositions of it’s individual members.

The purpose of the report is to take this further and to achieve a more holistic team view. Using the assessments as a platform, the aim is to ‘put meat on the bones’; to achieve an understanding in terms of the actual day to day situations and interactions, working relationships and team dynamics. This process will also raise team consciousness and awareness of the impression likely to be created by the team; it’s reputation within the wider organisation.

The report takes the form of a workbook; providing information but also asking questions. This is a process of enquiry and formulation that pulls everything together to achieve greater understanding of the team’s strengths, limitations and operational dynamics and of ways that these may be optimised.

The report may be used and completed by team leaders seeking greater insight into their teams, by an individual planning a team event, or be completed collaboratively by the group as a part of a team development exercise.

Page 3 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

Introduction

Understanding this Report

Risk Type Definitions WARY: Self-disciplined; cautious; uneasy; conservative

Ultra sensitive about vulnerability to risk, they are zealous in eliminating ambiguity and securing the future, and they fervently seek to control.

INTENSE: Ardent; anxious; edgy; passionate

They invest enthusiastically in people and projects but, haunted by the prospect of failure or disappointment, this may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

PRUDENT: Detailed; organised; systematic; conscientious

Their primary concern is to systematically organise everything with a view to the elimination of risk and uncertainty.

SPONTANEOUS: Excitable; enthusiastic; unpredictable; impulsive

They are attracted by the idea of spontaneity and risk but, like moths to a flame, may come to regret decisions made in haste.

From Risk Averse

DELIBERATE: Analytical; investigative; calm; business-like

Calm, calculated and sure-footed, they are not easily unnerved, but they test the ground thoroughly and never go into things unprepared.

To Risk Taking

CAREFREE: Easy-going; excitement seeking; unconventional; impetuous

They see opportunity before risk and relish the adrenaline of on-the-fly decision making required in fast moving situations.

COMPOSED: Cool-headed; self-contained; imperturbable

Strangers to anxiety and sometimes seemingly oblivious to risks, they will keep their heads at times when others are losing theirs.

ADVENTUROUS: Uninhibited; fearless; challenging; venturesome

Fearless, unrestrained and impulsive, they seek excitement and are prepared to try things that no one has ever tried before.

Page 4 Š Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile

Baseline team evaluation

The aim under this heading is to explore the group’s current view of itself; to establish a baseline of the team’s individual

and collective understanding of it’s purpose, objectives and challenges, as well as it’s risk attitudes and dynamics. In part, this requires a review of team basics; identifying a framework around which this Risk Type exercise can be structured.

STRUCTURE

How diverse is the team? What do team members have in common? Is it a multi-disciplinary team? Is it best described

as a task force or project group – making recommendations; as a manufacturing or marketing operation; or as a team that runs things – overseeing some significant functional activity?

ACCOUNTABILITY

Personal accountability? To whom is the team accountable? Who does the team service in the wider organisation? Where does it sit within the organisational structure?

THE TEAM TASK

What are the expectations of the team? What are their responsibilities? Are there specified ‘deliverables’?

CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS/ HOW ARE WE DOING?

How successful is the team so far? How would success be measured? What measurable outcomes are available/possible?

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

What are the greatest challenges? How might the team be able to excel?

COMMUNICATIONS

Internal communications? How formal/informal? How is information shared? External communications, both inward and outward, do the different functions in the organisation speak the same languages?

DECISION MAKING

Decision making processes: Conservative vs radical? Formal vs informal? Wide consultation vs a designated few?

Advocacy based (persuasion, competing for adoption of ideas) vs Inquiry based (sharing ideas, open process designed to generate alternatives, seeking the best solution)? Successful vs unsuccessful?

Page 5 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile

All four of the graphics below are drawn from the same group data, providing a different ‘window’ through which to view the balance of risk dispositions within the team. Each of these configurations will prompt

different discussion points and contribute to the group’s efforts to achieve a greater team consciousness.

Graphic A: Group scattergram

Graphic B: RISK TYPE INFLUENCE

Very Strong

Graphic C: CENTRE OF GRAVITY

StronG

Moderate

Weak

Very Weak

GRAPHIC D: GROUP RISK TOLERANCE INDEX

8 22 25 18 13 31 26

1 10 19

9 7

11 17 21 28

2 5

4 16 24

29 30 6

3

12

14 20

15

23

32 27

Page 6 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile A - Group Risk Profile

How to Read the Group Scattergram

Analysis here should consider two key areas; convergence, and factions. In each case below, what are the implications for this team and for team dynamics?

CONVERGENCE

Convergence is concerned with similarity of Risk Type amongst the participating individuals; the degree of their dispersal around the Compass and the extent to which group members cluster around a particular segment or Risk Type.

Consider the dispersal of team members, how extreme and how balanced is the team? What are the most extreme

differences? Would those most remote from each other appreciate the other’s viewpoint? Consider ‘migration’ of the

team; any tendency of the team to group within a particular quadrant of the compass, also, the density of any clustering.

