tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6888282.post254864637605086252..comments2024-03-07T00:03:12.584-07:00Comments on John's Corner of the World: Kolbe Presidential SurveyJohn Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14849211055450293089noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6888282.post-7952842842217990732008-10-28T21:00:00.000-06:002008-10-28T21:00:00.000-06:00Re: your point 1: I think you are misapprehending ...Re: your point 1: I think you are misapprehending the point of the survey and have misunderstood the manner in which this particular tool works. <BR/><BR/>The Kolbe test is designed "simply" to help you (or anyone else) recognize your normal MO (Modus Operandi)--how you would go about solving a problem or achieving a goal if you were left to your own devices, and the test measures on four 10-point scales. <BR/><BR/>Kathy Kolbe, the original developer of the test, refers to the four scales as "Fact Finder," "Follow-Through," "Quick Start," and "Implementor." But, through our own use of the test, I have found the names are almost more bother than they are worth.<BR/><BR/>"Fact Finder" refers to your propensity (or almost resistance to) "doing research," "getting all the information." I'm a "high" fact-finder. I love doing research. Moreover, the more information on a subject, the more detail, the more categories, (etc., etc.), the happier I am.<BR/><BR/>Other people, "low" fact-finders, are what you might call "simplifiers." They cut through the clutter of all the <I>details</I> and look for the "big picture."<BR/><BR/>I know I am <I>way</I> over-simplifying, and, indeed, may be misrepresenting some of the specifics of the case. But I believe I'm close to accurate.<BR/><BR/>I could go through the other three scales, but let me touch on the "Implementor" scale, since I am <I>very</I> confident I understand that one.<BR/><BR/>On the one end of the scale--the "high" implementors--you have people like a Thomas Edison who love to <I>build</I> things. They "get their hands dirty." They are physical model-builders.<BR/><BR/>On the other end of the scale--the "low" implementors--you've got people who, more or less, could care less about building an actual physical model. They can "see" things in their minds <I>without</I> building. Indeed, they get frustrated with the model-builders. . . .<BR/><BR/>Oh. I think I can explain Quick Start. Sarita is a quintessential Quick Start ("high" Quick Start). She's the one who taught our family the phrase, "Let's just <I>do it a minute</I>." --Forget feeling as if you have to get "all your ducks in a row" and complete, detailed plans! "We can deal with whatever arises if or when it happens."<BR/><BR/>As our general manager (a retired Colonel from the Air Force) once expressed it to me (he is a "low" Quick Start): "There's a chasm in front of our troops. I would like to build a solid bridge before marching my men across. But I get the impression you would rather I begin laying the trusses, then run the men off this side of the cliff and hope they can grab hold of something on the other side, clamber their way up, and finish the bridge after they have gotten to the top on the other side. . . ."<BR/><BR/>I said I thought he understood Sarita's and my preferred Modus Operandi.<BR/><BR/>It's not that his method is wrong and ours is right. At least not consistently. It's just that, in the particular situation we were looking at, we believed our method would work. It wasn't what <I>he</I> would have preferred. But he was willing to do it our way in order to please us. (And it helped, of course, that we happen to own the company!)<BR/><BR/>Anyway. <BR/><BR/>My point in all of this is simply to say that the Kolbe test is meant strictly and clearly and solely as a descriptive aid to help you understand yourself and other people.<BR/><BR/>And I think Kathy Kolbe, who made the offer to have people evaluate the candidates, did so more out of curiosity than to "prove" <I>anything</I>.<BR/><BR/>*******<BR/><BR/>As for your second point: I agree that character is a huge issue.<BR/><BR/>*******<BR/><BR/>To learn more about the Kolbe test, check out an article at <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/01/08/o.wildly.successful/" REL="nofollow">CNN.com</A> and an interview with Kathy Kolbe at <A HREF="http://www.askkathykolbe.com/" REL="nofollow">AskKathyKolbe.com</A>.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for writing.John Holzmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14849211055450293089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6888282.post-88469627302921739692008-10-28T17:00:00.000-06:002008-10-28T17:00:00.000-06:00Hmmm... my take on this:1) As with every other suc...Hmmm... my take on this:<BR/><BR/>1) As with every other such profile I've seen, they see each scale as an A/B choice. I have an alternative theory, forced on me because so often I do not fit the pattern...<BR/><BR/>What if:<BR/>* A score at an extreme describes you<BR/>* A score at or near the middle says more about your appreciation for both sides of this issue, able to work "both sides of the aisle"<BR/><BR/>In a sense, this model says extremes are "partisan" while midpoint scores are "diplomatic"<BR/><BR/>Go back and revisit the scores this way for a completely different take!<BR/><BR/>2) I may be WAY off on this, with so little information available. This system, like many others, on the surface appears to make the assumption that all people have a similar level of character attributes. Integrity and such.<BR/><BR/>As I love to recall, a friend in India said: "An educated scoundrel is still a scoundrel."<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: when such a scoring system is used to compare two people, one of whom is actively (even if unconsciously) "gaming" the system, the results are very hard to interpret.<BR/><BR/>More food for reflection.<BR/><BR/>Back to work...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com