+61 8 8123 0393 info@insyncms.com.au

Critical Thinking

What is Critical Thinking?

The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. Critical thinking is the ability to consistently apply sound judgment based on reliable information for the purpose of making good decisions. The best way to think about critical thinking is that it’s the type of thinking that should be applied to solving complex, complicated, and ‘wicked’ problems where finding the best solution is critical to success.

Before deep-diving into Critical Thinking, it’s useful to understand that there are other forms of thinking, the application of which are often more appropriate than critical thinking. This is because critical thinking is more difficult than non-critical thinking, can require significant research and time, and is often not warranted as the problems being solved are simple and their solutions are of little consequence. For example, you wouldn’t normally use critical thinking to help you decide whether you should choose coffee or tea for your morning beverage. The effort-to-reward ratio doesn’t stack up.

Some other forms of thinking include automatic thinking, which is often based on heuristics and applied to simple, everyday decision-making tasks such as coffee vs tea. Automatic thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘system one thinking’ thanks to the success of Daniel Kahneman’s best-selling book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’. Other forms of thinking include analytical, design, systems, creative, abstract, and convergent and divergent thinking. These are all valid forms of thinking that when applied in the right circumstance help to inform decisions.

Critical thinking is a process-oriented approach to thinking that can help almost anyone be better at solving problems, rendering judgments, and making good decisions.

In simple terms, Critical thinking is a three-step process involving clarity, conclusion, and decision.

Critical thinking cannot, however, make you smarter as your innate Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is relatively fixed. Critical thinking can, however, help you to form better conclusions and make better decisions, maximising your mental capability and capacity which results in far better outcomes attributed to you. Consistently applying critical thinking to solve complex problems can be your superpower that allows you to surpass those with higher IQs who do not apply the critical thinking process, resulting in less consistent outcomes.

Before we delve into finding clarity, drawing conclusions, and making sound decisions, it’s important to understand logical reasoning.

Two kinds of logical reasoning are often distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. Given a precondition or premise, a conclusion or logical consequence, and a rule or material condition that implies the conclusion given the precondition, one can explain the following.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. For example: “When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore; when it rains, the grass gets wet.” Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. For example: “The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains.” This type of reasoning is commonly associated with generalization from empirical evidence. While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning sometimes called inference to the best explanation, selects a cogent set of preconditions. Given a true conclusion and a rule, it attempts to select some possible premises that, if true also, can support the conclusion, though not uniquely. For example: “When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it might have rained.” This kind of reasoning can be used to develop a hypothesis, which in turn can be tested by additional reasoning or data. Diagnosticians, detectives, and scientists often use this type of reasoning.

Within the context of a mathematical model, these three kinds of reasoning can be described as follows. The construction/creation of the structure of the model is abduction. Assigning values (or probability distributions) to the parameters of the model is induction. Executing/running the model is deduction.

There are numerous other forms of reasoning, however, for the purposes of getting started with critical thinking deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning are the most widely used forms of reasoning and work to solve most problems. The image below details the basic steps involved in applying deductive and inductive reasoning to either validate a premise based on a sound conclusion or vice versa.

Almost all problems have some form of argument or premise that either validates the conclusion or is validated by the conclusion. We apply reasoning to validate the conclusion and/or premise. To help do this we can use a tool that can be remembered by the acronym FOEBA. FOEBA stands for Facts, Observations, Experiences, Beliefs, and Assumptions. We use FOEBA to perform research to help clarify the argument and ensure we have defined the problem correctly.

Facts

The facts of an argument contribute significantly to supporting or not supporting the premise and/or conclusion. It is important to perform sufficient research from a wide variety of sources to ensure you have all the relevant facts. You also need to ensure you understand the facts and how they apply in the context of the argument. Sometimes, facts can be difficult to find or prove for specific situations. This can be true for instances where the facts are unknown, some are missing, or they do not support a strong conclusion such as during an air crash investigation where the ‘black box’ failed.

