Running Head: Leadership 1

Leadership Reflection
Rachel Cox
University of San Francisco









Leadership 2
I. Introduction
As an upcoming graduate and emerging leader, understanding my own leadership and
learning styles in essential - not only because I may soon be leading other in a significant
capacity, but because I will constantly be learning from those I lead as well. In order to assess
my personal leadership skills, strengths, and weaknesses, I decided to look at three tests: one
measured leadership strengths, one identified learning style, and one identified personality type.
To me, personality is incredibly important to both leading and learning. Without a true
understanding of personal attributes, it is often difficult to effectively assess interpersonal
interactions and intrapersonal reactions, both on the leading and following ends of professional
relationships. For these reasons, I will be assessing myself in regard to tests that measure
leadership, learning, and personality. For each assessment, I will explore whether the results
validated or contradicted my previous self-reflection and how they will aid or impede my future
leadership ability.
II. Self-Assessment Tools
The first self-assessment I completed was the Strengths-Based Leadership Quiz, which is
the leadership version of the Clifton StrengthFinder and accessible as part of the book Strengths
Based Leadership by Tom Rath and Barry Conchie. The assessment measures 34 strengths
essential to leadership and categorizes them into four domains: executing, influencing,
relationship building, and strategic thinking (Strengths Based Leadership). I chose this test
because knowing specific strengths is an essential part of leadership. I also wanted to see how
my top skills were distributed among the four domains and how that varied from what I
considered my top domains to be before the assessment.
Leadership 3
The second assessment I completed was one that I also completed at the start of my
graduate education: Dr. Anthony F. Gregorcs Mind Styles Model. The model identifies learning
styles along two dimensions, perceptual quality and ordering ability, to demonstrate tendencies
toward four learning styles: concrete sequential, abstract sequential, abstract random, concrete
random. Concrete learners deal with the obvious and do not make unnecessary relationships
between ideas and concepts. Abstract learners use intuition to look beyond what is obvious.
Sequential learners organize information in a linear, stepwise fashion, while random learners do
not necessarily organize information in any particular order (Mind Styles). I chose this
assessment because I wanted to see if my learning style had changed throughout my graduate
education.
The final test I completed was the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II, which measures
personality type along four dichotomous preferences: extroversion vs. introversion, sensing vs.
intuiting, thinking vs. feeling, and judging vs. perceiving. The results produce one of sixteen
personality types, which are then organized into 4 temperaments: artisan, guardian, rational,
idealist (KTS-II). As a senior in high school, I was asked to take this assessment as part of a
reflection project. I chose to take it again because I believe my experiences in college and
graduate school, particularly difficult classes and work experiences, influenced my personality
and how I approach certain situations.
III. Self-Assessment Results
According to the Strengths-Based Leadership Quiz, my top five strengths relating to
leadership are: responsibility, deliberative, achiever, adaptability, strategic. All five of these
stated strengths validated my previous thinking and what others have identified about me, so I
was not very surprised when I opened the results. Although Strengths Based Leadership
Leadership 4
challenges the idea that leaders should be well-rounded, my initial thought was that I was a well-
rounded leader. After looking at my results a bit more, I saw how the five skills were distributed
among the four measured domains: three for executing, zero for influencing, one for relationship
building, one for strategic thinking. While I was not surprised to see that I am dominant in the
executing domain, I was surprised to see that none of my strengths fall into the influencing
category. I have always thought of myself as a very influential person among my friends and
family. However, this result made me think that maybe I am influential among loved ones, but
struggle to be influential among colleagues. Because influence is such a desired trait among
leaders, I immediately identified this domain as something that I need to work on or else it may
hinder me in the future. The Strengths-Based Leadership Guide given online with individual
results states that those with the strength to influence take charge, speak up, and make sure their
group is heard. These are all things that I believe I have improved on throughout my higher
education, but still require more work. Right now, I really only call on these skills when they are
essential. If I want to improve my influencing ability and acquire top strengths in this domain, I
need to continue to work on these areas both in the classroom and the workplace.
After completing the second assessment, the Gregorc Mind Styles assessment, I was
surprised to learn that my learning style has changed from the start of my graduate education but
truly complements the curriculum I am now experiencing. In the fall of 2012, my results showed
that I was more of a concrete sequential learner (by one point). Now, the results show that I am
more of an abstract sequential learner (by three points). After digging a bit deeper into what each
style meant, I certainly recognized characteristics of both learning types in myself. The common
ground is sequential ordering I have always learned best when information is presented in a
linear, easy-to-follow manner. I believe that my shift in perceptual quality is partly a result of
Leadership 5
learning environment. When I completed the assessment for the first time, I had just graduated
from UCLA, where my major was incredibly rigid, scientific, and demanding. In nearly every
course, the material presented dealt with research studies and statistical correlations that left little
room for interpretation and were often and all-or-nothing relationship. My education at USF
has been much less rigid, more conversation-based, and has presented theories and models that
can be applied in a vast number of ways depending on the population in question. Assignments
have also left much more open to interpretation and allowed for more creativity in terms of topic
choice and approach. The shift in curriculum was not difficult for me, but I do believe that I have
learned to think about things differently and am now able to look beyond the obvious to evaluate
situations and possible solutions. Interestingly, when I looked at the different academic fields
associated with learning styles, I found that my undergraduate major, which was heavy on
biology, chemistry, and physics, is often associated with concrete sequential learners, and those
in education, medicine, and law are often associated with abstract sequential learners (Figure 1).
I found this interesting, because as a public health professional, I will really be blending
components of all these fields and will likely have to think in both concrete and abstract ways
dependent on the individual situation. Having the ability to adapt and think approach situations
with both perceptual qualities will be a huge strength for me in the future.
For the third assessment, I received the result as I did as a senior in high school, despite
thinking it had likely changed. According to the Kiersey Temperament Sorter II, I am an ISTJ
Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging and fall under the Guardian temperament as an
Inspector. While I thought that my result may have changed, the result description for ISTJ truly
describes me to a T and confirms my results in the other assessments that I completed. As an
introvert, I am quiet and serious, which explains why I sometimes about trouble with speaking
Leadership 6
up and taking charge, as qualified in the Strengths-Based Leadership Quiz. With a sensing
personality, I provide a very realistic perspective and like standard ways of doing things. While
this is typically accurate of me and would fit with my initial Gregorc result of concrete
sequential, I have always thought of myself as a very intuitive person and enjoy new problems
and starting with the big picture. I was surprised that I did not score higher on the intuition side.
The last two categories could not be more accurate in regard to my work style. I have always
focused on the task at hand in a logical, planned way and feel supported by structure. Open
projects often intimidate me because I enjoy knowing exactly what a supervisor or instructor will
expect. This is one area that I believe may hinder me as a leader, particularly in public health.
Although structure, metrics, and expectations are particularly important for program evaluation,
creativity and an openness to project evolution are often essential for designing successful
programs. However, my personality traits resonant with other results from the Leadership Quiz
in responsibility, deliberation, and strategic thinking.
IV. Personal Examples
As an undergraduate, I had to rely heavily on my execution and relationship building skills while
putting on a health awareness event on campus. Though it was first year as a member of the
student organization putting on the event, I was called to take on more of a leadership role when
a member of the executive board became ill. Because it was such a small organization, she had
been responsible for a great number of tasks, which she could no longer complete. Additionally,
because there were not many members, her tasks were not spread out among a large group and I
was given many new responsibilities. As a result, I had to quickly adapt from the role of passive
member to decision-maker. Although many details had already been voted on my all members, it
was up to me to make many of them a reality. This included booking the venue, advertising, and
Leadership 7
confirming our guest speaker, an HPV researcher from the University of Southern California
none of which I had previously done. My executing skills of responsibility and achievement
really came through here. I have always worked well under pressure, so that may have played a
large role in my success, but I truly believe my responsibility and innate desire to see things to
completion allowed me to complete my tasks. A week ahead of schedule, all necessary details
had been ironed-out and the event was a complete success.
More recently, I have struggled with my influencing abilities. I currently work at a non-
profit where I help produce greenhouse gas emissions inventory for local governments free of
charge. There, I am partly responsible for the supervision of five interns from UC Merced. About
a week ago, all interns were responsible for turning in a draft of their methodology reports for
their respective greenhouse gas-emitting sectors and I was responsible for evaluating them and
sending back necessary revisions. One intern has been struggling with deadlines and I gave him
the benefit of the doubt when designating a flexible deadline for his second draft. Rather than
turning in his second draft, he turned in a completely different document than my supervisor and
I had not asked for just because he thought it was cool. What I should have done was take
charge and make a non-negotiable deadline clear. It would have served the inventory process
well and, hopefully, taught the intern that, while it is important to work on things that you find
interesting, projects can only progress so far as all team members allow and deadlines are
important. Furthermore, doing so would have given me a chance to work on my influencing
ability by taking charge and speaking up.
V. Conclusion
Completing assessments that analyzed three different areas leadership strengths,
learning styles, and personality allowed me to intensely examine the relationships between
Leadership 8
personality and leader/learner roles. I was able to relate nearly all personality traits to my
assessed learning styles, which I found to be incredibly accurate, and leadership strengths as well
as weaknesses. While the evaluation process seemed a bit tedious at first, particularly with the
Strengths-Based Leadership Quiz, all were incredibly helpful for recognizing how certain
decisions and actions may influence leadership ability. While it is a personality trait that I have
always had, the assessments allowed me understand that my introversion may play a large role in
my lack of influencing ability in the workplace but is certainly something that I can continue to
improve upon by becoming more comfortable in my professional relationships and not always
being weary of taking charge. I will certainly keep the information from these assessments in
mind when working with my companys interns in the future and ask for tasks that play to my
strengths but also test my weaknesses occasionally. I will also try to work on some more open-
ended and creative projects to become more comfortable with those tasks. Overall, the self-
assessment process has taught me that certain strengths and styles may change or become more
apparent based on work environment and typical tasks. Therefore it is always important to
immerse yourself in varying work that allows you to both harness your strengths and test your
weaknesses.







Leadership 9
Figure 1: Academic Fields for Graduates with Varying Learning Styles








Leadership 10
References
Mind Styles Anthony Gregorc. Retrieved from
http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/gregorc.htm.
Rath T, Conchie B (2008). Strengths Based Leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people
follow. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Strengths Based Leadership. Retrieved from
https://strengths.gallup.com/private/sbl/sblhome.aspx.
The Kiersey Temperament Sorter II (KTS-II). Retreived from
http://www.keirsey.com/aboutkts2.aspx.