What does this suggest about the characteristics that would find acceptance within the team and be reinforced? Are there implications for working relationships, communication or misunderstanding? Are there extreme outliers, individuals who may feel remote from the group as a whole?

FACTIONS

The occurrence of separate and distinctive clusters within the wider dispersal of individuals in the group may establish a

constituency for a particular viewpoint or mode of risk taking behaviour, this creates the potential for tension (which is not

necessarily a bad thing) or conflict (which may be more problematic). Where another’s opposing views are represented by other factions, each pulling in their own direction, this will influence on group dynamics and, potentially, internal politics.

Consider the location of any distinctive clusters or factions. What is the distance between them across the compass

spectrum? What characteristics are likely to distinguish the different factions? Based on Risk Type characteristics, what issues might be fertile ground for disagreement? Where would the tensions lie in terms of perception of risk and decision-making?

Page 7 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile A - Group Risk Type Profile

GRAPHIC A: GROUP SCATTERGRAM

The Risk Type Compass® graphic below shows a continuous spectrum of eight Risk Types.

THE MARKER

In this graphic, the marker (•) denotes which Risk Type best fits each team member’s disposition towards risk. Any variation in depth of colour of the marker’s indicates multiple team members at that point.

TYPE DEFINITION

Each of the Risk Types shares some characteristics with its neighbours and the facing Risk Types are

opposite in their characteristics. The closer a marker is to the boundary with the adjacent Risk Type, the more the characteristics of that Risk Type will be an influence.

TYPE STRENGTH

The nearer the marker is to the outside edge of the compass, the stronger the Risk Type and the more

relevant the description of that Risk Type will be. Conversely, the Risk Type characteristics of those nearer the centre of the compass will warrant a milder interpretation of the Risk Type description.

RISK AVERSE L A N O

D ISE AN G

EM OT I

O R

IE NT

L PU IM

SI VE

IL S RE

RISK TOLERANT © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

Page 8

01

Part 1: Group Profile B - Group Risk Type Influence

GRAPHIC B: RISK TYPE INFLUENCE

Analysis here should consider two key areas; under representation and dominance. In each case below, what are the implications for the team and for team dynamics?

UNDER REPRESENTATION

The overall climate within the group will be influenced as much by the complete absence of any Risk Type as by an

over-representation. It is also important to consider the absence or under-representation of Risk Type in the profile.

Under representation becomes even more significant if it further influences the overall balance, as when two or more

adjacent Risk Types are un-represented. Depending where on the Compass this occurred, it might seriously influence the resilience, organisation, emotional sensitivity or impulsivity of the team.

Consider which Risk Types are under represented or unrepresented. What then is missing in terms of Risk Type

characteristics? Which characteristics are strongly represented, but will go unchecked because of their opposite Risk Type being under represented?

DOMINANCE

When there is a prevalence of one Risk Type within the group, any propensities for particular risk attitudes and risk

behaviours will be amplified; perhaps beyond any expectation based just on numbers. This is a group dynamics issue that is likely to have a distorting influence on the perception of risk and on the willingness to take risks. When this

imbalance is extreme, there is a likelihood of ‘risk polarisation’. This is a potential amplifying effect on either risk tolerance or risk aversion that arises in these situations.

Consider the extent to which any one Risk Type dominates, or whether a tight cluster is located across a Risk Type

boundary. How extreme is this group in terms of Risk Type? How extreme is it in terms of its position towards either the top (risk averse end) or the bottom (risk taking end) of the Compass?

Page 9 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile B - Group Risk Influence

Graphic B: RISK TYPE INFLUENCE

In this graphic, the size of the markers in the segment indicates the degree of influence each Risk Type has within the wider group dynamic. Both the numbers of each type and the strength of their Risk Type rating have been taken into account.

Very Strong

Strong

Moderate

Weak

Very Weak

RISK-TYPE

Influence

Adventurous

Moderate

Carefree

Weak

Composed

Moderate

Deliberate

Weak

Spontaneous

Very weak

Intense

Very weak

Wary

None

Prudent

None

Typical

Moderate

Page 10 Š Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile

C - Centre of Gravity

Evaluating Team ‘Centre of Gravity’ This perspective on the balance of Risk Types within the team is based on aggregating the scores of all team members.

The strength of individual Risk Type scores is also taken into account. All other things being equal, this would be the most objective way of determining the overall risk propensity of the group. However, all other things will not be equal.

ACTUAL RANGE AND COMPLEXITY

Firstly, the dispersal of team members across the Compass will add range and complexity to the situation. There are likely

to be benefits in the fact that different Risk Types are represented because of the diversity of outlook that would be implied by this. This increases the capacity of the team to see an issue or a situation from more than one perspective.

What Risk Type characteristics are under-emphasised by this generalised centre of gravity? Were they simply cancelled out by an opposite Risk Type characteristic?

OTHER INFLUENCE FACTORS

Secondly, there are other influencing factors, apart from Risk Type alone. The prevalence of different Risk Types will

influence group dynamics and climate beyond their simple aggregation and the ‘risk polarisation’ factor described on page 9 will be one example of this. Other factors may include the age and experience of team members, their status, social

standing, personality or seniority. Furthermore, these influences may change over time as more reticent team members show their worth and increase their influence.

