Self-reflective analysis of Gallup Strengths Finder

Published by James Taylor

ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Subject Code and Title	Dynamic Leadership
Assessment	Self-Reflective Analysis
Length	Up to 500 words
Learning Outcomes	a) Explore and reflect on self- development as a leader to build self-awareness e) Demonstrate the technique of reflective and reflexive practice as a means of continuous learning and self-development.

Context:

The learning design of this subject is to focus on your own leadership journey and not to study leadership as some remote, theoretical concept that applies to other people.

This assessment starts to build self-awareness by analysing your results on the Gallup Strengths Finder psychometric instrument.

Your Task:

Your task in thisassessment is to complete the Gallup Strengths Finder and submit a brief report on the results and their implications for your development as a leader.

Analysing results:

When you receive your results, look at your report and read the background document on the Gallup psychometric assessment. You should then prepare a 500-word report which covers the following issues:

A brief description of your results. Provide a copy of your report as an Appendix. It will not be included in the wordcount.
Your initial reactions to your results: any surprises, any concerns, any connections with your own self-perceptions of your leadership strengths and personality preferences, any consistencies or inconsistencies with other feedback that you have received, either from colleagues or other psychometrictests.
Your initial thoughts on the implications of the results for your current and future leadership: how you can draw on your strengths to enhance your current and future effectiveness.

Reflexive Writing – First Person:

You should write in the first person, because this is about YOU, your reflections and your interpretations. (e.g. “I considered this advice to be….. because it had a big impact on my……..and it helped me tounderstandmy……………………………………………. ”)

Try to be as specific as possible, use brief examples to illustrate your points and try to select examples that enable you to demonstrate learning against the attributes in the rubric.

All other principles of academic writing apply, including strict referencing, acknowledgement of the work of others and avoidance of plagiarism.

Referencing:

You should include a list of specific references that you have actually used in your report. For this assessment, a minimum of three journal articles, academic papers or textbooks is expected. References to any secondary sources or web sites are additional. The reference list and Executive Summary (if you choose to use one) and any appendices will not be included in the word count.

It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research.

Marking Rubric: Assessment 1A Self-Reflective Analysis 20% /20
Assessment Criteria	Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49%	Pass (Functional) 50-64%	Credit (Proficient) 65-74%	Distinction (Advanced) 75 -84%	High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100%
1. Explain the conceptual framework for the Strengthsfinder psychometric instrument. 20%/4	Limited or no explanation of the concepts underpinning the framework	Basic explanation of the concepts.	Clear explanation of underpinning concepts.	Concise (brief yet comprehensive) explanation of underpinning concepts; Brief links with similar concepts.	Concise (brief yet comprehensive) explanation of underpinning concepts; Clear reference to other, similar, psychometric tests.
2. Summarise your Strengthsfinderresults. 20%/4	Limited, or no summary of results	Brief summary of results	Clear summary of results with brief examples to illustrate key points.	Concise summary of results with brief examples to illustrate key points.	Concise summary of results with clear examples to illustrate key points.
3. Interpret your results in relation to your personal context, with implications for your future leadership behaviour. 40%/8	Limited interpretation of results; Limited, or no attempt to integrate theory with personal reflections; Limited logical coherence	Clear attempt tointerpret results; with some implications forself; Evident attempt at integrating theorywith personalreflections Some gaps in logical coherence	Clear attempt tointerpret results; with several implications forself; Mostly well- balanced integration of theory with personalreflections; Some gaps in logical coherence	Concise interpretation, with mostly clear ability to express implications for self; Well balanced integration of theory and personal reflections; Mostly logically coherent structure	Concise interpretation, with very clear ability to express implications for self; Well balanced integration of theory and personal reflections; Logically coherent structure
4. Support your analysis with evidence from the literature. 20%/4	Limited, or no citations given in text. Limited, or no list of references.	Limited relevant references, with many inaccuracies in APA referencing style.	References are relevant, Many errors in APA referencing style	Comprehensive, relevant references, Several minor errors in APA referencing style.	Comprehensive, relevant references; Few minor errors in APA referencing style.