MESH Diversity

If you haven't read the previous post, please do so. It's an important one, in which I formally introduce my Girlfriend, so if you only have time to read one update, make it that one.

Recently, Extend-a-Family has required its employees to complete a personality assessment called MESH Diversity, which, among other things, evaluates our Emotional Intelligence.

In this assessment, you answer a number of questions that determine how you perceive yourself. Then, you get a group of people that know you to answer the same questions about you. They mash together the data they got from your invitees, and then they calculate the differences between how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you.

But they aren't normal questions, where there are obvious indicators as to which answers are better than others. Instead, they ask questions about how you would react or respond to different scenarios, or if you are answering for someone else, how you think that person would react or respond. Then, somehow, they mine data from the answers and put them on a 1-to-10 scale for a number of categories and subcategories and compare how you ranked yourself, and how others ranked you.

The takeaway from this is supposed to be that we perceive ourselves differently than how even the people closest to us perceive us.

I found this test fascinating, and even if I didn't shine in all areas, and even if my own perception didn't align with others at all times, I'm going to share my results.

First of all, the test was separated into four categories. They were: Personal Baseline, Performance, Social Baseline, and Leadership. Within each category are subcategories, which we will get into.

Personal Baseline: When people know what they are feeling in the moment, why they are feeling it, and how these emotions affect their judgement and behaviour, they tend to be very successful. Ranking highly in Personal Baseline means these people tend to be highly accomplished both socially and professionally, well positioned to grow in potentially any situation.

Then there is an assessment of how you ranked yourself within the subcategories, how your invitees ranked you, and where there was a disparity between how you and your invitees ranked you.

So, for Personal Baseline, the subcategories and results were:

Areas of Strength: Mindfulness, Acceptance, and Objectivity (both me and my invitees ranked me highly in these areas)

Areas for Growth: Boundary Setting and Growth-Focus (Me and my invitees agreed that these are areas I should improve on)

Areas of Disparity: Emotional Awareness (Me and my invitees disagreed. In this case, I ranked myself significantly higher in this area than they did)

Performance: This is best understood as how we best rally our emotional and executive resources to work together toward a positive end goal even under high stress. This is what allows some individuals to see beyond the challenges of the moment and drive toward a future that is both hopeful and full of possibility. People with high degrees of Performance hold themselves accountable for their actions, therefore their behaviour tends to be very consequence minded.

In this area, my subcategories were:

Areas of Strength: Divergent Thinking and Composure

Areas for Growth: N/A

Areas of Disparity: Enthusiasm, Ambition, and Versatility


Social Baseline: This details how effectively we negotiate the complexity of our everyday social environment. Just like those who tend to cultivate healthy personal relationships in their home life, workplace success is closely tied to how much of a premium people place on developing inter-personal capital. Leaders with strong skill sets in this tend to spread their own good mood around, and research tells us that people in a good mood are not only better at taking in and processing information, but that they also respond more nimbly and creatively under stress.

Subcategories:

Areas of Strength: Empathy, Curiosity, Attentiveness

Areas for Growth: N/A

Areas of Disparity: Rapid-Cognition and Meta-Perception

I should note that these Areas of Disparity contain subcategories where others ranked me weakest among my results. A low Rapid-Cognition and Meta-Perception mean that I have difficulty picking up on subtle physical cues, with "reading the room" and with seeing myself through the eyes of others. I am told to ask myself "What do others see that I don't?"

And lastly we have...

Leadership:  Formal authority is not a requirement for good leadership; influence is. As a leader, whether in a family, with friends, in the community or at work, it's important to understand that real influence is is neither forced nor purchased. Leadership is about how one develops relationships that leave people inspired, working at their best and committed to both personal and communal end goals. In this manner, strong leadership manifests as a process of social influence through which one wins the support of others in the execution of a common goal or task. We firmly believe that leading by example is the only way to lead; whether you are in your home, your community or in a workplace good leaders don't drag their people behind them; good leaders are willingly followed.

Subcategories:

Areas of Strength: Principle, Candor, Consideration, Civility, Approachability, Appreciation, and Persuasiveness

Areas for Growth: N/A

Areas of Disparity: N/A

So clearly Leadership is my strongest category.

And since this is my blog and I control the release of information, I'll include two subcategory descriptions that show me in a really positive light. In these areas I was rated as a perfect 10/10 by others:

Principle: With only a minor discrepancy between you and your invitees, you're results suggest that you're an exceedingly authentic person who is greatly protective of your integrity. As studies suggest, when we plot principle on a behavioural continuum, the vast majority of people land somewhere inbetween hardly ever walk the talk to most of the time. It's very few and far between that we find people this high on the positive end of the continuum. You are very comfortable in your own skin and in what you believe, and this almost always allows you to act on your principles with confidence. Your actions are very congruent with what you believe, and people know this. As a role model, your willingness to do the right thing makes you someone that people will follow, even if doing so is inconvenient or unpopular. Your principled actions don't just speak louder than your words, they amplify them and the people tend to listen, both at home and at work.

Civility: With only a minor discrepancy between you and your invitees, your results suggest that you're extremely skilled in the fine art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. Even when you're in the midst of a heated debate, you always seem able to voice your thoughts and opinions in a manor that invites dialogue. At times when most people would not be at their best, you may tend to be thoughtful and controlled. Even during heated altercations, you still generally manage to proceed without personalizing the disagreement. You are skillful at moving past your needs in order to focus your message on both the demands of the conversation and the needs of the people involved. At work, you're seen as a supportive team member that encourages innovative thinking and open dialogue. You are able to lead people through errors and challenges without making them feel either put down or shut down. This is a solid foundational skill and we believe that honing it further could have enormous positive impact for you and your relationships

So there you have it. In total, I had 15 areas of strength, 2 areas for growth, and 6 areas of disparity. I had a lot of anxiety when reading my report. I didn't think my coworkers would rate me negatively if it gave a clear scale, but the incalculable nature of the questions made it more likely to accurately reflect peoples perceptions, and I was worried it would turn into a roast show.

This causes me to reflect on my Think Implicit results. Think Implicit is another test, in which it shows you symbols or phrases concerning people of different demographics, such as race, gender, sexual preference, level of ability, age, etc and it also shows you phrases of varying levels of positivity. It then judges how long it takes you to pair the positive phrases with the demographic based symbols, and through this it determines what implicit biases you have, and to what severity. The common takeaway from this is that, while the vast majority of us claim not to discriminate based on demographics, in reality, almost everyone has their preferences.

However, my results showed that I have next to no implicit biases. I think that, comparing my MESH Diversity results and my Think Implicit results, I am pretty much scientifically proven to be pure of heart.