Name: Dawn Deming. Personal Assessment Paper
Date: June 6, 2014
Course Number and Title: EDLD 5311 Fundamentals of Leadership
Lamar University
Abstract
In order to begin the creation of a Professional Development Assessment and Plan, it is
imperative to become familiar with various leadership and disposition tendencies. Through the
eight assessment types introduced in this course: TELSA Self Assessment, Keirsey
Temperament Sorter, Motivation Beliefs, Task Versus People Profile, Ethical Orientation,
Assessment of ISLLC Dispositions, Conflict Style, and the State and National Standards
Assessments, I will attempt to identify how my personal beliefs and experiences influence my
behavior and practices in an educational environment.
Personal Self-Assessments
The Personal Assessment Paper will provide an overview of my results from eight disposition
assessments: TELSA Self Assessment, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Motivation Beliefs, Task
Versus People Profile, Ethical Orientation, Assessment of ISLLC Dispositions, Conflict Style,
and the State and National Standards Assessments. Additionally, professional experiences will
be included to illustrate my leadership tendencies and, hopefully, teach me how to develop my
strengths and strengthening my weaknesses.
TELSA Self-Assessment
TELSA, Training and Educational Leader Self-Assessment, is a detailed survey intended to
assess leadership strengths and needs in ten different areas: Lead Analysis, Design,
Development of Instruction, Lead Implementation of Instruction, Lead Evaluation of Instruction,
Lead Staff Development, Perform Learner-Related Administrative Duties, Perform Staff-Related
Administrative Duties, Perform Budgetary and Other Administrative Duties, Use
Communication Technology, Self- Development, and Crisis Management. This survey was
frustrating to complete for several reasons. First, many of the questions of were identical and,
without previous opportunities for staff leadership, impossible to correctly ascertain. Second, the
rating scale did not seem logical. A score of “1” is given for easy to perform tasks and, if they
are done on a daily basis, another score of “1” is provided. Compare this to a score for tasks
never perform which receives a “5” for difficulty and a “5” for frequency. This equates to a low
score for important tasks that are simply easier to accomplish because they are performed on a
regular basis. Lastly, the complexity of scoring; adding large multiples of numbers that are
divisible by odd combinations, made it time-consuming to get the results, thus causing
frustration and a decreased desire to support the validity of the survey.
As for my results, I received a high priority score in one area, Lead Staff Development, and
medium priority in three parts: Perform Staff-Related Administrative Duties, Perform Budgetary
and Other Administrative Duties, and Crisis Management. The reason for these priority scores is
the fact that, as a classroom teacher, I have not been provided the chance to facilitate many of
these components. Therefore, it is challenging to accept that I would not be able to successfully
perform these duties. In conclusion, I am not convinced these areas are weaknesses, but rather
subjects with limited exposure, and this survey should be retaken when I have further leadership
experience.
Keirsey Temperament Sorter
Score: Idealist
I was concerned about my rating in this assessment tool because I have the inclination to be
overly concerned with the temperament of others, which some have hinted is a weakness as a
leader. However, when I read the summary of my type, Idealist, I realized this predisposition can
sometimes be a strength. It stated on the Kiersey website that “Idealists are sure that friendly
cooperation is the best way for people to achieve their goals” and they are “…passionately
concerned with personal growth and development”. These observations describe the structure of
our monthly art department meetings. In these meetings, we make sure each person has the
opportunity to share their opinions and participate in events that are important to them. As a
result, people feel respected and it has increased individual “buy-in” for our reformed art focus
vision. The fact that Gandhi, Oprah Winfrey, and Mark Twain were identified as Idealists further
illustrates how this style of leadership could be an asset.
Motivation Beliefs
Before reading the section on motivating and developing others, I thought about my personal
motivators as well as stimulating experiences in the classroom. I have always believed that if
something has intrinsic worth, or it is relevant to one’s life, one will be encouraged to pursue and
master it. External rewards or consequences have never seemed to work for long-term goals. For
example, I had a problematic double period class in which the students would be focused for
around thirty minutes then I had to work to keep them motivated the remaining hour. It did not
matter if the assignment was experiential, multi-sensory, or kinesthetic, the students could not
stay on task. It was not until I switched the application of the skills to their real-life situations;
value painting studies explored through airbrushing or duct tape fashion, that their attitudes and
efforts changed.
Three motivational theories I subscribe to are Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, Bandura’s Social
Cognition Theory, and the Goal Theory of Motivation by Ames, Maehr, and Midgley.
Expectancy Theory involves a mathematical formula of three components that must be present
for motivation to occur: (expectancy of the event) x (connection of success to reward) x (value
of a goal). One way this method could be used is to motivate faculty members to follow
behavioral procedures. If they knew that completion of behavioral plans could result in less
classroom interruptions (expectancy), that their completed forms would reduce workload
(reward), and students would receive the consequences of their actions (value), they might be
more likely to complete the required paperwork. Social Cognition Theory; belief that your
regulated efforts will be successful, also has many practical applications for motivation. For
example, if I am given the opportunity to select my duty days and times, I can create a schedule
that is workable with my other demands and might be less likely to miss or forget my duty
obligations. Finally, the Goal Theory of Motivation recognizes there are two types of goals, task
goals and ability goals. If a learner focuses on task goals, their motivation to learn increases. As a
staff member, this would be beneficial when presented with new data to implement in a
curriculum. Too often, data is provided and people are expected to interpret it (ability goal). As a
result, people rely on the “expert” of the staff to tell them what to do. If they were asked to
summarize one section of the data (task goal) then present it to the staff, all members would have
a reason (motivation) to participate.
Task Versus People
People: 14 Task: 21
I was surprised that I didn’t receive a higher “people” score as I can be overly concerned with
others’ opinions and feelings, as is evident in my Kiersey score. My task versus people score was
reinforcing in some ways because it is crucial that educators remain focused on the goal of our
job- creating lifelong learners- and not lose sight of the forest for the trees. This score also
reminded me about several times I did not represent departmental beliefs in our leadership
meetings because they were not compatible with the mission of the school. For instance, one
situation involved the scheduling of classes; art teachers wanted total control over their
preparation time and duty schedules. Yet, this demand was not compatible with part-time
employee and extracurricular schedules. This meant I had to concede this point in the meeting as
it did not support the greater goal. Therefore, this score does reflect my tendencies to sometimes
choose the task over people and perhaps a better balance needs to be established.
Ethical Orientation
Highest: Socially Aware
I found this assessment tool problematic to complete as there were several equally viable
answers for each case study. My scores in the organizational and idealistic areas were extremely
close to my score in the socially aware component. These close scores show that I value fairness
and believe that fair is not always equal. For this reason, I decided to focus on my lowest score;
economic. As a career educator, the only time I am concerned about money is regarding my
classroom supply budget. This concern occurs twice a year as opposed to being a top priority I
am handling on a weekly basis. Furthermore, staff involvement with finances is not usually an
area that supervisors ask a facility members to assist. I would be interesting in re-visiting this
assessment tool after I begin working with school accounting records and interpreting allotment
of funds to determine if my highest score stays the same.
Assessment of Dispositions
For this form, I requested my principal to complete it so I could compare the answers. We had
almost identical results, which caused a feeling of reassurance that I am not distorting my
actions. The areas of growth for me include using a communication style appropriate to the
setting and audience and embracing technology as a resource to support learning. In regards to
the first concern, my principal explained that sometimes I use educational terminology and
reference theories that are not commonly known by parents. He suggested that I provide a
handout for reference or verbally explain that ideas when speaking with parents and guardians.
The second area, technology, is more a matter of availability. In the past two years, I have
volunteered for every IT (Information Technology) opportunity the district has offered.
Incorporating new software and devices had not being possible in a school of 600 students with
only two computer labs and no traveling laptops. Consequently, the accessibility hinders my
ability to embrace this tool to support learning. To address this problem, I plan on continuing to
enroll in courses, apply for grants, and reach out to the community for solutions.
Conflict Style
High: Harmonizing/ Integrating
Low: Forcing
These totals emphasized previous scores in the other assessment surveys and were not a
surprise for me to discover. As shown in the Keirsey Temperament Sorter and Task Versus
People, I have a “high concern for people, feelings and smooth working relationships”; conflict
is something I tend to avoid. It was comforting to learn that I also scored high in integration
because there needs to be a balance between relationships and goals. For example, when I served
on the district materials adoption committee, many different departments wanted their needs to
be acknowledged but there were limited resources to allocate. We had to listen to the requests,
weight their importance and absorption in the system, and then create a formula to disperse
reserves that would lead to better use of the funds in terms of learning. This was not a task that
could have been accomplished if we exhibited a forcing conflict style.
State and National Standards Assessments
As with the TELSA Self- Assessment, I did not find this inventory to be an accurate
representation of my abilities as many of the descriptions were vague, not applicable to my
current job, and dependent on individual district goals. My areas of strength were integrity and
ethics, curriculum, measurement, and alignment of resources, and campus culture and
professional learning. My areas of need include budgeting, resource allocation, and financial
management, and staff evaluation and development. At this time, I am not comfortable ranking
one domain over another with regard to school leadership. It seems to me that the district goals
should drive the importance of these areas as well as school management and job descriptions.
An illustration of this point would be a school where a safety committee is already in place and
the school leader simply needs to oversee its implementation. Or a school that has statemandated teacher evaluations and accountability assessments, such as Colorado, in which the
principal’s primary responsibility is to inform, train, and support staff members with these tools.
At this point in the principal licensure program, I am unable to develop a hierarchy of goals
without knowing the school’s strategic plan.
Martin, G. E. (2005). School leader internship: Developing, monitoring, and evaluating your
leadership experience: Meeting ISLLC, NCATE, and ELCC standards. Larchmont, NY: Eye
On Education.
Personality Test- Keirsey Temperament Website. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2014 from
http://www.keirsey.com
Personality Test - Keirsey Temperament Website. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2014, from
http://www.keirsey.com/.