HAYLEE MATECKO

1. Self-Assessment Results

 

Creative Style Questionnaire (CSQ)

My STEN score was 5, which means that I am neither an adaptive nor innovative person, but somewhere in between. I fall in the mid-range compared to my peers, which is about the 40th percentile. Broken down into categories, I had low scores on Openness and Risk Taking, and moderate scores on Originality and Assertiveness. However, I had a much higher score of 8 on the Achievement category.

I generally like to follow rules that are set out for me, and the idea of change is a challenge for me. I like the idea of a routine, and am generally afraid of new experiences or potentially going against any rules that are laid out for me, both formally and informally. The low scores on Openness and Risk Taking don’t surprise me for this reason, and generally point towards a lack of creativity and innovative thinking. My Originality and Assertiveness categories are more moderate, demonstrating an average level of ideation and communication of those ideas. I am less confident in the “pitch” aspect of innovation, because I find it hard to push for something unless I truly believe in it and I can find solid factual information to support the idea. My high Achievement score is no surprise to me, because I have the determination and drive necessary to bring an idea from the beginning to the end of the innovative process. I have more of a managerial, broad style of thinking; while not as innovative myself, I have more strength in the planning and execution department.

 

Measures of Basic Personality: The Big 5 and What’s My Basic Personality?

The highest scores I had were Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, both at the 94th percentile. My Neuroticism/Emotional Stability score was at about the 60th percentile, which was more moderate. Both Extraversion and Openness were much lower, at the 7th and 4th percentile, respectively.

My personality lends towards one that will bend over backwards to work with other people. I am constantly thinking about the needs, wants, and desires of those around me, and I often let that control the way I am living my life or prioritizing my tasks. These personality traits are not associated with innovative thinking; they are the exact opposite of challenging the status quo and trying new things. According to the Journal of Management, high emotional stability is related to a more entrepreneurial mindset (Zhao, 2010). If a person has low emotional stability, they will struggle with the challenges and criticism faced by many entrepreneurs. Because my emotional stability is moderate, I would be able to handle some but not all of these challenges well.

Extraversion and Openness are the two Big 5 categories positively associated with creativity, and I scored much lower on both of those categories. I am generally afraid of making changes, and I prefer spending time with a few close friends instead of a large number of people who are acquaintances.

 

Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSE)

My CSE score was 3.25 out of 5. This demonstrates moderately high core self-evaluation. A higher core self-evaluation is correlated to a more entrepreneurial mindset, according to the Strategic Management Journal (Simsek, 2009). With a higher core self-evaluation, an individual is inclined to perceive the benefits of an entrepreneurial opportunity. They generally have a more positive outlook towards their skills and competences, thus are more likely to feel that they are capable of achieving in a challenging environment.

With a moderately high score, I generally feel that I am capable of tackling challenges, but I have moments of concern that keep me from having that positive outlook towards challenging new experiences.

​

How Creative Am I?

My creativity score was +1, meaning I had almost the same amount of traits that were positively and negatively correlated with creativity (but slightly favored more creative traits).

I am only slightly more creative than conventional, meaning I like consistency but I am also capable of coming up with new ideas or solutions to problems that are unconventional. However, I feel that I am not likely to be creative unless it is necessary for the situation.

 

Am I Likely to Become an Entrepreneur? “Proactive Personality”

My chances of becoming an entrepreneur are fairly high, because my Proactive Personality score was 99 out of 119. Someone with a proactive personality exhibits initiative and endures through all obstacles until they create meaningful change in their environment (Crant, 1996).

I have always had strong ambition and drive, with incredibly supportive parents who have pointed out my strengths in these areas and encouraged me to pursue my dreams. My parents believe that I am capable of bringing about great change for many people wherever I am – they have even suggested I run for president! While this will most likely not happen, this strong support has allowed me to fail and learn from those failures, rather than being penalized for them. My strong determination and high-achieving personality correlates strongly with potential for becoming an entrepreneur in the future.

 

Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale

My tolerance of ambiguity was rated at a 50, which was a higher score than the top of the average range at 48. The score actually demonstrates a stronger intolerance for ambiguity, meaning I tend to perceive situations as threatening rather than promising. The major source of this intolerance for ambiguity comes from the “Complexity” category. Any uncertainty or lack of information makes me uncomfortable.

Ambiguity is a definite contributing factor towards creative thinking. My lower tolerance for ambiguity means that I struggle with being creative, because I don’t allow the uncertainty to be a blank canvas for which I can paint my ideas on. Instead, I find uncertainty to mean that I am failing in some way, because I lack control over the situation. Uncertainty is omnipresent in entrepreneurial environments, so tolerance for ambiguity is a fairly important characteristic to be successful in this field (Begley, 1987).

 

Opportunity or Obstacle Thinking

90% of the time I demonstrate Opportunity Thinking, while 10% of the time I demonstrate Obstacle Thinking. This demonstrates a positive association with entrepreneurship, because I focus more on the positive parts of a situation than the negative parts (Neck 1999). If something generally negative happens to me, I can see the positive parts of it. I am able to recognize opportunities, which is a skill that is essential for the innovative process. Seeing situations as obstacles will only leave one bitter and unable to move forward.

One thing I felt odd about on this test was how polar opposite the answer choices were. Most other tests in this packet were a scale, but this test was either opportunistic thinking or obstacle thinking. For instance, on the first question you must choose between “every problem is an opportunity” or “everything that can go wrong will.” There is no middle ground on this question, which poses a challenge for people who know that problems have opportunities but many things can also go wrong.