Observations

Observations are useful in the absence of facts or when there are insufficient, known facts to fully support the argument. Using the crashed aircraft as an example, observing flames coming from one of its engines and flocks of albatross flying in the area might be a powerful observation that could contribute to solving the question of what happened. Equally, investigators’ observations at the crash site could help them establish that the aircraft hit a flock of albatross due to the presence of albatross feathers at the site.

Experience

Your experience and heuristics are very valuable assets as they are your firsthand account of similar situations and contribute to your knowledge, hence, your experience can also help you solve a problem. The closer your experience aligns with the problem you are trying to solve the more likely your experience will help. However, your experience can also lead you to make incorrect determinations as it is based on your past and the problem being solved may exist in the future where the situation is unknown. An example where your experience may be a powerful influence on you would be if you went to a restaurant and ended up with food poisoning. Your experience might cause you to conclude that eating in that same restaurant in the future will result in you getting sick again. You can see how this could be a biased presupposition based on your previous experience. Many changes may have occurred since you last ate at the restaurant, but I’ll bet you would find it hard to disagree with your experience and decide to eat there again in the future. The takeaway here is that your experience can have a positive or negative impact on your decisions so it’s always wise to understand this when using experience to help make decisions.

Beliefs

Like your experience, your beliefs can be a powerful influence on your decision-making. However, unlike your experience, your beliefs are much less likely to evolve over time and are much more likely to cause biases. Beliefs are established during your formative years and play a major role in your view of the world, circumstances, and situations and they can strongly influence your decisions. You only need to look through history to understand how people’s beliefs led to racist, homophobic, religious, and misogynistic policies and decisions that have resulted in mass oppression and wars. Having said that, belief in sound principles such as ‘fair play’, the proper uses of logical reasoning, and the truth of facts will likely be a positive influence on your decisions.

Assumptions

Solving complex and complicated problems is challenging. One of the main challenges is not having sufficient facts, observations or experiences, or beliefs to draw a valid conclusion. This is where assumptions can be used to fill the gaps in your hypotheses. Assumptions are thoughts you have that you presume to be correct. Based on your assumptions you can come to a conclusion. This is where you can fall into the trap of believing your assumptions are correct. When using critical thinking, you must always ask “how do I know my assumptions are correct”? The best approach to assumptions is to not make them without knowing how you arrived at them and if you cannot validate them.

The figure below shows the relationship between a premise, FOEBA, and the conclusion.

We hope this post has provided some valuable insights into the critical thinking process. Good luck incorporating critical thinking into your decision-making at work and in life more generally.

Locus of Control

If — by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Locus of Control

The world is not out to get you, in fact in the big scheme of things you really don’t matter at all. There are currently some 7.9 billion people on the planet which is more people than have existed throughout all time in history. Of this all most uncomprehendable number, there are only a few thousand notable individuals who have made their mark in the annals of history. Hence, it’s unlikely that very many of us will be shortlisted to notoriety. Most of us will not write a best seller, star in a block buster movie, be president of a country, a company or even a local football club, and most of us won’t retire wealthy with a holiday house in the Bahamas. In fact, for most of us, the best we can hope for is to live a rewarding life without suffering too many significant losses and to die at a ripe old aged surrounded by our loved ones.

But maybe the world is being unfair to us. Maybe if it just through us the occasional bone, or gave us a handout every so often, we would feel and do so much better and achieve so much more!

But the reality is the world doesn’t owe us anything, nor do any of the billions of other temporary occupants of the planet and to think otherwise is naive.

Quote by Mark Twain

“Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

So, should we just accept our fate and give up now, or to we get angry and rebel against the establishment, and demand to be given the same outcome as those few who we deem to be privileged?

Or is there an alternative to this drama. An alternative to why we feel so oppressed and victimised? And, if the world truly isn’t out to get us, are there things we can do to get ahead and arrest this feeling of victimisation.