Within this team, what factors apart from the sheer numbers of any Risk Type, might influence the weight of opinion?

Consider this ‘ Center of Gravity’ team perspective and the Risk Type team narrative associated with it opposite. To what extent does this portrayal of the team reflect the reality?

How accurately does it convey the risk climate within the team? Where are its assertions overstated or inappropriate? Which characteristics from other Risk Type descriptions should be added? Consider this in terms of; Risk Awareness, Reaction to risk, Willingness to take risks, and Decision-making.

Risk Perception

Reaction to Risk

Risk Taking

Decision-making

Page 11 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile

C - Centre of Gravity

Graphic C: CENTRE OF GRAVITY

GROUP RISK TYPE: Composed TYPE STRENGTH: Mild

THE COMPOSED RISK TYPE TEAM Risk Perception

The Composed Risk Type team tends to be resilient and not easily unnerved by risk. As a result, the team will not be as alert to every possibility of risk as more anxious clients or stakeholders. For this reason the team may not be the instigator of so many false alarms but, on the same count, they may also miss the early signs of risks that turn out to be very real.

Response to Risk

Resilience carries the day here too; as risks become apparent, and even when the situation threatens to be serious, the

Composed Risk Type team will be the calmest people around. Seemingly unperturbed at what others view as crisis levels, clients or stakeholders may find this ‘oasis of calm’ demeanor frustrating or annoying, or as failure to appreciate the increasing freneticism surrounding them.

Risk Taking

Because they are less fearful about risk and uncertainty, a Composed Risk Type team will be comparatively unrestrained

about taking risks. In terms of originality, feeling unrestrained by convention and grasping opportunity, this will be an asset.

However, it may also create a culture of boundary testing and innovation that takes them into uncharted territory.

Decision-making

The Composed Risk Type team will not be particularly organised, prudent or systematic. This, combined with their general lack of anxiety and tolerance of ambiguity may leave them open to rather casual and disorganised decision making processes. Their general approach may be to let things run until a decision becomes essential.

Page 12 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile D - Group Risk Tolerance

Evaluating Team Risk Tolerance

This perspective on the group is one-dimensional; it focuses solely on the risk tolerance of the team. The diagram (p14) positions each team member along the 0 to 100 scale of the Risk Tolerance Index (RTi).

Risk Taking and Experience

It is essential to recognise that, whatever the disposition of an individual towards risk and risk taking, life experience will have influenced their perception of risk in different situations:

• Familiarity removes uncertainty, which in itself can be a major source of anxiety or fear.

• Experience develops perception of risk. It allows us to differentiate the specific aspects of a situation that one needs to be wary of, rather than reacting in a more generalised way to that situation, or class of situations.

• Approaching risk incrementally allows us to take one step at a time and to build risk tolerance for that specific situation.

• In our working lives, to the extent that we face a specific set of challenges, we develop confidence, competence and resilience step by step.

There is an important distinction to be made between, A: our constitutional disposition towards risk, captured by our Risk Type and, B: the attitudes to different kinds of risk that we develop through training, exposure and life experience.

Team Risk Tolerance

Consider the estimated mean RTi for the group.

Is this consistent with perceptions within the team? Where are the most significant discrepancies? How consensual are

the views of team members about this? As a group, how would they re-draw this graphic? Do those placed closest in the graphic feel that they have similar risk dispositions?

Team Effectiveness

Given the various demands and expectations on the team, does this RTi pattern seem appropriate?

How well does this fit the requirements and demands on the team? As a group, will the team be resilient enough? Will the

team make the appropriate balance between caution and grasping opportunities? Is the group going to be sensitive enough

to potential threats or pending disasters? How might group biases influence decision-making? In what work situations might the team need to be aware of its limitations in terms propensity for risk-taking?

Team Roles

It can be beneficial to differentiate between those relied on to be alert to dangers, and those charged with being alert to opportunities; just as the defense and attack are differentiated in any sports team. If someone is going to abseil down a

cliff, or bungee jump, it’s helpful to know that someone reliable and vigilant is taking care of the safety aspect. Confident that any serious dangers will be picked up, the adventurous are free to express their capacity to seek opportunities in innovation, organisational change and other initiatives.

Consider whether this analogy works for this team. Is the team diverse enough to differentiate in this way? What might be the benefits of RTi diversity to this team?

Page 13 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile D - Group Risk Tolerance

Graphic D: Overall Risk Tolerance

Risk Tolerance Index (RTi), an estimate of tolerance for risk is based on an individual’s Risk Type, the strength of their Risk Type and their attitudes to different kinds of risk.

GRAPHIC D: GROUP RISK TOLERANCE INDEX

The group’s position on the Risk Type Compass® defines the average RTi across all group members, and the extent to which their attitude varies for different types of risk situations defines their Comfort Zone.

This, coupled with each individual’s risk tolerance, is represented in the graphic below.