 

Reflection on Individual Results

Overall, I demonstrate more characteristics related to entrepreneurship and less characteristics that relate to innovation and creativity. My skill set falls in opportunity recognition, planning, and executing. I lack skills in ideation and openness to new experiences, yet I am able to recognize processes that are inefficient and generate ways to apply them. It seems that my skill set belongs specifically in process innovation, towards the end of the innovation process where development and commercialization of an idea are occurring.

These results do not come as much of a surprise to me, because I have always known myself to be less creative than most. My mind is more “left-brained”, using logic and understanding to piece together information and find the most efficient and effective ways to do things. I struggle with abstract ideas and theories, yet I am able to find better ways for businesses and processes to occur. Because I am intolerant to ambiguity, I do struggle with a lack of control of situations. I prefer the same routines daily, because it allows me to fully analyze the entire routine and find every single way that it can improve.

When taking the StrengthsFinder test, my top strength was Restorative, described as someone who is adept with handling problems. The report states that people with this strength are skilled at finding a problem within a situation and solving it. Additionally, another top strength of mine was Discipline, which is defined as enjoying the routine and structure that I create. Essentially, this strength means I enjoy having set routines and control over said routines. These descriptions support the idea that I prefer routines to analyze them and find the best ways to make them more effective. While this may not be the most conventional road to entrepreneurship, I believe that I can potentially be innovative through business process consulting and process innovation.

​

2. Peer Feedback

My colleague, Mary Kate, knows a great deal about my life and was a great candidate to ask about these personality tests. I enjoyed sharing them with her because she is such a close friend of mine and one of the most compassionate people I know, but I could also tell that it was challenging for her to completely open up to me about the more negative aspects of my personality.

Mary Kate said that she could definitely see a lot of these personality characteristics in my life. I am generally risk averse, and focus more on idea execution than on idea generation. Mary Kate considered the fact that I may be generating a lot of ideas, but the lack of idea generation in my personality actually comes from my reluctance to share those ideas. She believes that I am generating ideas in my head, but I’m too focused on what others think (hence my high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness scores). Essentially, I have the technical communication capabilities, but not the self-confidence to share my thoughts. Additionally, she considered that while I am generally risk averse, I also am logical and consider all factors before I make any moves. In a way, this is both a strength and a weakness – while it can hinder me from experiencing new things and having the opportunity to grow, I also don’t lose any of the progress I’ve made. She referred to the idiom “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” to describe the potential upside of my risk averse nature.

Something interesting we discussed was how the “Openness” factor was defined for the Big 5 personality test. Mary Kate said I am incredibly open to other people’s ideas and opinions, and was surprised to see how low this score was. After explaining that this referred to my openness to new experiences and risk-taking skills, she said that she felt that made sense because she knows I am hesitant to take risks.

One of the harder parts of our conversation was the breakdown of Opportunistic v. Obstacle thinking, because Mary Kate didn’t want to hurt my feelings when discussing the way I think about and approach problems. To be 90% opportunistic thinking was fairly high, and Mary Kate said she saw me as closer to 65% opportunistic, 35% obstacle. Essentially, she said that I am more of a hopeful realist – I hope for the best outcomes and I work towards those, but I am not entirely surprised when bad things happen because I understand how the world works. If my opportunistic score was actually 90%, there would be much more of a disappointment than if I expected at least the potential for something to realistically go wrong. I agree with Mary Kate on these sentiments, because I definitely felt that my opportunistic thinking score was extremely high, as I stated earlier. The results of my personality tests as well as Mary Kate’s analysis of my results are all consistent with the way I see myself.

​

3. Personal Goals

Overall, I am fairly risk averse and have a low tolerance for ambiguity, which are two of my biggest creative weaknesses. I would love to become more open to both new experiences and ambiguity, because these are things that are incredibly important to generate new ideas. I currently find myself to be less creative than the average person, but I would like to boost my creative skills through risk taking and a tolerance for ambiguity.

To increase my risk taking and openness to new experiences, I plan to take at least one small risk every day. I would start with small, calculated risks to build comfort with the idea of doing things that scare me. I also plan to get a job this summer doing something such as being a camp counselor, because this would require me to get out of my comfort bubble. I am much more comfortable as an introvert, but allowing myself to take small risks would definitely help me warm up to larger risks and new experiences. Pushing myself out of my comfort zone is the only way that I can grow, both in creative potential through openness and risk taking, as well as in my extroversion skills.

Immersing myself in an environment full of ambiguity would be a great way for me to grow accustomed to ambiguity. I can do this by traveling to be with people who have different upbringings and values than I do, and condition myself to understand that this cognitive dissonance is healthy. Because I generally become anxious about losing control in a situation, I will keep a journal to record my thoughts every time I become anxious, and use this writing tool to reflect on why I am anxious and teach myself that ambiguity is healthy.

While my core self-evaluation is moderately high, I also would like to improve on my self-confidence. If Mary Kate is correct in saying that I generate ideas yet am too afraid to share them, I would like to become more confident in the ideas that I do generate. After increasing my risk taking and openness skills, if I am able to generate great creative ideas I need to be confident enough to communicate them. I plan to increase my core self-evaluation and self-confidence by reading books about how to improve self-image. I currently have a stack of books to improve self-image, and I would like to read them over the winter break and throughout the next semester.

​

​

Works Cited

 

Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987, Winter). Psychological characteristics associated with performence in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 79-93.

Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 42-49.

Neck, C. P., Neck, H. M., Manz, C. C., & Godwin, J. (1999). “I think I can; I think I can”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(6), 477-501.

Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Veiga, J. (. (2010). The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firm's entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 110-119.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. (2009). The Relationship of Personality to Entrepreneurial Intentions and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381-404.