Is it possible that our situation is not the result of an oppressive world, and that other people are struggling just as much as we are to get ahead and have the best life they can? Sure, the world is full of difficulties and prejudices, but is it possible that everyone is going through something, and you are not unique in how you feel?

What if your inability to succeed was all in your head? What if you are discriminating against yourself by believing you are unable to get a head because no matter how hard you try the world is against you? Do you think this mindset would be helpful or would it predispose you to think, feel and believe, it’s all hopeless and everything is out of your control?

If two equally qualified, competent people of the same age, race, gender, and orientation, interviewed for a job you would assume they would both have an equal chance of winning it, right?

Wrong. One of the biggest discriminators in this and many other situations in life is the mindset of the individuals. If one person believes that they have no control over the outcome and that it is solely upto others to decide if they are worthy, they will present with ‘tells’ that will be picked up upon; whereas, if the other person presents with confidence and a mindset that they are in control of their future this will also be evident and in a close competition will likely be the difference between being selected or not.

This is often best seen in sporting competitions where competitors are so closely matched that the result cannot be predetermined. In this scenario, it will almost always be the individual with the superior mindset who will win.

In life, we ultimately hit what we aim for. If our focus is on being victims, then that is what we will become. In 1954 Julian B. Rotter’s research identified what he called people’s Locus of Control. What he discovered was that those who believe they are in charge of their own destiny have what he referred to as an Internal Locus of Control, whereas those who believe that outside factors control their destiny have an External Locus of Control.

A person’s “locus” (place or location) is conceptualized as Internal, when they believe they can control their own life, or External, when they believe life is controlled by outside factors they can’t influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives.

Having an Internal Locus of Control, believing you set your own destiny, will allow you to focus your attention on succeeding rather than obsessing about the world being against you and ultimately leading you to failure.

Internals believe that their hard work will lead to positive outcomes. They also believe that every action has its consequence, which makes them accept the fact that things happen, and it depends on them if they want to have control over them or not.

Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. People with an External Locus of Control tend to believe that the things which happen in their lives are out of their control, and even that their own actions are a result of external factors, such as fate, luck, and the influence of others. They believe the world is too complex to predict, or successfully control its outcomes. Such people tend to blame others rather than themselves for the outcomes in their lives. People with an External Locus of Control also tend to be more stressed, neurotic, and prone to clinical depression.

This simple shift in mindset from an External Locus of Control to an Internal Locus of Control could make all the difference to how you live your life and therefore what you get back in return.

Believing you are in control of your own destiny comes with the added benefit of contributing to your general wellbeing and happiness and surely that alone is worth striving for.

Building Rapid Trust

Credit to The Cove and the Centre for Australian Army Leadership

The ability to build trust quickly is a skill leaders often need, but more often struggle to know how to achieve. In this Pod Cast, Dr Jemma King speak with the Centre for Australian Army Leadership about how to achieve rapid trust and explains her top 5 factors to increase inter-team effectiveness. There’s a lot that Dr King unpacks in this show so you may want to listen to it more than once.

Key take-aways

Dr King speaks about the need for leaders to demonstrate their ability and benevolence and to act in a consistent manner in order to rapidly gain trust and to sustain that trust over the long term. To aid in remembering these three critical components of trust she refers to these characteristics as the A-B-Cs of trust.

Dr King also explains that before followers will care about how much you know, they first want to know how much you care. Hence the sequence of the A-B-Cs is important and starts with benevolence, then ability and consistency.

The diagram below shows the relationship between a leader’s ability and benevolence or warmth.

Ability vs Trust

What Makes Teams Work?

Teams win because they are a stable, bounded group of individuals who are interdependent in achieving a shared outcome and work or practice together over a long period of time. In today’s fast-paced world where change is constant and disruption is an aim of business, diverse teams are brought together quickly and expected to achieve great things, often under immense time pressure, with complex and ambiguous requirements and no real certainty of the outcome. Amy Edmondson’s TED Talk on teaming sheds light on why some teams can come together to accomplish great things by bonding, finding a common purpose, and being prepared to try new things and fail. Leaders who practice situational humility and remain curious, create an environment of Psychological Safety that allows team members to speak up without fear of criticism or ridicule.