8 22 25 18 13 31 26

1 10 19

9 7

11 17 21 28

2 5

4 16 24

29 30 6

3

12

14 20

15

23

32 27

The mid-point of the solid bar in this RTi graphic marks the average level of risk tolerance associated with the Risk Type rating for the group. The length of the bar indicates the average variability in Risk Tolerance suggested by differences in Risk Attitude across the five risk domains.

Validity of results

The group’s responses to the items on the Risk Type Compass® Consistency Scale indicate that the

profile is valid and interpretable.

Page 14 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

01

Part 1: Group Profile E - Development Plan

Positive Risk Management (PRM)

PRM is an approach which recognises; a) that every individual has a natural and deeply rooted disposition towards risk - their Risk Type; b) that risk-taking and risk-aversion are complementary and of equal value; c) that the appropriate degree of risk-aversion or risk tolerance depends on the task or role concerned,

and the working context, and, d) based on these principles, the benefits of an agenda for awareness and

appreciation of different risk disposition at the individual and group levels. Adopting a strategy of Positive Risk Management can improve individual, team and organisational effectiveness.

SOME OBJECTIVES TO CONSIDER: »» Promoting group self-awareness and an appreciation of where, collectively, the group stands; how this is likely to compare with other collaborating or client groups.

»» Highlighting and appreciating the positive contributions that each Risk Type has to offer. »» Understanding the downside implications of one’s own Risk Type; what one can contribute or take care of, and how other Risk Types might complement and compensate for them.

»» Being willing, in groups that are Risk Type diverse, to acknowledge and respect the integrity of other opinions and appreciate their deeper nature.

»» Developing conflict resolution strategies in diverse groups that take each individual’s unique personality style into account and acknowledge common purpose and objectives.

»» Developing a consciousness of subgroups or factions and being alert to the potentially distortive effects with regard to decision-making processes and achievement of consensus.

»» Recognising whether any particular Risk Type is playing too dominant a role in the group and to be mindful of the potential positive and negative implications of this.

»» Developing group self-awareness about gaps and over representation in Risk Type influence and awareness of any systemic bias in procedures and decision-making.

OBJECTIVES PROPOSED:

Page 15 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 1

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 1’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Typical

»» Team Member 1 appears to be more emotionally sensitive and easily moved than others. »» At times, Team Member 1 may be impatient with delays and want quick results. »» Team Member 1 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and change.

»» Team Member 1 seems to be a compliant individual who will respect rules, regulations and authority.

»» Team Member 1 appears relaxed and informal, rather than always concerned about detailed forward planning.

Page 16 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 2

Each point on this page reflectsTeam Member 2’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on

one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Typical

»» Team Member 2’s decisions may be influenced by feelings or intuitions, rather than being always strictly rational.

»» Team Member 2 appears to be organised and sets themselves high standards.

Page 17 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 3

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 3’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Adventurous (very strong)

»» Team Member 3 is unlikely to be easily fazed by events, generally taking things in their stride. »» Team Member 3 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions. »» Team Member 3 is unlikely to worry unnecessarily or to become unduly apprehensive. »» Team Member 3 appears to have a positive and optimistic approach to life.

»» It seems that Team Member 3 will generally be disposed to trust others and have faith in their good intentions.

»» Team Member 3 is unlikely to be resentful or to dwell on past disappointments.

»» Team Member 3 may appear less emotionally expressive and sentimental than others.

»» Team Member 3’s decisions may be influenced by feelings or intuitions, rather than always strictly rational.

»» Team Member 3 seems to seek excitement and is open to new experiences.

»» Team Member 3 seems to be open to quite extreme activities and risky ventures. »» Team Member 3 is unlikely to be pedantic about refinement and perfection.

Page 18 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 4

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 4’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Carefree (moderate example)

»» Team Member 4 seems to be open to quite extreme activities and risky ventures.

»» Team Member 4 may not always be clear what exactly they want to achieve, being content to see how things work out.

Page 19 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 5

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 5’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Carefree (medium)

»» Regardless of their overall Risk Type, Team Member 6 has not scored at either extreme within any of the various sub-themes of personality addressed by the Risk Type Compass® questionnaire.

So far as risk taking is concerned, this suggests that their approach is likely to be moderate and balanced - neither extremely risk taking, nor risk averse.

Page 20 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 6

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 6’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Composed (mild)

»» Regardless of their overall Risk Type, Team Member 5 has not scored at either extreme within any of the various sub-themes of personality addressed by the Risk Type Compass® questionnaire.

So far as risk taking is concerned, this suggests that their approach is likely to be moderate and balanced - neither extremely risk taking, nor risk averse.

Page 21 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 7

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 7’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Composed (very mild)

»» Team Member 7 is unlikely to be easily fazed by events, generally taking things in your stride. »» Team Member 7 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and change.

Page 22 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 8

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 8’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Typical

»» Since this assessment characterises Team Member 8 as a Typical Risk Type, it is not perhaps

surprising that they have no really extreme scores on any of the various sub-themes of personality addressed by the Risk Type Compass® questionnaire. So far as risk taking is concerned, this reinforces the view that their typical approach will be moderate and well balanced – neither unusually risk-taking, nor extremely risk-averse.

