Self-Assessment Reflection: Leadership, Skills & Growth
This reflection paper analyzes the results of a multi-source self-assessment exercise, including peer, managerial, and subordinate evaluations, MindTools assessments, and a Peregrine pre-exam. The author examines areas of agreement and disagreement between self-ratings and external ratings, highlighting strengths in communication, collaboration, and ethics while identifying weaknesses in business acumen, stress management, and organizational behavior knowledge. The paper draws on three assessments to argue that continuous learning, openness to external feedback, and a diversified approach to self-evaluation are essential components of professional and personal development.
- Self-Assessment Agreement and Disagreement: Where peers and managers aligned or diverged
- Areas of Excellence and Desired Improvement: Top strengths and skills to develop
- MindTools Assessment Results: Time management strengths and stress concerns
- Peregrine Pre-Exam Results: High scores in management, gaps in leadership
- Conclusion: Key Takeaways: Lessons on continuous learning and diverse assessment
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses a structured question-and-answer format that keeps each analytical section focused and clearly delineated, making it easy for readers to follow the author's reasoning across multiple assessment tools.
- The author demonstrates honest self-reflection by acknowledging genuine surprises in the data — such as low Peregrine scores in organizational behavior despite high peer ratings for communication — rather than simply affirming positive results.
- Concrete examples, such as early retail and restaurant work experience and Toastmasters membership, ground abstract competency claims in real personal history, lending credibility to the analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models triangulated self-assessment by cross-referencing three distinct instruments — a 360-degree peer/manager evaluation, MindTools diagnostic tools, and the Peregrine pre-exam — and noting where results converge or conflict. This multi-source approach, supported by citations from Andrade and Alaoutinen, demonstrates that a single instrument is insufficient for valid self-evaluation and that divergent results carry their own analytical value.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four sections corresponding to the original assessment prompts. Sections one and two address the 360-degree evaluation, separating agreement/disagreement from excellence/improvement. Section three covers MindTools results, and section four addresses Peregrine pre-exam outcomes. The conclusion synthesizes all three instruments into three overarching professional development lessons. This clear, prompt-driven structure is well suited to reflective portfolio assignments at the graduate level.
Self-Assessment Agreement and Disagreement with Peers, Managers, and Subordinates
From the self-assessment, managers, peers, and subordinates agreed with me on a number of items. I was particularly relieved to find that all three groups agreed with my assessments related to collaboration, judgment, and positivity. Likewise, they all agreed with my assessments relating to problem-solving, coaching, and communication. Each of these elements represents a core competency within my overall professional abilities. I espouse the belief that communication and team engagement are central to my teamwork skills, and those beliefs were supported and validated by my peers through this self-assessment.
From my prior work experience, many of my managers have commended my ability to communicate with peers — a critical element within any work environment. My first few jobs were in the retail and restaurant industry, where I learned the value of clear communication and how it ultimately impacts team dynamics. I have applied these communication skills throughout my career and have continually worked to hone them within a leadership context. This has been especially important given the COVID-19 operating environment, in which my current job transitioned to a hybrid work model. That transition requires constant and prolonged communication throughout the workday, as many teammates are now working from home and need to continue operating efficiently in an online environment. I typically agree with my managers on this point, as I have made a conscious effort to communicate more proactively in online settings — including keeping colleagues informed about what I am specifically working on.
More importantly, I agree with management's assessment of my ability to effectively identify and implement solutions. In an online format, these solutions are often derived through strong collaboration and teamwork, and I agree with both peer and subordinate evaluations of these elements (Andrade, 2008).
I am also proud that both subordinates and managers ranked my ethical standards very highly. This is gratifying given the particular ethical demands of the COVID-19 labor environment. My teammates have consistently rated me highly from an ethical perspective, and I continue to hold myself to high ethical standards across all of my work products.
As it relates to areas of disagreement, I scored relatively low on elements such as searching for new ideas, sharing expertise, and participating in professional development associations. I disagree with these assessments, as I am heavily involved in professional organizations and have taken on leadership roles within them. I believe the discrepancy results from many of my peers and subordinates being unaware of this involvement and therefore unable to properly account for it in their evaluations. For example, I am actively involved in the local chapter of Toastmasters, an organization dedicated to improving public speaking and communication skills for professionals.
I also disagree with the management and subordinate assessments regarding my contributions as a team player. I am very willing to share and disseminate relevant technical expertise with others; however, much of this goes unnoticed from a management perspective because these contributions are not formally promoted or reported upward. As a result, management is not fully aware of these contributions and is therefore unable to assess them accurately. I believe my rating in this area should be higher relative to my actual contributions to the organization.
References
Alaoutinen, S. (2012). Evaluating the effect of learning style and student background on self-assessment accuracy. Computer Science Education, 22, 175–198.
Andrade, H. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of Formative Assessment (pp. 90–105). Routledge.
Andrade, H. (2018). Feedback in the context of self-assessment. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback (pp. 376–408). Cambridge University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.