Fit not Fix

Good leaders leverage the strengths of those in their charge and render their weaknesses irrelevant. They ‘fit’ them to roles that suit their strengths rather than try to fix their weaknesses.

Too often leaders feel that any employee should be able to do any job that they are tasked with. This is just not right. This is the same as trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Is it any wonder why there are so many performance issues in organisations today.

Leaders need to understand that people possess specific and unique skills that differ from person to person. Some people possess skills more appropriate to working in collaboration in large groups whilst other people possess skills more suited to working individually and on analytic tasks. Effective leaders identify individual’s skills and strengths and match those individuals with the right tasks. Ineffective leaders waste valuable time and effort trying to shape people in ways they aren’t suited.

A great sports metaphor speaks of playing to your strengths and this is the same in business. This doesn’t mean it’s OK to ignore weakness; however, believing that you will turn and individual’s weakness into their strength is false hope. It is far better to identify individual areas of strength and to further develop those than it is to expect transformational change based on an amount of ‘gap training’. As it’s rare in organisations for any effort to be based on an individual rather than a team, identifying each person’s strengths and directing them accordingly will return the best results.

Teams are only as strong as their weakest member. Having each member of the team work at their highest and best potential means engaging them in their specific areas of strength. Any perceived weakness of any of the individuals in the team should be addressed by allocating a team member who has the requisite strength in that area. While this may sound like identifying a problem and ignoring it, this is more akin to ensuring that each individual team member is employed to utilise their specific experience, knowledge, and skills to their best effect.

Vulnerable Leadership

 

Why would leaders think being vulnerable is good leadership – it’s not!

A lot has been written about the importance of leaders allowing themselves to be vulnerable. Check out this Harvard Business Review article by Jeffrey Cohn and U. Srinivasa Rangan

Using the word “vulnerable” to describe leaders who display good traits such as being open, transparent, and willing to share lessons they have learned, is a misuse of language. Webster’s Dictionary defines being vulnerable as ‘capable of being physically or emotionally wounded‘ and ‘open to attack or damage: Assailable’. Is this what we expect from our leaders, or is this a linguistic reflection of the victim culture plaguing society today?

There is a fine line between what followers view as ‘vulnerability’ and what is in fact just ‘weak, emotion-driven leadership’. What the HBR article promotes, is that CEOs need to prepare prodigies and aspiring leaders for the challenges of becoming a future leader, which is prudent.

Unfortunately, these sorts of articles use language that allows them to be misinterpreted and gives rise to emotive decision-making and leadership paralysis. Military leaders at all levels are trained to operate under significant pressure, often in a VUCA environment, and this requires stoicism. To quote DavidGoggins, it requires a ‘callusing of the mind‘.

Today’s leaders are expected to demonstrate a high degree of empathy, be supportive, be ‘politically correct”, generous, and agreeable. These are all great leadership traits, but like anything, there needs to be balance. Many leaders now struggle to make hard decisions and are often too afraid to actually lead. They spend too much time being ‘vulnerable’ when they should be thinking critically, planning with purpose, and leading by example. It’s important not to confuse leaders who foster psychological safety and speak freely with subordinate leaders and followers, with leaders who are vulnerable. These are very different scenarios and lead to divergent outcomes.

I often reflect on how much more I respected and trusted the strong leadership of 30, 40 and 50 years ago compared to what I see as weak leadership today. It’s not that the leaders of the past were better people or led more effectively. Many of them could have done with a little more empathy and political correctness and I guess that’s the point. A little more, not the massive pendulum swing commonly applied to social issues today.  I’m fighting a losing battle as many leaders today don’t like conflict and find it terrifying to make any decisions, let alone hard decisions. They are unwilling to exercise what Jocko Willink refers to as “Extreme Ownership“. Do yourself a tremendous favour and read Jocko’s book.

