Dominance and Assertiveness

Executive summary

Your result on the Dominance and Assertiveness factor is moderate. This describes your answers in this questionnaire and is not a verdict on your whole personality, and the tool has not yet been calibrated, so there is no comparison here with other people. A moderate average may mean your answers were moderate on every item, or that they varied between high items and low ones, and the report cannot tell the two apart; so read what follows as a hypothesis to test on your own situations, not as a confirmed description: that your tendency to take direction or leave it shifts with the situation.

If this hypothesis holds, your strength may be flexibility: leading when it is needed and stepping back when someone else is better placed. The task ahead may be that those around you, and sometimes you yourself, find it hard to tell which of the two will appear in a particular situation, so expectations of you vary.

This result does not mean you have no view or that you suit every role. It is a developmental reading and is not to be used for hiring, promotion, or judging leadership eligibility.

Detailed interpretation of your result

A moderate level on Dominance and Assertiveness does not mean you sit in the middle of other people. It describes a tendency that shifts with the situation: you take direction in some situations and leave it in others, and you may be very firm on one subject and very yielding on another. It may also mean your answers were moderate on every item. The report cannot tell these apart from your average alone, so read the following paragraphs with one question in mind: when do I lead, when do I follow, and what moves the choice? One caution: the items of this factor concern situations of work and negotiation, so what appears here about home, friends, the young, and crises is a possible extension of the same tendency, and you should test it on your own situations before you accept it.

In meetings, test for yourself what moves your role: recall the last three meetings you attended. If you led the discussion in at least two of them when the subject was in your field, and stayed quiet when those present knew the subject better than you did, that describes your pattern; if your role shifted with no link to expertise, consider what shifted it: tiredness, the people present, or mood. Shifting by expertise is reasonable, while shifting by mood puzzles others. Before each meeting ask which role serves its aim, then choose between leading, taking part, and observing, and announce it in your first sentence.

In disagreement, recall the last three disagreements you went through: if in at least two of them you gave way on something important to you and held firm on something secondary, that describes you, and if the reverse happened, consider what made you hold firm on what matters. When the moment does not tell the important from the secondary, the other side does not know what to expect from you. Before the disagreement write two lines: what truly matters to me here, and what can I let go? Then begin with the first. That way your firmness sits where it belongs and so does your yielding, and those around you read you more clearly.

In managing a team you may move between a style that gives orders and a style that consults, depending on the situation, which is a strength if it is deliberate. But the team may be puzzled when one decision comes as a quick order and another as long questions with no visible reason. Explain your rule: when time is short or the risk is high I decide myself after a quick hearing, and when time allows we discuss together. Once the team knows the rule, the shifting becomes an understood system.

In negotiation, recall the last two you went through: if in at least one you began clearly and then softened when the pressure rose, a written plan is especially useful to you. Write what I ask at the start, what I accept, and what I refuse. Then practice a phrase that buys you time: “let me review what we agreed and come back to you.” The plan stops the pressure of the moment from deciding your result, and leaves you room for flexibility on what does no harm.

In a close relationship you may share decisions about equally with your partner or a family member, leading on some subjects and following on others, which suits an equal partnership. The risk is that the division stays unstated, so each side assumes the other is handling the matter, and things get delayed and small quarrels recur. Sit down together once and name, for each shared area, who settles it. The agreement can change later, but having it spares both of you the guessing.

You may be a leader in a field you know well and a follower in a field that is new to you, such as leading at work while letting a family member lead the trip when you travel together, which is a healthy variety. But it can happen that others push you into the lead where you do not want it, or leave you in the follower position where your view deserves to be heard. Pick two or three areas where you want your view to be decisive, and tell the people around you what they are.

When speaking with a manager or someone in authority you may object when you trust your information and stay quiet when you are unsure. That is fitting, but the silence may stretch to things worth saying because of embarrassment and not because of doubt. Try a simple rule: if I have information that would change the decision, I will say it however I feel. Personal preferences need not all be announced. Seeing clearly the difference between information and preference eases you and your manager.

With people who have less authority than you, you may be lenient on some days and strict on others, depending on the pressure of work and your mood. The team may notice this and choose the moment to raise its matters according to your state. Try to hold the standard steady even when the tone changes: what is accepted today is accepted tomorrow, and what is refused today is refused tomorrow. Steadiness of standard matters more than steadiness of style, because it gives people security in dealing with you.

When you give a remark on the work of a colleague you may be clear at some times and softened to the point of vagueness at others, and the colleague may not know which remark expresses your real view. To unify the message use a fixed template: what I saw, what its effect was, and what I ask. The template protects the message from changes of state, and still lets you adjust the tone to the person, so the content stays whole whatever the style.

You may refuse a request one week and accept the same request another week with no change in circumstances, so that what changed was your mood. If this repeats, the people around you may learn that pressing changes your answer, and press more. Make your answer depend on a standard you can state: do I have time this week, and does this request serve one of my priorities? If the answer is no, say no once, and if it is yes, say yes without regret.

In a struggling project, ask before any intervention: what will happen if I do not step in this week? If the effect is large, such as a missed delivery date or a lost client, step in firmly; if it is small, give the team a chance to correct course on its own. Record your decisions and their outcomes for a few weeks: if you find that you step in on small matters and wait on large ones, that runs against the rule and deserves reflection, because what is deciding your intervention then is mood and not impact.

In a crisis you may step forward quickly if nobody else does, and step back if a more capable leader appears, which is a useful flexibility. Just make sure the roles are clear among all present in the first minutes: who leads, who carries out, and who deals with outside parties. If there is confusion, ask aloud: who is taking the lead here? If nobody answers, say: I will take it until someone better placed arrives.

In a financial decision or a major family decision, test yourself with one question: did I tell those concerned, before carrying it out and not after, whether this decision is shared or individual? Recall your last two decisions of this kind; if you told them afterward in one of them, that suggests the split of decisions is unstated in your case. A sentence such as “I will make this decision myself after hearing your views” is very different from “we decided together.” Clarity protects the relationship from the surprise of disagreeing over who owned the decision.

With friends you may follow the group in choosing the place and the time, and insist on one or two things that matter to you. This is a comfortable balance, but it may leave your friends not knowing what really matters to you, so they may cross your limits without meaning to. Tell them frankly once: “I am flexible about nearly everything, but I cannot do this one thing.” A single sentence of this kind is enough to protect what matters, without turning you into someone they find difficult.

With children, students, or trainees, if you soften limits on ordinary days and then tighten suddenly when you see repeated neglect, they may learn that your limits move with your mood, and so test them. Agree with them a few clear rules with a stated consequence for crossing them, and then keep to them even on your gentle days. Expected firmness is easier for them and for you than firmness that arrives after strain has built up, and it does not stop you from being close and warm.

Your style may change with your state: when you are comfortable you speak with flexibility and clarity, and when you are tired or tense you may lean toward silence or toward a sharpness that is not like you. Watch which of the two appears under pressure, since that is the default you return to. If it is silence, craft a short sentence that buys you time before you reply. If it is sharpness, craft a stated pause sentence to say before your voice rises.

In a new setting, such as travel, life abroad, or a new job, you may observe first and then join in gradually, which gives you a good grasp of the place. Set yourself a date to move from observing to taking part with a small initiative, such as a suggestion or a question, so the waiting does not run long and lead others to think you uninterested. On matters that touch your rights, such as contracts, pay, and housing, do not wait: ask and read in the first week, since these are settled at the start and hard to change once they harden.

The direction of development here is to choose your manner of presence deliberately rather than let mood choose it. When you enter a situation ask yourself: am I leading, taking part, or supporting, and what does this situation need? Then announce your role in one short sentence. A sign of progress is that those around you understand when to expect leadership from you and when to expect participation, and that you regret less often a role you took or left.

This report is a developmental description and not a diagnosis. It does not judge your suitability for a particular job, and it cannot be the sole basis for a hiring or promotion decision. If the swing between sharpness and silence causes you repeated distress or ongoing quarrels at work or at home, or comes with a constant feeling of tension, the right step is to talk with a qualified mental health or professional coaching practitioner and not to rely on this report alone.

Dominance and Assertiveness factor analysis

Your level is moderate on Dominance and Assertiveness. The items of this factor ask about work and negotiation situations: stating your position clearly in a group decision even when it differs from the majority, setting priorities and responsibilities when you direct, asking directly for what you need, defending a professional boundary against someone with more influence, deciding after hearing input, or leaving direction to others. The average of your answers on them, after reversing the reverse-scored item, fell in the third of five equal bands. Because the tool has not yet been calibrated, there is no comparison with other people and no percentile; the level describes your answers in this questionnaire, not your whole personality.

Knowledge enrichment

Dominance and Assertiveness is one of sixteen primary factors in the reference structure of this product. A moderate level describes a tendency that shifts with the situation between taking direction and leaving it, so it is neither a fixed lean toward firmness nor a fixed lean toward giving way.

How your level was worked out: the average of your answers on the items of this factor was taken after reversing the reverse-scored item, and the range from 1 to 5 was split into five bands of equal width. Below 1.8 is very low, below 2.6 is low, below 3.4 is moderate, below 4.2 is high, and 4.2 or more is very high. Your average fell in the third of five bands, that is between 2.6 and 3.4. The same average can come from moderate answers on every item or from high answers on some and low on others, and the report cannot tell them apart. The boundaries are provisional and the tool has not yet been calibrated on a sample, so the level is neither a rank among people nor a percentile. It describes your answers in this questionnaire.

Moderate here does not mean your firmness is weak or that it is strong, and it is not the same as Social Boldness or Human Warmth. The primary factors are also related to one another to some degree. This factor is one of four, together with Social Boldness, Vigilance and Caution, and Openness to Change, from which the Global Independence factor is derived, so their results may meet at times and part at others. The items of this factor do not ask about home, family, friends, the young, or crises, and they do not measure listening, warmth, dependability, your inner motives, or how others see you; so the passages of this report about those areas are possibilities to test on your own situations, not facts the questionnaire established.

This report does not merge the results of other factors to place you in a fixed type, so each factor report is read on its own and then the reports are read together with care.

This is an independent analysis inspired by a general scientific framework, and it does not copy the items or wording of any commercial instrument, nor is it the official or licensed edition of one. For that reason it cannot alone be the basis for a hiring or promotion decision, an assessment of competence, or any other high-stakes decision.

Strengths

Development areas

Impact across life

Comparison and context

The tool has not yet been calibrated on a sample, so this report does not place you at a rank among people: the word moderate here describes the shifting of your tendency between situations, or the evenness of your answers, and not a position among others.

The useful comparison for now is with yourself across situations. Over two weeks note five situations where you led and five where you followed, and write beside each what drove the choice: expertise, risk, mood, or a particular person. That will show you what moves your presence.

A comparative context based on actual measurement may be added to your reading one day, when real calibration data becomes available. Until then the log of situations you keep is your most accurate reference: if it shows again and again that expertise or risk decides your role, your shifting is deliberate, and if it shows that mood or a particular person decides it, that is where to develop.

90-day plan

The aim of this plan is for you to learn what decides your role in each situation, and then choose your role deliberately and announce it, so that those around you understand you and you understand yourself.

Applied tools

Strategic recommendations

Closing summary

A moderate level on Dominance and Assertiveness points to a possible flexibility in leading and taking part as the situation requires, which serves you where roles vary and needs change.

The best use of this flexibility is to choose your role deliberately, announce it, keep your standard steady even when your tone changes, and say every piece of information that changes a decision.

This result does not mean you have no view or that you suit every role, and it is not used alone in hiring, promotion, or any high-stakes decision.