Working Style, Communication, and Learning Strategies

Working Style and Collaboration

The relevance of measuring one's preferences in learning, collaboration, and task completion cannot be overstated. According to the assessment, my working style is execute. In basic terms, this means I have what it takes to follow things through. In addition to being effective at implementing plans developed in the examine dynamic, I have a knack for forcing action and take pride in the accomplishment of tasks. My ability to delegate is also of key relevance when it comes to promoting better results. Another strength of my working style is that I do not shy away from challenging tasks; instead, I focus on finding the most viable solutions in order to succeed.

I may, however, be less effective at promoting an idea to get colleagues on board — a trait associated with the excite dynamic. In practice, this means I could sometimes fall behind schedule while trying to build support for an idea. My working style may also mean I am not a strong planner or someone with a sharp eye for detail (traits more characteristic of the evaluate dynamic), nor am I especially efficient at generating ideas from scratch. This points to the value of pairing with teammates who complement these gaps. As the 5 Dynamics model explains, having individuals who complement our strengths is key to success (5 Dynamics, 2017).

When selecting a teammate for a class project, I could choose someone with a similar working style or someone whose style differs from mine. From a strategic standpoint, the latter is the better choice. Specifically, I would select a teammate whose working style is explore. I would expect such a teammate to be efficient at determining how to approach a task and effective at developing creative ideas. The explore working style would enable us to identify the best ideas and solutions for the project, which — when paired with my ability to follow through — would allow us to complete tasks in good time and enhance our overall performance.

Listening and Talking Modes

Most conversations can be categorized into one of the four quadrants of what is known as the Conversation Meter. The Conversation Meter, in basic terms, seeks to "help people diagnose when conversations are on or off track, predict likely outcomes if the conversation continues as it is, and prescribe potential new and beneficial responses to improve outcomes" (Conversant Solutions, 2017). In my listening, I tend to use the accuracy mode. This means that as I listen, I maintain eye contact and, in most cases, seek mental verification or confirmation of the points being made. For instance, when holding a conversation with a friend, I might later find myself searching online to fact-check their responses. This effectively means I do not accept information at face value.

My focus on accuracy has, however, sometimes caused conversations to veer off their original path, largely due to my inquisitive nature. Although some people might interpret my approach as second-guessing, I believe that seeking accuracy adds value to interactions.

In expressing myself through verbal communication, I tend to be sincere. This means I focus on being convincing — I mean what I say and have a strong belief in what I express. It is for this reason that I strongly defend my opinions. One downside to this talking mode is that I could hold sincere belief in things that are not necessarily accurate and end up being defensive of a faulty position. This can hinder my openness to differing perspectives. I have also observed that my talking mode sometimes puts me on a collision course with colleagues and results in arguments as I seek to defend what I believe is correct. The sincere positions I defend can occasionally trigger thoughtless alignments with a stance that may not be entirely factual.