I’m not suggesting leaders don’t accept failure or seek to identify their blind spots, and they should have discussions with subordinate leaders and general staff about risks and issues. Leaders who openly display their anxiety and fear do not demonstrate courage or instil much-needed confidence in their staff or their organisations.

As a proponent of critical thinking, the way words are used is important to me.  I ask everyone to think critically when they are told they need to be ‘vulnerable’ and to understand what that really means.

We need to stop promoting the idea that being vulnerable is good. It’s not. Being a mature, stoic leader, who is considered, driven to action, open, empathetic, and willing to share lessons learned should be what we’re aiming for.

If we accept ‘vulnerable leadership’ into the vernacular it is a slippery slope to accepting excuses and emotion-led decision making and that’s just plain bad leadership.

The Big Five Personality Traits

The initial model was advanced by Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal in 1961 but failed to reach an academic audience until the 1980s. In 1990, J.M. Digman advanced his five-factor model of personality, which Lewis Goldberg further extended.

What is the best predictor of a person’s likelihood to succeed in just about any endeavour? Is it their confidence, their competence, their grit and determination, or is it their desire, self-belief, or sense of destiny? The answer is, all these factors are important, but the single most significant determinant of their success might just be their personality. 

Personality is defined as:

“The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character”.

Your personality reflects who you are. It also determines how you act and react to stimuli and different situations. Some people are open to new ideas and experiences and may readily move away from their existing beliefs or form new beliefs easily when provided with a convincing argument. Others may remain steadfast in their long-held beliefs despite being provided with irrefutable empirical evidence that their presupposition is no longer valid.

While it is impossible to know for sure, anecdotally, most people seem to believe that we all have a mix of traits that are inherent in us and some traits that are more or less prominent based on the situation.

For individuals to be considered to possess specific personality traits, three criteria need to be satisfied. The individual needs to exhibit the specific trait in a consistent manner across different situations and circumstances. This means, for example, that an anxious person will not only respond with trepidation towards a challenging deadline but will respond in a similar way towards a difficult task.

The trait needs to be stable over a long period of time, for example, if the person cries when yelled at in class at school or at home they also cry when they are yelled at elsewhere such as in the workplace.

The individual must also demonstrate unique applications of the trait and not just be following normal behaviour such as responding to aggression with violence or by running away (fight or flight).

Humans have a highly tuned ability to rapidly determine if they ‘like’ or can trust another person based on what is commonly referred to as their ‘first impression’. It is astounding to discover that these first impressions can be formed in 100th of a second and it’s believed that we developed this ability based on our anthropological need to quickly determine if someone is a friend or foe and if they are likely to help or harm us. Each time we observe a person’s behaviour and determine that they’re “talkative,” “quiet,” “active,” or “anxious,” what we are observing is the individual’s personality, the characteristic ways in which the individual differs from other people. Personality and trait psychologists try to describe and understand these differences.

According to trait psychologists, there are a limited number of these dimensions (dimensions like Extraversion, Conscientiousness, or Agreeableness), and each individual falls somewhere on each dimension, meaning that they could be low, medium, or high on any specific trait.

It’s quite common nowadays, that individuals will think of themselves, for example, as either introverts or extroverts in an almost binary way. They believe they are either one or the other all the time, never sway and that these traits are immutable. They think of these traits as precise descriptions of how they behave and that these traits mean the same things for everyone. But research shows that these traits and others are quite variable within individuals and each of us occupy a place on a ‘continuous distribution’ of traits that make us who we are.

In the 1970s two research teams led by Paul Costa and Robert R. McCrae of the National Institutes of Health and Warren Norman and Lewis Goldberg of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and the University of Oregon, respectively, discovered that most human character traits can be described using five dimensions. They surveyed thousands of people and independently identified the five broad traits that are common to most people and can be remembered with the acronym OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.