Page 23 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 9

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 9’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Carefree (strong)

»» Team Member 9’s decisions may be influenced by feelings or intuitions, rather than always strictly rational.

»» Team Member 9 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and change.

Page 24 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 10

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 10’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Spontaneous (very mild)

»» Team Member 10 may be inclined to question people’s intentions, perhaps making it difficult for others to win their trust.

»» Team Member 10’s decisions may be influenced by feelings or intuitions, rather than always strictly rational.

»» Team Member 10 is likely to be a quick thinking individual who is rarely lost for words. »» Team Member 10 appears to be organised and sets themselves high standards.

Page 25 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 11

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 11’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Composed (mild)

»» Team Member 11 appears to be organised and sets themselves high standards.

Page 26 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 12

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 12’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Adventurous (mild)

»» Team Member 12 is not easily fazed by events and will generally take things in their stride.

»» Team Member 12 is likely to be confident, sure of themselves and able to stand their ground. »» Team Member 12 may appear less emotionally expressive and sentimental than others. »» Team Member 12 is likely to be a quick thinking individual who is rarely lost for words. »» Team Member 12 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and change.

»» Team Member 12 seems to seek excitement and is open to new experiences.

Page 27 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 13

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 13’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Deliberate (mild)

»» Team Member 13 is unlikely to be easily fazed by events, generally taking things in their stride.

»» Team Member 13 may be inclined to expect the worst and to have a more pessimistic outlook than most.

»» Team Member 13 may be less inclined than others to seek new experiences and excitement. »» Team Member 13 seems to be a compliant individual who will respect rules, regulations and authority.

»» Team Member 13 seems to have a systematic approach, preferring to plan things carefully before they act.

Page 28 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 14

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 14’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Adventurous (mild)

»» Team Member 14 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions. »» Team Member 14 appears to have a positive and optimistic approach to life.

»» It seems that Team Member 14 will generally be disposed to trust others and have faith in their good intentions.

Page 29 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 15

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 15’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Deliberate (moderate)

»» Team Member 15 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions. »» Team Member 15 is likely to be confident, sure of themselves and able to stand their ground. »» Team Member 15 is unlikely to be resentful or to dwell on past disappointments.

»» Team Member 15 probably does not allow intuitions or feelings to overwhelm the logic of their decisions.

»» Team Member 15 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and change.

»» Team Member 15 appears to be organised and sets themselves high standards. »» Team Member 15 appears focused and clear about what they want to achieve.

Page 30 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 16

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 16’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Composed (moderate)

»» Team Member 16 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions. »» Team Member 16 is likely to be confident, sure of themselves and able to stand their ground. »» Team Member 16 is likely to be a quick thinking individual who is rarely lost for words. »» Team Member 16 seems to be open to quite extreme activities and risky ventures. »» Team Member 16 appears focused and clear about what they want to achieve.

Page 31 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 17

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 17’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Carefree (mild)

»» Team Member 17 is not easily fazed by events and will generally take things in their stride

»» Team Member 17’s decisions may be influenced by feelings or intuitions, rather than always strictly rational.

»» Team Member 17 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and change.

Page 32 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 18

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 18’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Deliberate (moderate)

»» It seems that Team Member 18 will generally be disposed to trust others and have faith in their good intentions.

»» Team Member 18 probably does not allow intuitions or feelings to overwhelm the logic of their decisions.

»» Team Member 18 seems to be a compliant individual who will respect rules, regulations and authority.

»» Team Member 18 appears to be organised and sets themselves high standards.

Page 33 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 19

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 19’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Deliberate (moderate)

»» Team Member 19 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions.

»» It seems that Team Member 19 will generally be disposed to trust others and have faith in their good intentions.

»» Team Member 19 may appear less emotionally expressive and sentimental than others.

»» Team Member 19 probably does not allow intuitions or feelings to overwhelm the logic of their decisions.

Page 34 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 20

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 20’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Adventurous (moderate)

»» Team Member 20 is unlikely to be easily fazed by events, generally taking things in their stride. »» Team Member 20 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions. »» Team Member 20 is likely to be confident, sure of themselves and able to stand their ground. »» Team Member 20 is unlikely to be resentful or to dwell on past disappointments.

»» Team Member 20 probably does not allow intuitions or feelings to overwhelm the logic of their decisions.

»» At times, Team Member 20 may be impatient with delays and want quick results.

»» Team Member 20 seems to be open to quite extreme activities and risky ventures. »» Team Member 20 appears focused and clear about what they want to achieve.

Page 35 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 21

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 21’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Carefree (moderate)

»» Regardless of Team Member 21’s overall Risk Type, they have not scored at either extreme

within any one of the various sub-themes of personality addressed by the Risk Type Compass®

questionnaire. So far as risk taking is concerned, this suggests that Team Member 21’s approach is likely to be moderate and balanced – neither extremely risk-taking, nor risk-averse.

Page 36 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 22

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 22’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Typical

»» Team Member 22 may be inclined to expect the worst and to have a more pessimistic outlook than most.

»» Team Member 22 is likely to be confident, sure of yourself and able to stand your ground.

»» Team Member 22 may dwell on past disappointments and perceived injustices and find it hard to put them behind you.

»» Team Member 22 probably does not allow intuitions or feelings to overwhelm the logic of their decisions.

Page 37 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 23

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 23’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Adventurous (moderate)

»» Team Member 23 is unlikely to be easily fazed by events, generally taking things in their stride. »» Team Member 23 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions. »» Team Member 23 is unlikely to worry unnecessarily or to become unduly apprehensive.

»» Team Member 23 is likely to be confident, sure of themselves and able to stand their ground. »» Team Member 23 may appear less emotionally expressive and sentimental than others. »» Team Member 23 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and change.

»» Team Member 23 appears focused and clear about what they want to achieve.

Page 38 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 24

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 24’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Composed (strong)

»» Team Member 24 is unlikely to over-react to events or to be overly affected by their emotions. »» Team Member 24 is likely to be confident, sure of themselves and able to stand their ground. »» Team Member 24 is unlikely to be resentful or to dwell on past disappointments.

»» Team Member 24 is likely to be a quick thinking individual who is rarely lost for words. »» Team Member 24 appears to be organised and sets themselves high standards.

Page 39 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 25

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 25’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Typical

»» Team Member 25 is likely to be a quick thinking individual who is rarely lost for words

Page 40 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 26

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 26’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Intense (mild)

»» Regardless of Team Member 26’s overall Risk Type, they have not scored at either extreme

within any one of the various sub-themes of personality addressed by the Risk Type Compass®

questionnaire. So far as risk taking is concerned, this suggests that their approach is likely to be moderate and balanced – neither extremely risk-taking, nor risk-averse.

Page 41 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 27

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 27’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Adventurous (mild)

»» Team Member 27 seems to seek excitement and is open to new experiences.

Page 42 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 28

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 28’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Composed (strong)

»» Team Member 28 is not easily fazed by events and will generally take things in their stride. »» Team Member 28 should have a positive, optimistic, upbeat approach to life. »» Team Member 28 will be confident, sure of themselves and act decisively.

»» Team Member 28 is unlikely to be resentful or to dwell on past disappointments.

»» Team Member 28’s decisions may be influenced by feelings or intuitions, rather than always strictly rational.

»» Team Member 28 appears to be excited by variety, novelty and new ventures.

Page 43 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 29

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 29’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Composed (mild)

»» Team Member 29 is unlikely to be resentful or to dwell on past disappointments.

Page 44 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 30

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 30’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Carefree (moderate)

»» Regardless of Team Member 30’s overall Risk Type, they have not scored at either extreme

within any one of the various sub-themes of personality addressed by the Risk Type Compass®

questionnaire. So far as risk taking is concerned, this suggests that their approach is likely to be moderate and balanced – neither extremely risk-taking, nor risk-averse.

Page 45 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 31

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 31’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Intense (very mild)

»» Team Member 31 may react emotionally to events and be inclined toward fluctuating moods.

»» Team Member 31’s decisions may be influenced by feelings or intuitions, rather than always strictly rational.

Page 46 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material A - Individual Profiles

Summary: Team Member 32

Each point on this page reflects Team Member 32’s responses to a small cluster of questions focused on one quite distinct characteristic. They may provide additional insights that help to qualify or personalise the more generalised Risk Type description.

Risk Type: Adventurous (very mild)

»» It seems that Team Member 32 will generally be disposed to trust others and have faith in their good intentions.

»» Team Member 32 is likely to be a quick thinking individual who is rarely lost for words. »» Team Member 32 is unlikely to be pedantic about refinement and perfection.

»» Team Member 32 appears relaxed and informal, rather than always concerned about detailed forward planning.

Page 47 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Materials B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

This section is designed to support your further consideration about the likely implications of this group

profile. It highlights, for each Risk Type, some of the most common benefits and limitations. These points should be considered in the light of representation of each Risk Type within the group and its likely influence on group functioning and dynamics.

Deliberate (weak influence)

The Deliberate Type represents a distinctive component of this group. This type has a weak influence over the group’s dynamics.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Deliberate Type to a team: »» This type offers a measured and precise approach to risk-taking in the group.

»» Though they are not unnerved by risk, they are still inclined to carefully consider things before making decisions.

»» They prefer clarity over ambiguity and their thorough approach can have an impact on group decision-making.

»» They are likely to be level-headed and calm during times of uncertainty.

»» Typically up-beat, even in difficult times they tend to bring a degree of optimism to the group.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Deliberate Type to a team:

»» This type may be so self assured that they are unreceptive to other viewpoints within the group. »» They can be so thorough weighing up the pros and cons that they miss opportunities. »» Their ardent adherence to rules can delay group decision-making.

»» Their caution may mean that they miss key opportunities for wider experience.

»» Their calm, rational and methodical approach may come across as insensitivity to others.

Interaction:

»» The Deliberate Type would serve to compliment teams that are overwhelmed by some of the

more emotionally volatile, disorganised or impulsive Risk Types. The fearless, systematic and

level headed approach adopted by Deliberate types is particularly suited to working environments characterised by high responsibility, high stress and where the negative consequences for failure are high.

»» Their willingness to do the groundwork necessary to ameliorate risk and to take responsibility for the outcome will make them successful in arenas that would either disconcert the cautious, or defeat more impulsive types.

Opposite Type: Spontaneous

Page 48 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Materials B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Adventurous (moderate influence)

The Adventurous Type represents a distinctive component of this group. This type has a moderate influence over the group’s dynamics.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Adventurous Type to a team: »» Excited by novelty, groups characterised by this type may welcome radical ideas and new experiences.

»» Calm and level-headed, they offer an element of resilience to a team, remaining composed even in extreme situations.

»» Taking everything in their stride, groups with a high proportion in this type are adaptable and can cope with the unexpected.

»» Straight forward to deal with, they don’t hold grudges or dwell on past events.

»» Being optimistic, teams governed by the Adventurous Type are quick to find alternatives despite setbacks.

»» Their impulsive, freewheeling nature allows them to make quick decisions.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Adventurous Type to a team: »» Groups characterised by this type can be impulsive and capable of rash decisions. »» Their confidence may make them prone to unrealistically optimism.

»» At times they may seem almost oblivious to the level of risk they are taking.

»» Being self-assured but impulsive, groups with a high proportion in this type may miss vital detail or new information.

»» Impetuous and unpredictable, they may neglect to evaluate the possible consequences.

»» Teams weighted towards this type are not always attentive or receptive to advice from others. »» They may have a casual approach to rules and procedures.

»» Probably somewhat disorganised in their affairs, they may struggle with the detail. »» They can be impatient with bureaucracy and repetitive or routine tasks.

Interaction:

»» Absence may lose the competitive edge to teams that are more Adventurous. »» For all their gung-ho intrepidness - they still add to the resilience of the team.

»» May be missed in times of disaster or serious threat as a source of calmness and daring.

Opposite Type: Wary

Page 49 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Materials B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Carefree (weak influence)

The Carefree Type represents a distinctive component of this group. This type has a weak influence over the group’s dynamics.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Carefree Type to a team: »» Uninhibited by the traditional view, they may cut through to the core issues.

»» Being excitement seeking and open to risk-taking, they may relish the uncertainty of jumping in at the deep end.

»» They are likely to offer a more open-minded and action-oriented approach to the team.

»» Their preference for action over planning can have a dynamic and energising influence on group members.

»» Their direct approach may challenge petty rules and unnecessary procedures.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Carefree Type to a team: »» This type’s impulsivity can lead to reckless group decision-making.

»» They may not always be attentive or receptive to advice from other group members.

»» Not particularly compliant, they are likely to bend the rules and circumvent procedures. »» They may be disorganised in their affairs and need help in planning events or projects.

»» Impatient with routine, these group members may find repetitive or detailed tasks wearisome and stressful.

Interaction:

»» The adaptable, action-oriented and variety-seeking nature of the Carefree Type would make an effective contribution to teams that are bogged down by convention, caution or routine.

»» Contexts that require adaptability, quick decision-making and continuous change are particularly compatible for Carefree Types.

Opposite Type: Prudent

Page 50 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Materials B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Prudent (no influence)

The Prudent Type represents a distinctive component of this group. This type has a weak influence over the group’s dynamics.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Prudent Type to a team: »» This Risk Type contributes a systematic and organised element to the group dynamic. »» They prefer to research decisions carefully and seek out detailed information. »» Keen on security, any risk that they take will be carefully calculated. »» They are likely to comply with rules and established procedures. »» They like to work within clear and consistent frameworks.

»» Conservative and compliant, they will defer to tradition and convention.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Prudent Type to a team: »» This Risk Type is uncomfortable with ambiguity, change and innovation.

»» Their caution may lead to missed opportunities, especially in fast-paced situations. »» Their focus on detail may limit the group’s ability to think strategically.

»» Their allegiance to established practices may blind them to their weak points. »» Their high standards can make them seem fussy, perfectionistic and critical.

Interaction:

»» The careful, organised approach adopted by the Prudent Type can compliment groups that are characterised by some of the less detail-conscious types. The structure and organisation that

Prudent Types contribute is vital for tasks that require careful consideration and attention-to-detail, or when the consequences for failure are high.

Opposite Type: Carefree

Page 51 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Materials B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Composed (moderate influence)

The Composed Type represents a distinctive component of this group. This type has a weak influence over the group’s dynamics.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Composed Type to a team: »» This type is likely to be calm and level-headed in situations that unsettle others. »» They are able to remain effective and unperturbed when things go wrong.

»» Whatever happens, they are likely to remain composed, consistent and even-handed.

»» They are unlikely to dwell on their mistakes or past decisions that cannot be changed. »» Such people tend to have confidence in their own ability.

»» They are likely to be up-beat and optimistic about the future.

»» People like this tend to be patient, purposeful and unhurried.

»» They remain calm and composed, even when faced with serious difficulties.

»» They are likely to be optimistic about the future; even when the going is tough.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Composed Type to a team: »» This type can be so optimistic that they fail to evaluate or anticipate risk.

»» Certainty about their decisions may make them slow to pick up signs of difficulty. »» Being so confident in their opinions, they may miss vital new information. »» They can appear oblivious to the level of risk associated with a proposal.

»» These people may ignore or dismiss negative feedback about their performance.

»» They can be so sure of themselves that they may seem self-important or arrogant.

»» Not much concerned about risk themselves, expectations of others may be unrealistic.

Interaction:

»» Absence would have greatest negative impact on team resilience.

»» At times of panic and uncertainty their calmness would be missed.

»» Their ‘can-do’ optimism might have been a major source of inspiration and motivation.

Opposite Type: Intense

Page 52 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Materials B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Wary (no influence)

The Wary Type is not represented in this group and has no influence over the dynamics of the group.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Wary Type to a team:

»» Anxious and prudent by nature, this Risk Type offers a degree of caution to group decision-making. »» They will be alert to the potential risks in any idea or proposal and are keen to minimise risk where possible.

»» Systematic and conscientious, they tend to prefer a planned and structured approach to group projects and tasks.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Wary Type to a team:

»» This type’s caution and emphasis on security may make them indecisive in group decision-making. »» Their concern with doing things by the rule book, may make them reluctant to innovate.

»» Their deference towards convention may limit the group’s ability to remain flexible and adaptable.

Interaction:

»» The precision and organisation of Wary types assures a degree of caution within the team dynamic that would be vital in situations where the consequences of failure are likely to be critical and

severe. However, an over representation of this type can result in an approach to work that is bogged down by routine, caution and convention.

»» Wary types would serve to compliment some of the more resilient and impulsive Risk Types through their cautious attention to detail and emotional commitment.

Opposite Type: Adventurous

Page 53 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Materials B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Spontaneous (very weak influence)

The Spontaneous Type is not represented in this group and has no influence over the dynamics of the group.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Spontaneous Type to a team: »» This Risk Type brings an element of thrill seeking to the group.

»» As they are sensitive, they may be resentful of criticism, though they learn from mistakes quickly. »» They are likely to feel strongly about things and to be passionate in their commitments. »» Once ‘on board’ with a project, they should be able to make quick decisions.

»» Such people are likely to be open-minded about new ideas and opportunities. »» They are usually very realistic about their shortcomings.

»» More impulsive than most, they commit to people and projects with enthusiasm.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Spontaneous Type to a team: »» This Risk Type can make rash decisions and then feel remorseful if things go wrong. »» They can be impulsive and easily distracted.

»» Sometimes they will take things personally when no criticism was intended. »» Their changeable moods may make them seem hard to please. »» They may appear disorganised and inattentive to the details.

»» Feeling things deeply, they may struggle to make calm and rational decisions.

»» If things go wrong, they may tend to suspect others before questioning themselves. »» Not being particularly compliant, they may bend rules or procedures. »» They may tend to dwell on past failures.

Interaction:

»» Absence may be missed in terms of passion and creativity. »» A major source of an “if only we could” attitude.

»» Seeking relief from self-doubt they make a dash for salvation in unrealisable dreams. »» Falling short of their aim for the stars, they may reach the moon.

Opposite Type: Deliberate

Page 54 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.

02

Part 2: Resource Material B - Risk Type Strengths and Weaknesses

Intense (very weak influence)

The Intense Type is not represented in this group and has no influence over the dynamics of the group.

The following points highlight the potential contributions of the Intense Type to a team: »» This Risk Type is unlikely to be either complacent or apathetic.

»» If engaged with the group, they will commit with emotion and passion. »» They are alert to the potential risk in any proposition.

»» Candid and unpremeditated, they will speak their mind.

»» Self-aware and realistic about their limitations, they don’t over state their talents. »» Sensitive about past failures, they work hard to avoid repeating mistakes.

The following points highlight the potential disadvantages of the Intense Type to a team: »» They may tend to deflect personal criticism by highlighting the failings of others.

»» The intensity of this type can make them unpredictable and edgy under pressure. »» Their emotionality may interfere with calm, rational decision-making.

»» Anxious not to risk failure, they may be reluctant to move beyond their comfort zone. »» Worried about things going wrong, they may tend to over-react to minor set-backs. »» Sensitive about any shortcomings, they may tend to over state their limitations.

Interaction:

»» Depending on the context, the sensitive, self-critical aspects of the Intense Type can compliment

some of the more imperturbable Risk Types. Being critical of past negative feedback, they are likely to learn from their mistakes and are acutely aware of the negative consequences of any risk.

»» Intense types offer a degree of emotional involvement that many other types do not. However, in

certain situations that require a measured, rational approach, it would likely benefit the team if this emotionality were balanced by a calm and measured approach to risk taking, evident through the Composed or Adventurous types for example.

Opposite Type: Composed

Page 55 © Copyright Psychological Consultancy Limited, 2013, all rights reserved.