Case Study - Aerospace Industry

Between 2004 and 2010 I worked with an Aerospace PLC to help improve business effectiveness at their main factory. They badly needed to satisfy customer expectations and reduce delivery times that had slipped badly. I was initially asked by the ‘turnaround’ MD to work with their leadership team. Using Myers-Briggs and other tools, I helped them to understand, appreciate and value the diversity within the team to improve communication, cooperation and trust so that this diversity could be fully harnessed.

The initial session was very powerful. It gave the eight members of the team an opportunity to share their misgivings and frustrations and led to a fresh start with a better understanding of their MD and of each other. It also enabled the MD to fine tune his working style to more effectively meet the informational and motivational needs of each Director. The Directors were empowered to ‘flow down’ the process in their areas of responsibility and in total I delivered 29 Team Development workshops across three UK sites.

I supported these with some 1-2-1 work and this report is a true example but with the names changed. On the Team Development workshop Mike struggled to make any contribution. His manner and body language suggested he was in a state of tension and stress so I suggested to his Director, that I do a half-day 1-2-1 with Mike to see if I could understand and help address the problem. It transpired that he was modifying his style to meet what he perceived his Director wanted. He had presented himself as having a Myers-Briggs type quite similar to that of his Director, whereas in reality it was about 75% different. His Director used the attached report to manage Mike in a way that provided greater clarity and certainty which hugely enhanced his confidence and then his performance. The transformation was swift and dramatic and 2 years later Mike was promoted to Manufacturing Director.

The report illustrates the depth of analysis, perception and experience that can be brought to bear to help value and use innate talents and clarify and manage potential weaknesses.

MR MIKE CHATFIREDevelopment Assessment

Bleriot Systems

Private & Confidential

The following report is based on assessment processes carried out by John Gotting, and an extended, in-depth discussion with Mike Chatfire of the results of these instruments. It is important to note that whilst psychometric assessment is a powerful and reliable method of obtaining data about an individual, it should not be used in isolation or as a sole basis for decision making. The great value it has is to bring some objectivity to bear which can enable the individual to recognise possible needs and work on developing solutions. The contents include:

BESPOKE REPORT APPENDIX - GENERIC MBTI ISTP REPORT APPENDIX - GENERIC MBTI AND DISC INFORMATION

7th June 2005

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT 2

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT – Mike Chatfire

DISC RESULTS

Summary - Based on Myers-Briggs and DISC validated results plus in-depth interview.

Mike Chatfire is a logical, analytical, determined and persistent individual who likes problem solving and achieving quality results. He enjoys roles that offer scope to manage by example, in a fairly hands-on way, producing quality, tangible outcomes. Literal and logical, he is more likely to ‘buy’ objective reasoning underpinned by facts, proof and evidence, rather than broad ideas or concepts. He is generally drawn to operational, tactical and fairly hands-on roles.

Essentially quite reflective and reserved, he keeps a lot inside, opening up only slowly to people who have taken time to earn his trust and respect. Even so, he will still be more likely to discuss business or ‘thing’ issues rather than those of a personal or private nature. He is stronger in dealing with people he knows well, in 1-2-1 situations, than in meeting new people or interacting with larger groups. In large formal settings, he may be quite reflective and may not make his best contributions. Whilst he appreciates recognition for his skills and knowledge, he generally does not seek the limelight or situations in which he is the public focus of attention.

A practical and realistic individual, he uses an excellent, ‘unstructured’ memory to harness proven fact and past precedents to solve new problems. His approach to tasks is realistic, factual and down to earth. Logical, analytical and critical, he enjoys finding practical solutions to real problems and this, coupled with a fairly hands-on approach may, particularly where there are short term pressures, incline him more towards fire-fighting and problem solving ‘in the moment’ than in developing longer range, strategic or structured solutions.

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT

BASIC D I S C D I S C D I S C

WORK STYLE D I S C D I S C D I S C D I S C D I S C D I S C D I S C

PRESSURE D I S C

3

As a manager, he adopts an action orientated approach, with a strong focus on the job to be done or the result to be achieved. His tendency is somewhat more towards things and results than to people. Being somewhat hands-on and needing results to be achieved to a high standard can, at times, especially when resources are not at the right standard, make it harder to delegate as much as he might like. This can also come about through a reluctance to overload others, especially when he feels he can do the job effectively himself. Again, circumstances may require him to improvise and ‘do’ and this can sometimes emphasise the immediate at the expense of the long term.

He likes to have clear goals, to know where he fits within the system and enjoys being part of a team. However, his approach within the team will be somewhat independent and autonomous in which he is inclined to work in a fairly self-contained and reflective way, developing his ideas and solutions through concentration and application more than through discussion and interaction.

He likes reflective time to analyse problems and tends to be uncomfortable in situations where there is ambiguity and a lack of clarity which can make him hesitant in starting or pushing forward on projects. To ensure he understands everything, he likes his manager to have an open door, accessible policy that allows him informal access as and when required. This enables him to work with much greater certainty and security. He likes to be kept in the loop on overall issues, not just those which relate to his direct responsibility. Having high standards, he tends to be quite self-critical, may have a tendency to pay more attention to what is not working than what is working. He is likely therefore to benefit from working for a manager who gives him space to operate, but acknowledges the contributions he is making in a sincere and genuine way, whilst finding ways to help him maintain a positive focus.

Work StyleThe Work Style Graph gives a snapshot of behaviour at around the time of the assessment and can change considerably in response to internal feelings and motivations, or external people and situations. It should be thought of as how someone is working, or perceives they should be working ‘at the moment’. It can range from a very temporary response to situations, or a long term ‘work style’ developed through training and sustained most of the time. If it differs significantly from the Basic or Pressure style questions should be asked as to whether it is a learned style or just temporary circumstances. Because it may be ‘unnatural’ it is worth finding out the motivations behind the change. If it varies widely from the Pressure style it may result in inconsistent behaviour.

Mike’s Work Style Graph is broadly in line with his natural approach with the exception that the D – Dominance, I – Influence and S – Steadiness factors are all somewhat lowered, whilst the C – Compliance factor is slightly raised. In essence, this suggests that Mike is functioning on a day to day basis, broadly in line with his natural approach. The impact of the shifts identified are as follows. The raised Compliance factor suggests a strong focus on the need to ‘get things right’. The lowered Steadiness factor suggests that Mike is having to work faster and in a more ‘touch and move’ way with less scope for adopting a hands-on, direct input approach and more on ‘delegation’ and ‘plate spinning’. The increased focus on accuracy may be reflected in the slightly lower emphasis on delivering results since quality and volume are often conflict ‘drivers’. Mike is not naturally an outgoing, communicative and persuasive individual and the lowered Influencing factor suggests that he may be even less so at around the time the assessment was completed. Many things can affect this

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT 4

including a lack of time to allocate to getting buy-in, too much focus on ‘doing’, or reduced levels of confidence.

The I – Influencing factor is a factor that does respond extremely well to training. For example, training in motivation, negotiation, communication, presentation skills, running meetings, facilitation, assertiveness, etc all work on the I - Influencing axis.

Pressure GraphThis reflects the likely behaviour of an individual under extreme pressure - probably no more than 5% of the time. What pressure is differs from person to person - it can be workload, tight deadlines, handling conflict, not ‘being in control’, working with aggressive people, having to get results through incompetent people, etc. Therefore it is worth questioning to understand what pressure is for an individual, how they react and what are the implications. It is particularly important if the Pressure style differs greatly from the Basic style as this can lead to inconsistent behaviour.

Under extreme pressure, the indications are that the D – Dominance raises indicating a slightly stronger focus on task and results, whilst the S – Steadiness factor raises significantly to well above the C – Compliance factor. This suggests an instinctive response to problems that involve working longer and harder, relying even more on personal effort to achieve the result. Whilst this represents a response that is personally constructive, he may step in and handle tasks himself or not delegate tasks to others in order to ensure personally that the results are delivered. The implications are that delegation becomes less likely rather than more likely under pressure, at a time when it is probably more needed. Two other implications are that if delegated work is then ‘undelegated’, it may have a demotivational effect whilst, if work is not allocated for fear of overloading people, this may create a ‘manager dependent’ environment in which people expect him to step in under pressure.

Other factorsThe DISC profiling system sometimes identifies factors that have an occasional effect on an individual’s behaviour. These should be probed as conjecture rather than fact, since the results are not always conclusive. If they are valid people usually acknowledge it.

The DISC profiling system suggests that Mike is experiencing high levels of stress at around the time of the assessment. Mike validates this. Although he feels very empowered and is given considerable freedom to make changes in his area, he feels that the sheer number and combinations of problems within different programmes combine to create the impression that ‘everything’ is a problem. At the time of the Moreton Team Development session, the situation was further compounded by personal factors and a lack of staff in some key positions. Whilst he believes the situation is improving, this assessment suggests that there is still an underlying discomfort which, if sustained, may sap confidence and energy.

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT 5

MBTI RESULTS

When Mike completed the MBTI profile prior to the Team Development Workshop, his results came out as ENTJ, E23, N5, T41 and J7. In the validation process, he moved from J to P. However, the impression I formed in the Team Development Workshop is that Mike’s style appeared to be more towards Introversion than Extraversion. In fact, in the 1-2-1 discussion used as the basis for this report, we revisited the framework and he validated his preference as somewhat more towards Introversion than Extraversion, and somewhat more towards Sensing than Intuition. The implications are that, whilst the logic and analysis that was earlier identified holds true, his preferences appear to be more towards reflecting and thinking about things before ‘jumping in’ and more towards an emphasis on facts, realities and practicalities than on ideas or concepts. This is not to suggest that he is not open to new ideas, rather that new ideas have to be evaluated and thought through and tested for their practical utility before they are adopted. Finally, in line with the previous assessment, he validates P – Perceiving and confirms the fact that he is less naturally inclined towards structuring, organising and at times ‘finishing’, than to adopting a more flexible, spontaneous approach to dealing with situations. Generally, S, T and P contribute to a style that emphasises practicality, utility, with more emphasis on fire-fighting and short range activity, than on strategic or long range planning.

Appended to this report is an ISTP profile.

REPORTED TYPE: E N T J

PREFERENCE SCORES: 23 5 41 7

‘BEST FIT’, (if different): I S T P

EXTROVERSION * x INTROVERSION

SENSING x * INTUITION

THINKING * FEELING

JUDGING * x PERCEIVING

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT 6

MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS

The following factors are likely to prove motivational: Achieving practical goals, particularly where these can be seen in terms of tangible

output, or practical problems solved. Clear goals and unambiguous expectations, coupled with the autonomy to achieve them with minimal interference, whilst retaining the scope to clarify objectives or touch base with his manager when required

Sincere, 1-2-1 appreciation Roles that provide certainty and security, since he has quite a strong orientation both

towards work teams and ‘family teams’ Producing results that he feels are of the appropriate quality and integrity – not

necessarily quick results, but good results. Working in positive harmonious environments where people are appreciated and

valued in their own right as well as for what they can produce.

Environments which are very unclear or ambiguous in which there is conflict and aggression or where there are requirements to correct or discipline people are likely to be less comfortable and less naturally enjoyable.

AREAS OF KEY STRENGTHS

Mike has considerable underlying drive and determination that takes the form of perseverance and persistence, rather than dominance or forcefulness. He sets high standards for himself and for others, dislikes failing, or not achieving to his own standards and will work hard to honour commitments. He likes to understand processes thoroughly and has invested time and worked in a hands-on way to understand the problems being faced in his area. One of the consequences is that he can often play a direct part and personally step in to resolve ‘blockages’

He is a strong problem-solver, harnessing technical knowledge, logic and adaptability, coupled with an in-depth, focused approach to identify the problem, understand why it is a problem and then find ways to circumvent ‘road blocks’

His breadth and depth of experience, coupled with his personality preferences, often enable him to harness previous experiences, albeit with some adaptation to changed circumstances, to identify and solve problems

A combination of a practical and realistic approach, logic and analysis, when coupled with flexibility and adaptability enable him to turn his hand to quite a few things, and in particular respond to situations which require short-term, fire-fighting solutions

He is honest and self-aware and open to his own shortcomings and to learning situations that enable him to develop and improve

He has considerable loyalty and commitment. He looks to his manager to clarify direction and provide resources for execution, and is capable of working very hard and demonstrating considerable loyalty to his manager, to the organisation and to his staff.

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT 7

POTENTIAL AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Mike feels that he needs to work on his leadership skills. In particular, he recognises that he may not be providing enough drive or harnessing influence enough to achieve results, both through his direct reports and through the people below. He feels he may be seen as somewhat disorganised and non-communicative, which may result in him not getting sufficient buy-in or unqualified support. At the same time, he believes he needs to step back from some of the issues, adopt a less hands-on style and concentrate on managing people to manage the activities and processes.

Linked to the above point is his feeling that there is too much reliance on informal communication and task setting on a short, rather than a longer-term basis. Recognising this, he has started to put time aside to coach some of his younger direct reports and has begun to see some positive responses. Initially his focus was on a ‘problem person’ with whom he felt he could add value. This was restricted to one person on a weekly basis, and this has given him the encouragement to want to extend this to other members of his team and to adopt it as a more strategic approach, rather than using it to ‘fix’ problems. Although initially an informal arrangement, he is trying to do this more, squeezing in time, despite the need for fire-fighting, and as a result is seeing the beginnings of a pay back.

A third area he identifies as something that could be inhibiting progress is a tendency to notice and focus on the negatives, to the extent this had an effect on his levels of energy and enthusiasm which, in turn, are transmitted to other people through body language and tone.

The final area he needs to work on is developing a more assertive style, internally, to ‘drive’ people and externally, to influence people in departments with whom co-operation and inter-dependence is important.

SUGGESTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

Mike accepts that the department that he has come into has had some very serious problems and that these, in turn, have had something of a knock on effect on his enthusiasm, energy and ability to manage effectively. He does however have considerable honesty in identifying and facing up to the issues and, in my opinion, considerable underlying determination and ‘grittiness’. Together, these should help him to clarify the issues that need to be dealt with and provide him with the determination and persistence to ‘pick them off’ progressively. Having started to make some progress, this should gradually become easier if action is taken in a number of areas which include:

Developing a strong relationship with his manager and harnessing some of the knowledge gleaned from MBTI and DISC. Mike can use these two personality frameworks to help shape expectations about the areas he needs help in and the methods that are likely to be helpful. Discussing this report and the personality frameworks would be a good starting place. In particular, Mike likes clear and unambiguous goals, a good understanding of the parameters within which he works and plenty of opportunities to get ‘a steer’ or touch base with Duncan. In such situations, if Duncan can adopt a ‘coaching’ approach to help Mike clarify his thinking and feel more certain about his decision making, this will progressively empower him and give him greater confidence. The perception I have is that Mike might benefit from a slightly more directive and prescriptive approach to some aspects of his role and, if this is the case, knowing this will help Duncan to provide it.

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT 8

An example would be planning, organisation, handling detail, administration and reporting.

Linked to the above point is greater certainty about prioritisation. Again, if this could be managed by Duncan through a ‘coaching’ process, Mike could identify what he believes are the priorities and Duncan could use the opportunity to either clarify his thinking where he agrees, or suggest different priorities where he does not.

Follow through – there are a number of areas where Mike has identified a problem and possible solutions, but because of a lack of planning and/or the requirement to fire-fight, some of these are not being done. One way to approach this might be for Mike to identify two or three such areas to Duncan and make a ‘SMART’ commitment to deal with them. Committing to specific and timed objectives will introduce a degree of accountability to the process and move from a somewhat tactical, operational approach to a slightly more strategic stance.

Personal presentation and influencing skills, including assertiveness – Mike would benefit from having some specific feedback on these from Duncan and, if necessary, doing some work in this area, since influencing skills and assertiveness will be crucial to getting buy-in from people he influences and delivering results through people he manages. Some of this could be done on a 1-2-1 coaching basis although it is possible, particularly with assertiveness, that some sort of external workshop might be beneficial. Exposure to some NLP techniques such as ‘anchoring’ might also be helpful in countering negative thoughts and projecting greater confidence.

Networking skills – these would supplement enhanced assertiveness and influencing skills to enable him to build co-operative, win-win relationships both inside and outside the department, so that some of the results that are achieved can be done so through the strength of the relationship rather than through authority and persuasion. Although Mike’s natural personality preferences are somewhat reflective and internally focused, networking skills can be accessed by all types of people. This is an area where Duncan has developed his abilities through ‘management by walking about’ and by developing very effective listening skills and can help him personally.

Finally, it would be useful for Mike and Duncan to repeat the ‘persuasion preferences’ exercise that was done on the Team Development Workshop, in the light of Mike’s personality preferences being validated more as ISTP than ENTJ. This is a simple, time effective and potentially very powerful exercise that could be used as a focal point to start the process in a very practical, pragmatic way.

Mike has clearly come through some very difficult times, joining a department with many problems, some of which may have got worse in the early stages, before they have got better. Some of this coincided with personal, external factors that will have compounded the issue and added further to the stresses experienced by Mike. The impression I have is that he has come through the worst of these, and has demonstrated considerable resilience and tenacity in doing so. Encouragement, support, some coaching and some practical training should enable Mike to consolidate his position and move forward.

CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT MIKE ASSESSMENT 9

DISC – POTENTIAL STRENGTHS

HIGH D Leading, providing focus, achieving goals

LOW DRespectful, peace maker, modest, careful, non-aggressive

HIGH IMotivating, persuading, interacting, communicating, team influencer

LOW IReflective, focused, follow through, critical/indepth evaluation

HIGH SCalm, good listener, attention to detail, dependable, supportive, follow through, reliable

LOW SChallenging status quo, infectious energy, active, touch and move

HIGH CAccurate, precise, quality work, factually careful, gives customers confidence in the company, integrity

LOW CIndependent minded, persistent, self belief

DISC – POTENTIAL WEAKNESSES

HIGH DDominant, overrides people, sometimes removes responsibility from them, demotivating, impatient, may not listen enough

LOW DToo cautious, may be indecisive, risk averse

HIGH ILike to be liked therefore may not be assertive enough with conflict or discipline or enforcing standards, may talk too much, may not listen, create time problems by not saying No

LOW IReserved, may be seen as not contributing, can be overlooked, fail to make appropriate first impression

HIGH SMay be very hands on, may not delegate enough, may be resistant to change if they have insufficient facts

LOW SImpatience, impetuousness – reacting without the facts, lack of follow through

HIGH CPerfectionism, frustrates self and others by being overly precise, may focus on what is wrong not what is right and seek a 100% or 90/10 solution when ‘roughly right’ 80/20 would do, self critical, perfectionism may delay decision making

LOW CStubborn, inflexibility, may not listen to others arguments or ignore key facts in desire to ‘do it their way’, post rationalise, expedient

MIKE CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT 10

MYERS-BRIGGS - POTENTIAL STRENGTHS

EXTRAVERTSInitiate contact, ensure action, maintain networks, energetic

INTROVERTSThink before acting, think deeply, self-sufficient ‘low maintenance’

SENSORSKnow their facts, think things through sequentially, pay attention to details, realistic about time, strong operational/day to day focus, dutiful

INTUITORSPay attention to the bigger picture, initiate change, question the status quo, develop original solutions

THINKINGLogical evaluation, critical analysis, focus on outcomes

FEELERSUnderstand what is important to people, acknowledge the human factors in decision making, empathetic and compassionate, loyal

JUDGERSCreate systems, planned and organised, look for decisiveness and results

PERCEIVERSFlexible and adaptable, take advantage of opportunities, react with flexibility when systems break down

MYERS-BRIGGS - POTENTIAL WEAKNESSES

EXTRAVERSIONSpeak too much, speak or act without reflecting, impatient for action, enthusiastic starters, may not follow through with conviction

INTROVERSIONNeed to talk out more, share ideas and do more self and organisation promotion, sometimes think too much without acting or speaking

SENSORSNeed to see the bigger picture, sometimes need to be willing to try new things and take risks, may need steps spelled out before they can start, over-reliance on ‘what works’

INTUITORSMay be unrealistic about time, ‘clever’ ideas may be impractical, prone to change things for the sake of it, low threshold of boredom, assumptive communicators, fail to spell out the steps

THINKINGToo critical, notices mostly what is wrong not what is right, expects things to be right, may not praise good performance - only exceptional performance, hard to please, can be demotivational

FEELERSMay avoid conflict, may be too subjective in decision making, may be oversensitive to criticism, may want harmony at the expense of managing conflict

JUDGERSNeed to be flexible, need to be opportunistic, may be intolerant of more flexible types

PERCEIVERSMay procrastinate with decision making, may fail to organise, may get bored and not follow through.

MIKE CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT 11

D.I.S.C. Profiling System - Behavioural TendenciesUse this table below to ‘read’ the DISC graphs. The descriptions which relate to the highest points on your graphs are considered to contribute most to your behavioural tendencies. Descriptions opposite the shaded boxes correspond to points above the horizontal line and those opposite the unshaded box to points which lie below it. Thus a graph with D as the highest point and I as the next, with the S and C below the line would indicate a very goal-focused approach which relied on force and drive, with some persuasion and a fast pace. This person would probably need support from others for follow through and quality.

DDominance

Pressure

IInfluencePersuasion

SSteadiness

Patience

CCompliance

Perfection

ABOVE MID-LINE

TYPICAL OVERALL FOCUS OR EMPHASIS

Emphasis is on shaping the environment by overcoming opposition to achieve results

Emphasis is on shaping the environment by bringing others into alliance to achieve results

Emphasis is on follow through and working co-operatively with others to achieve results

Emphasis is on enhancing or perfecting products or services to maximise quality

TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

ConfidentBoldDomineeringForcefulDrivingCompetitive

TalkativeGregariousArticulateOptimisticImpulsiveCharming

PatientThoroughSincereLoyalSteadyDeliberate

AccuratePreciseTactfulDiplomaticSystematic *Methodical *

POTENTIAL STRENGTHS

Achieving goalsDriving changeNew initiativesProblem solvingDecision makingTaking risk

MotivatingCommunicatingEntertainingCo-operatingInteractingPersuading

ConcentratingFollow throughCalmGood listenerDependableSupportive

IntegrityHigh standardsSeeing flawsDepth of analysisQualityAccuracy

POTENTIAL WEAKNESSES

Lacks cautionOverruns peopleImpatientDecides too fast

Threats:- Failing/losing or others taking advantage

May talk too muchWon’t speak bluntlyTime problemsOpen to flattery

Threats:- Loss of social approval

Too hospitableNeed time to adjust to changeMay be quite ‘hands on’ or detailedThreats:- Loss of security

Overly preciseProcrastinationMay find delegation hard due to standardsPerfectionismThreats:- Conflict/ Criticism of their work

TYPICAL NEEDS ORMOTIVATORS

AuthorityChallengeStatusPowerDirectnessMoney – to confirm power / authority

RecognitionPeople contactAcceptanceFreedom to speakPopularityMoney - to spend

SecurityStatus quoAppreciationReasons whyFamily/teamMoney - for security

Finish the jobQualityAttentionReassuranceSystems */ Rules *Money - for security

TYPICAL INSTINCTIVEMANAGEMENTSTYLE

Tells ideas andchases up

Finds discipline easy

Sell ideas but may not like imposing

May procrastinate on discipline

May prefer doing to delegating

May tolerate rather than discipline

Harnesses systems, * monitors carefully

Dislikes conflict but will do it by the book

TYPICAL INSTINCTIVESALES STYLE

Very ‘bottom line’Good closersSell through drive

CommunicativeGood openersSell through enthusiasm

Thorough/preparedService sellersSell through belief

Systematic * /in-depthSpecialist sellersSell through knowledge

BELOW MID-LINE

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS

DeliberateNon aggressiveModestCarefulRisk averse

ReflectiveSeriousProbingReservedSuspicious

MobileActiveRestlessDemonstrative‘Touch and move’

IndependentStrong-willedFirmPersistentNon-conformist

* When used in with MBTI ‘Type’ Indicators, High C + ‘P’ = accurate but not structured, High C + ‘J’ = accurate and structured.

MIKE CHATFIRE - SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT 12