Openness

People who score high for openness tend to appreciate novelty and are generally creative. At the other end of the scale, people who score low are more conventional in their thinking, prefer routines, and have a pronounced sense of right and wrong.

Extraversion

People who are more extroverted tend to display cheerfulness and initiative and seem more communicative. They are also more companionable, sociable and tend to be able to accomplish what they set out to do. Those with low scores are considered to be introverted, reserved, and more submissive to authority.

Agreeableness

Highly agreeable people tend to be friendly, empathetic, and warm to others, while those less agreeable tend to be shy, suspicious, and egocentric. Whilst being agreeable may help you get along with others, being too agreeable may see you being taken advantage of, and you may find it difficult to say no to others resulting in prioritising their needs ahead of your own.

Conscientiousness

Individuals who are high in conscientiousness tend to be well organised, motivated, disciplined, and trustworthy. Those who lack conscientiousness tend to be irresponsible, easily distracted, and unreliable.

Neuroticism

People who score high for neuroticism are often emotionally unstable. They tend to be anxious, inhibited, moody and less self-assured. Those at the lower end of the neuroticism scale are calm, confident, and contented.

Some examples of behaviours for high and low traits are provided in the table below.

Personality Trait

Example behaviours for low scores

Example behaviours for high scores

Openness

Prefers not to be exposed to alternative moral systems; narrow interests; inartistic; not analytical; down-to-earth.

Enjoys seeing people with new types of haircuts and clothing fashions; curious; imaginative; untraditional.

Conscientiousness

Prefers spur-of-the-moment action to planning; unreliable; hedonistic; careless; lax.

Never late for an appointment or a date; organised; hard working; neat; persevering; punctual; self-disciplined.

Extraversion

Preferring a quite evening to a loud party; sober; aloof; unenthusiastic.

Being the life of the party; active; optimistic; fun-loving; affectionate.

Agreeableness

Quickly and confidently asserts own rights; irritable; manipulative; uncooperative; rude.

Agrees with others about political opinions; good-natured; forgiving; gullible; helpful.

Neuroticism

Not getting irritated by small annoyances; secure; self-satisfied.

Constantly worrying about little things; insecure; hypochondriacal; feeling inadequate.

But what if our understanding of personality traits is wrong and if people don’t act consistently from one situation to the next? This was an assertion that shook the foundation of personality psychology in 1968 when Walter Mischel published a book called Personality and Assessment. Mischel’s assertion was that people behave differently in different situations and that the demonstration of particular personality traits isn’t really that consistent.

Mischel cited that children who cheat on tests at school may strictly follow the rules of a game or may never tell a lie to their parents. Thus, Mischel suggested there may not be any general trait of honesty that links these apparently related behaviours. The debate that followed the publication of Mischel’s book was called the person-situation debate because it pitted the power of personality against the power of situational factors as determinants of the behaviour that people exhibit. The reality may be that, for the most part, individuals tend to act according to their inherent personality traits and under ‘standard’ or normal circumstances; however, are able or even likely to stray from these traits under specific, but inconsistent and undetermined circumstances. However, this does not negate the existence of the Big Five Personality Traits or their validity but does suggest caution and that they are not solely relied upon to determine how someone will behave towards a random situation or how they might if they are afflicted by either internal or external factors.

Understanding the degree to which you possess each of the five personality traits and how they might affect your behaviour especially under certain conditions and circumstances, could help you to stop or pause from reacting, think about your response and take appropriate action for the situation. Further, understanding how these traits affect other people might also allow you to anticipate how other individuals or groups may react to stimuli and how this might have a negative impact on you, especially if you’re their leader.

If you would like to take a free personality test created by Dr John A. Johnson, Professor of Psychology at Penn State University, which is based on the Big Five Personality Traits, please click the button below.

IPIP-NEO Personality Test
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial