Running head INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATIONS INDIVIDUAL .docx

Running head: INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND
APPLICATIONS
INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATIONS 13
Abstract
I am presently working as a project manager in an organization
that focuses on project management especially in the areas of
construction and management framework. My work
encompasses managing teams of personnel each working on
different tasks all aimed at completing a specific project. I
manage construction of a project right from the initial stage of
an idea to presenting complete work. When our company is
outsourced to manage a particular project, we first examine and
analyze the expected outcome according to the client. My work
therefore entails sourcing for skills and expertise to compliment
the necessary input needed to complete a project within the

stipulated elements of costs, scope and timelines.
Self-assessment for Personality Development
Purpose: The purpose of this assessment is to help examine and
analyze my level of personality and identify where I need to
improve.
Score: 33 A + 36 B = 69
Interpretation of score: I recorded high scores depicting my
attitudes and traits suggesting my personality as less-outer
oriented than I realized. I am very sensitive to the attitudes of
others, am interested in others, can be warm and am powerful in
my own right.
Application of the Score to Improve on my effectiveness and
efficiency in my organization
My work mostly entails managing and coordinating teams for
accomplishment of a main task. In this case, am expected to
have high degree of leadership and communication attributes so
as to foster collective responsibility and productivity.
I have learnt that am a good listener and normally seek accurate
information before making a decision. I am focused on what I
do and pay attention to cues in order to avoid misunderstanding
at work. I am also observant and this proves to be a vital trait
especially when managing teams and organizations where there
are friendships. These three traits among others have been the
key drivers of my personal and professional life and have
realized that I need to enhance on them to be more productive

and have sound judgments and decision making. However, I
have realized that I need to work on how I engage others. I have
realized that I lead effectively when others are eager and self-
starters. I wait for the right circumstances to prove my
leadership. I also don’t engage with individuals who seem upset
or angry. However, it’s upon me to set the pace and try to
influence change in others as a leader. I ought to face problems
connecting with the personalities of others and influence
positive change if I am to grow.
Self-assessment for Personality Strength
analyze how strong my personality is and the areas I need to
improve on.
Score: 34 A + 36 B = 70
Interpretation of score: I recorded high scores depicting a strong
personality. This means I am able to live with others
comfortably and am one person who is not irritated by the
personality of others. Other people are able to share with me
about their personal and professional issues.
As a project manager, I am expected to subdivide an entire
project into tasks that are managed by teams. Am therefore
expected to have high caliber expertise especially in the area of
managing personalities. The test scores provide a vital basis
within which I can now be able to maintain on my strong
attributes and improve on where I may not be effective.
Even though I have a strong sense of maintaining work
friendships, I fear confrontations. When I realize that there is a
problem in team or department, I have a tendency of delaying to
solve the problem and as a result the problem becomes bigger. I
don’t like to hurt the feelings of others and I also fear being
hurt. This is a bigger problem to my leadership capacity and I
must therefore work on improving on this trait. I must
understand that sometimes I need to confront problems even if
it means not agreeing with other people’s opinions. I ought to

learn how to control my mood and remain sober even when
things are not moving in the direction I intend. I have learnt
that I will develop strong relationships when I learn to work out
problems and manage my moods without fear. This is essential
at both my professional life and my personal life.
Self-assessment for Team Player
analyze the level of my personality is in terms of working in
teams.
Score: 36 A + 36 B = 72
personality in terms of engaging teams. This means I am able to
work with others in teams especially in lead roles. Am able to
understand and influence others to maximize on their
productivity for team goals and ultimately organizations goals.
As my work entails coordinating teams to ensure they deliver as
per expected standards, it my work to ensure I provide
conducive environment within which they work. It’s important
that I ensure they maximize on their skills and expertise and
this is possible through effective coordination and conducive
environment (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). The score attained will
help me enhance on my personality so that I can be
accommodative more to ensure employees seek my opinions and
are ready to approach me in case of a problem. I have noted that
in some instances I create a wall between my office and
departments in such a way that they are not very open to me on
issues especially those that would make me mad. However, I
ought to learn how best I can instill the essentials of
communication among teams so that problems can be ironed out
instead keeping quiet. I need to improve on my communication
skills so that I can enhance the rapport within the organization
and foster collective responsibility. When the health of
employees is better, then they maximize on their abilities.
Effective workplace relationships ensures better coordination

(Miner, 2016).
Self-assessment for Listening Skills
analyze the level of my personality is in terms listening skills.
Score: 35 A + 35 B = 70
personality in terms of listening. This is a positive trait
especially in management and leadership positions where am
expected to offer direction and make decisive decisions.
Application of the Score to Improve on effectiveness and
efficiency in my Organization
The test scores provide an essential background within which I
can be able to enhance on my strong traits while at the same
time make improvements on my weakest points. Active listening
skills are vital for every leader as it lays the basis of
engagement with employees (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Am an
active listener and I don’t make decisions before I get credible
information to back the decision. However, when it comes to
personal issues am very fond of judging quickly. Human beings
are social creatures and so I some circumstances am called in to
solve personal quarrels among employees. Through I take time
to listen to both parties, am sometimes biased in that I listen
more to the employee whose input is more in the organization.
My listening skills are therefore biased when it comes to
personal issues among employees. I therefore need to work
more on how I can be incorporate active listening skills in my
personality in personal matters so that I can be making sound
judgments. Active listening is also essential for my organization
especially I taking keen interest on market trends, competitive
forces and global economics. My improving on my listening
skills, I can be able to propel our organization to greater
heights.
Self-assessment for Influencing Others
analyze my level of personality in terms of how I influence my
colleagues and peers.

Score: 33 A + 36 B = 69
attitudes and suggesting my personality as more on an
influencer. I realized that am an inspiration to colleagues and
peers and provide the necessary guidance in at both personal
and professional levels.
The score provides a vital basis within which I can be able to
enhance on my personality in terms of influencing others. This
is a vital trait as a leader within our organization. As a leader,
am expected to show direction and guide employees towards
attaining the set targets. This is important especially when am
in control of teams. Sometimes the work rate decreases as a
result of economic or market turbulence or internal conflicts.
Without my effective sense of direction, the productivity
continues to decrease. I should therefore work towards
improving on how I influence colleagues to maximize on their
productivity. Most importantly, I should improve on how I
encourage them through works and show sense of direction with
my actions. My inspiration to them should be focused on
enhancing their morale when they feel like giving up, be a role
model so that they can seek my opinion on various work
matters, and walk with them in advancing their careers (Robbins
& Judge, 2017). Various scenario demand different ways of
managing them and so I should work on having a clear mindset
where I can make decisions that are worthy to be emulated by
my colleagues and peers. Through at times we may stumble, it’s
important that I learn how to compose myself.
Self-assessment for Managing Conflicts
analyze my level of personality in terms of managing conflicts.
Score: 32 A + 32 B = 64
Interpretation of score: I recorded average scores depicting my
attitudes and suggesting my personality as more of someone
who fears conflicts. Generally, I don’t like to hurt other

people’s feelings as I normally put myself in other people’s
situation.
In life, we go through various scenarios that act as learning
lessons on how we are to present ourselves in future. However,
when it comes to managing conflicts I rarely learn. Though I try
as much as possible to avoid conflicts, in some instances am
forced to intervene when there are conflicts within our
organization. The test scores portray my fears and it’s upon
time I compose myself and learn how to manage conflicts. In
most instances, I direct such matters to other personnel. I have
realized that this is not a positive trend as a manager. A leader
is expected to handle conflicts as that is one of my roles as a
manager. It’s upon time I learn on conflict resolution strategies
so that I can provide the expected guidance as a leader within
our organization. Creating a cordial friendship among
employees is essential in creating work teams that are
productive (Miner, 2016). Without such friendships it will be
difficult to pull skills, ideas and expertise to work together for a
common goal. These teams need to be guided and managed well
and this can be possible once I improve on my conflict
resolution mechanism. I believe that helping employees work
out their differences and inspiring them towards working
together enhances on productivity.
Self-assessment for Leadership Traits
analyze the level of my personality is in terms of making a
difference as a leader.
Score: 35 A + 36 B = 71
personality in terms of making a difference as a leader. I
believe that as a leader, am expected to inspire positive change
and structures that propels our organization towards its mission
and vision.

My main task as a leader task involves coordinating people both
internally and externally to assure the organizations goals are
achieved. The coordination demands regular communication and
this is the key to ensuring positive results from conflict or
competition. The focus should be on promoting the
organizations effectiveness through managing well intergroup
conflict and competition. I believe that once I meet the above
element am in the path towards making a difference in our
organization. However, sometimes I lose focus as a result of
managing my work/life balance. How am I supposed to make a
difference in the outside world? Sometimes expectations
supersedes my ability and some critics may view me as a failure
based on few elements. It’s therefore my role to ensure that I
cultivate a positive attitude even when I don’t meet the set
targets or expectations as a leader. I believe a leader is depicted
by how well he/she deals with setbacks. Improving on my
weaknesses will play a great role in improving on my traits as a
manager. I ought to make a difference even when there seems
nothing to celebrate about. I ought to be an inspiration, a guide,
a motivator and an influencer in leading people to achieving
personal and professional goals at all times and seek the drive
within me.
Self-assessment for Organizational Structure
analyze the kind of organizational structure I prefer as per my
personality.
Score: 35 A + 37 B = 72
sense of organic structure. I believe that as the world changes,
organizations need to transform with the changing trends so as
to remain relevant in the current market and economic settings.
The score portrays my attitude towards organizational structure.
I strongly believe that organizations should gradually review on

their strategies and mission so as to ensure they meet the
changing needs of the world. Innovation has been one of the
drivers within our organization. It becomes impossible to
compete in the current world without being creative and
innovative. I believe that a change in environment means that
companies must be in a position where they gather, process and
propagate information quickly to be implemented within the
organization. From my position as a project manager, I
empower teams to be creative in the way they handle tasks. I
emphasize and influence an organic structure where there is
assurance of fast distribution of information, knowledge and
ideas and that the organization is able to respond to
transformations in internal as well as external environments
(Miner, 2016). However, I have realized that my impact in
terms of influencing an organic structure is not very effective.
In improving on this, I need to facilitate trainings among
employees on the need for the structure, how it operates and its
impact in both professional and personal life. The trainings will
provide the necessary basis within which the entire organization
can appreciate organic structure.
Self-assessment for Corporate Culture
analyze the corporate culture I prefer in relation to my
personality.
Score: 37 A + 36 B = 73
outlooks and suggesting my belief in a corporate team culture. I
have a strong sense of teams and always like to work in an
environment where every employee participates fully for
accomplishment of company’s mission.
I have always believed in the power of teamwork as signified in
the score. I believe that it’s through teams that we are able to
portray our skills and expertise effectively. I believe in the
empowerment of teams where employees are able to make use

of their knowledge to create solutions to problems. I therefore
strive to create conducive environments within which team
members can be able to maximize on capacity and abilities and
in the process advance in their careers and personal life
(Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Teams provide a positive culture
where each member looks forward for an upcoming project.
However, I need to improve on my influence on teams within
our organizations and incorporate more team building and
trainings. I should do this by having regular events and
programs outside the scope of our work so that employees can
be able to learn more about one another, foster cordial
friendships and enhance their commitment to their teams.
Employees should be kept at bay with upcoming events where
they look forward for an event that breaks the work boredom
and monotony. I think that constituting a team that plans of
regular team building events will be vital within our
organization in fostering relationships and commitments at
work.
Self-assessment for Tolerance to Change
analyze my personality in response to my tolerance to change.
Score: 36 A + 36 B = 72
Interpretation of score: I recorded high scores signifying my
belief in change. The world is changing rapidly in different
areas and I feel I need to consider and appreciate change where
necessary.
I consider change as inevitable. The world is transforming at a
much faster rate and we have to accept and abide by the change.
Failure to recognize the change would render our organization
null. It’s my belief that we need to gradually review our
strategies as a company so that we can be able to compete fully
knowing very well what the current client or consumer wants.
This is based on the fact that needs change gradually with the
changing trends and so we have to ensure we keep up with the

markets and economies (Robbins & Judge, 2017). I need to
inspire the change to other employees. I have noticed that at
times we have failed to detect changes and so have been caught
off-guard by our competitors. I have also noted that within our
organization, millenials are prone to change while baby
boomers are slow to change. In view of this, I will instill in
employees on the significance of change and its impact within
the industry. Trainings are also necessary so as to enlighten
employees on the basics of change and what to look for even as
they continue with their daily work. Being tolerant to change
paves the way for learning new skills and trends both externally
and internally and thereby enable me to overcome daily
situations and problems both in personal life and in my career.
References
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational behavior.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Miner, J. B. (2016). Organizational behavior:From Theory to
Practice Armonk, NY [u.a.: Sharpe.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2017). Essentials of organizational
behavior. Boston: Pearson Education.
alfaraj
Highlight
alfaraj
Highlight

B-1
Scoring Keys for
Self-Assessment Activities
The following pages provide the scoring keys for the self-
assessments that are presented in each chapter of this textbook.
These self-assessments, as well as the self-assessments sum-
marized in this book, can be scored automatically in the
Connect Library.
CHAPTER 2: SCORING KEY FOR THE
EXTRAVERSION–INTROVERSION SCALE
Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to assign numbers to
each box you checked. For example, if you checked “Moder-
ately Inaccurate” for statement #1 (“I feel comfortable around
people”), you would assign a “1” to that statement. After as-
signing numbers for all 10 statements, add up the numbers

to estimate your extraversion–introversion personality.
Interpreting Your Score: Extraversion characterizes people who
are outgoing, talkative, sociable, and assertive. It includes sev-
eral facets, such as friendliness, gregariousness, assertiveness,
activity level, excitement-seeking, and cheerfulness. The
opposite of extraversion is introversion, which refers to the
personality characteristics of being quiet, shy, and cautious.
Extraverts get their energy from the outer world (people and
things around them), whereas introverts get their energy
from the internal world, such as personal reflection on con-
cepts and ideas. Introverts are more inclined to direct their
interests to ideas rather than to social events.
This is the short version of the IPIP Introversion–
Extraversion Scale, so it estimates overall introversion–
extraversion but not specific facets within the personality
dimension. Scores range from 0 to 40. Low scores indicate
WORK CENTRALITY SCALE
ately Disagree” for statement #3 (“Work should be only a
small part of one’s life”), you would assign a “5” to that state-
ment. After assigning numbers for all 6 statements, add up
your scores to estimate your level of work centrality.
Interpreting Your Score: The work centrality scale measures the
extent that work is an important part of the individual’s
self-concept. People with high work centrality define
themselves
introversion; high scores indicate extraversion. The norms in
the following table are estimated from results of early adults
(under 30 years old) in Scotland and undergraduate psychol-

ogy students in the United States. However, introversion–
extraversion norms vary from one group to the next; the best
norms are likely based on the entire class you are attending or
on past students in this course.
appendix B
Very accurate description of Very accurate description
me 5 4 of me 5 0
Moderately accurate 5 3 Moderately accurate 5 1
Neither accurate nor Neither accurate nor
inaccurate 5 2 inaccurate 5 2
Moderately inaccurate 5 1 Moderately inaccurate 5 3
Very inaccurate description of Very inaccurate description
me 5 0 of me 5 4
FOR STATEMENT ITEMS FOR STATEMENT ITEMS
1, 2, 6, 8, 9: 3, 4, 5, 7, 10:
Strongly Agree 5 6 Strongly Agree 5 1
Moderately Agree 5 5 Moderately Agree 5 2
Slightly Agree 5 4 Slightly Agree 5 3
Slightly Disagree 5 3 Slightly Disagree 5 4
Moderately Disagree 5 2 Moderately Disagree 5 5
Strongly Disagree 5 1 Strongly Disagree 5 6
FOR STATEMENT ITEMS FOR STATEMENT

1, 2, 4, 5, 6: ITEM 3:
35–40 High extraversion
28–34 Moderate extraversion
21–27 In-between extraversion and
introversion
7–20 Moderate introversion
0–6 High introversion
IPIP EXTRAVERSION–
INTROVERSION INTERPRETATION
IPIP Extraversion–Introversion Norms
mcs62589_appb_B1-B11.indd Page B-1 30/10/13 12:49 PM f-
500 mcs62589_appb_B1-B11.indd Page B-1 30/10/13 12:49
PM f-500
/204/MH02010/mcs62589_disk1of1/0077862589/mcs62589_pag
efiles/204/MH02010/mcs62589_disk1of1/0077862589/mcs6258
9_pagefiles
B-2 Appendix B
mainly by their work roles and view nonwork roles as much less
significant. Consequently, people with a high work centrality
score likely have lower complexity in their self-concept. This
can be a concern because if something goes wrong with their
work role, their nonwork roles are not of sufficient value to
maintain a positive self-evaluation. At the same time, work
dominates our work lives, so those with very low scores would

be more of the exception than the rule in most societies.
Scores range from 6 to 36 with higher scores indicating
higher work centrality. The norms in the following table are
based on a large sample of Canadian employees (average score
was 20.7). However, work centrality norms vary from one
group to the next. For example, the average score in a sample of
nurses was around 17 (translated to the scale range used here).
Interpreting Your Scores: This scale measures the four dimen-
sions of emotional intelligence described in this book. The
four dimensions are defined as follows:
• Self-awareness of emotions. The ability to perceive and
understand the meaning of your own emotions.
• Self-management of emotions. The ability to manage
your own emotions. It includes generating or suppressing
emotions and displaying behaviors that represent desired
emotions in a particular situation.
• Awareness of others’ emotions. The ability to perceive
and understand the emotions of other people, including
the practices of empathy and awareness of social phe-
nomena such as organizational politics.
• Management of others’ emotions. The ability to man-
age other people’s emotions. It includes generating or
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SELF-
ASSESSMENT
each box you checked. Insert the number for each statement
on the appropriate line in the scoring key below the table.
For example, if you checked “Moderately disagree” for state-

ment #1 (“I tend to describe my emotions accurately”), you
would write a “2” on the line with “(1)” underneath it. After
assigning numbers for all 16 statements, add up your scores
to estimate your self-assessed emotional intelligence on the
four dimensions and overall score.
suppressing emotions in other people, such as reducing
their sadness and increasing their motivation.
Scores on the four emotional intelligence self-assessment
dimensions range from 4 to 20. The overall score ranges
from 16 to 80. Norms vary from one group to the next.
The following table shows norms from a sample of
100 MBA students in two countries (Australia and
Singapore). For example, the top 10th percentile for
self-awareness is 19, indicating that 10 percent of people
score 19 or 20, and 90 percent score below 19 on this
dimension. Keep in mind that these scores represent
self-perceptions. Evaluations from others (such as through
360-degree feedback) may provide a more accurate estimate
of your emotional intelligence on some (not necessarily
all) dimensions.

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16: 5, 8, 12, 15:
29–36 High work centrality
24–28 Above average work centrality
18–23 Average work centrality
13–17 Below average work centrality
6–12 Low work centrality
WORK CENTRALITY SCORE INTERPRETATION
Work Centrality Norms
Self-awareness of emotions 1 1 1 5
(1) (7) (9) (12)
Self-management of emotions 1 1 1 5
(2) (5) (10) (14)
Awareness of others’ emotions 1 1 1 5
(3) (6) (13) (15)
Management of others’ emotions 1 1 1 5
(4) (8) (11) (16)
Emotional Intelligence Total Add up all dimension scores 5
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIMENSION CALCULATION
YOUR SCORE
PM f-500

9_pagefiles
Appendix B B-3
Although everyone has the same innate drives, our
secondary or learned needs vary based on our personality,
values, and self-concept. This self-assessment provides an
estimate of your need strength on two learned needs: need for
achievement and need for social approval.
Interpreting Your Need for Achievement Score: This scale, for-
mally called “achievement striving,” estimates the extent to
which you are motivated to take on and achieve challenging
personal goals. This includes a desire to perform better than
others and to reach one’s potential. The scale ranges from
0 to 28. How high or low is your need for achievement? The
ideal would be to compare your score with the collective re-
sults of other students in your class. Otherwise, the table at
the right offers a rough set of norms with which you can
compare your score on this scale.
Interpreting Your Need for Social Approval Score: The need
for social approval scale estimates the extent to which you
PERSONAL NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE
Scoring Instructions: Use the table at the right to assign num-
bers to each box you checked. Insert the number for each
statement on the appropriate line in the scoring key below.
For example, if you checked “Moderately inaccurate” for
statement #1 (“I would rather be myself than be well thought
of ”), you would write a “3” on the line with “(1)” under-

neath it. After assigning numbers for all 15 statements, add
up your scores to estimate your results for the two learned
needs measured by this scale.
Very accurate description Very accurate description
of me 5 4 of me 5 0
Moderately accurate 5 3 Moderately accurate 5 1
Neither accurate nor Neither accurate nor
inaccurate 5 2 inaccurate 5 2
Moderately inaccurate 5 1 Moderately inaccurate 5 3
Very inaccurate description Very inaccurate description
of me 5 0 of me 5 4
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15: 1, 7, 10, 11, 13:
Average Score 16.3 14.8 14.5 14.7 60.3
Top 10th percentile 19 18 17 18 70
Median (50th percentile) 16 15 15 15 60
Bottom 25th percentile 15 13 13 13 56
SELF-AWARENESS MANAGEMENT OF AWARENESS OF
MANAGEMENT OF
PERCENTILE OF EMOTIONS OWN EMOTIONS OTHERS’
EMOTIONS OTHERS’ EMOTIONS TOTAL

Emotional Intelligence Self-Assessment Norms
PERSONAL NEEDS DIMENSION CALCULATION YOUR
SCORE
Need for achievement: 1 1 1 1 1 1 5
(2) (3) (6) (7) (9) (12) (14)
Need for social approval: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5
(1) (4) (5) (8) (10) (11) (13) (15)
NEED FOR
ACHIEVEMENT SCORE INTERPRETATION
24–28 High need for achievement
18–23 Above average need for
achievement
12–17 Average need for achievement
6–11 Below average need for
achievement
0–5 Low need for achievement
Need for Achievement Norms
PM f-500

9_pagefiles
B-4 Appendix B
are motivated to seek favorable evaluation from others.
Founded on the drive to bond, the need for social approval
is a secondary need, because people vary in this need based
on their self-concept, values, personality, and possibly so-
cial norms. This scale ranges from 0 to 32. How high or
low is your need for social approval? The ideal would be to
compare your score with the collective results of other stu-
dents in your class. Otherwise, the following table offers a
rough set of norms on which you can compare your score
on this scale.
CHAPTER 6: SCORING KEY FOR
THE MONEY ATTITUDE SCALE
Scoring Instructions: This instrument presents three dimen-
sions with a smaller number of items from the original
Money Attitude Scale. To calculate your score on each di-
mension, write the number that you circled in the scale
over the corresponding item number in the scoring key at
the top of the right column. For example, write the num-
ber you circled for the scale’s first statement (“I sometimes
purchase things . . .”) on the line above “Item 1.” Then add
up the numbers for that dimension. The money attitude
total score is calculated by adding up all scores on all
dimensions.
Interpreting Your Score: The three Money Attitude Scale
dimensions measured here, as well as the total score, are

defined as follows:
• Money as Power/Prestige: People with higher scores
on this dimension tend to use money to influence and
impress others.
• Retention Time: People with higher scores on this
dimension tend to be careful financial planners.
• Money Anxiety: People with higher scores on this
dimension tend to view money as a source of anxiety.
• Money Attitude Total: This is a general estimate of
how much respect and attention you give to money.
Scores on the three Money Attitude Scale dimensions
range from 4 to 20. The overall score ranges from 12 to 60.
Norms vary from one group to the next. The following table
shows how a sample of MBA students scored on the Money
Attitude Scale. The table shows percentiles, that is, the per-
centage of people with the same or lower score. For example,
the table indicates that a score of “13” on the retention scale
is quite low because only 25 percent of students would have
scored at this level or lower (75 percent scored higher). How-
ever, a score of “12” on the prestige scale is quite high because
75 percent of students score at or below this number (only
25 percent scored higher).
28–32 High need for social approval
20–27 Above average need for social
approval
12–19 Average need for social approval
6–11 Below average need for social

approval
0–5 Low need for social approval
NEED FOR SOCIAL
APPROVAL SCORE INTERPRETATION
Need for Social Approval Norms
Average Score 9.89 14.98 12.78 37.64
Top 10th percentile 13 18 16 44
Median (50th percentile) 10 15 13 38
Bottom 25th percentile 8 13 11 33
PERCENTILE PRESTIGE SCORE RETENTION SCORE
ANXIETY SCORE TOTAL SCORE
MONEY
ATTITUDE
DIMENSION CALCULATION
YOUR
SCORE
Money as
Power/
Prestige
1 1 1 5

(1) (4) (7) (10)
Retention
Time
1 1 1 5
(2) (5) (8) (11)
Money
Anxiety
1 1 1 5
(3) (6) (9) (12)
Total score Add up all dimension scores 5
PM f-500
9_pagefiles
Appendix B B-5
CREATIVE PERSONALITY SCALE
Scoring Instructions: Assign a positive point (11) after each
of the following words that you checked off in the
self-assessment:

Capable Inventive
Clever Original
Confident Reflective
Egotistical Resourceful
Humorous Self-confident
Individualistic Sexy
Informal Snobbish
Insightful Unconventional
Intelligent Wide interests
Assign a negative point (21) after each of the following
words that you checked off in the self-assessment:
Affected Honest
Cautious Mannerly
Commonplace Narrow interests
Conservative Sincere
Conventional Submissive
Dissatisfied Suspicious
Next, sum the positive and negative points.
Interpreting Your Score: This instrument estimates your cre-
ative potential as a personal characteristic. The scale recog-
nizes that creative people are intelligent and persistent and
possess an inventive thinking style. Creative personality varies
somewhat from one occupational group to the next. The
table below provides norms based on undergraduate and
graduate university/college students.
TEAM ROLES PREFERENCE SCALE
Scoring Instructions: Write the scores circled for each item on
the appropriate line in the scoring key at the top of the right
column (statement numbers are in parentheses), and add up

each scale.
Interpreting Your Score: The five team roles measured here are
based on scholarship over the years. The following table de-
fines these five roles and presents the range of scores for high,
medium, and low levels of each role. These norms are based
on results from a sample of MBA students.
ACTIVE LISTENING SKILLS INVENTORY
Scoring Instructions: Use the first table below to score the re-
sponse you marked for each statement. Then, in the scoring
key, write that score on the line corresponding to the statement
Above 19 You have a high creative personality
11 to 19 You have an average creative
personality
Below 11 You have a low creative personality
CREATIVE
PERSONALITY SCORE INTERPRETATION
Encourager 1 1 5
(6) (9) (11)
Gatekeeper 1 1 5
(4) (10) (13)
Harmonizer 1 1 5
(3) (8) (12)
Initiator 1 1 5

(1) (5) (14)
Summarizer 1 1 5
(2) (7) (15)
TEAM ROLES YOUR
DIMENSION CALCULATION SCORE
TEAM ROLE AND DEFINITION INTERPRETATION
Encourager: People who score high on
this dimension have a strong tendency
to praise and support the ideas of other
team members, thereby showing
warmth and solidarity with the group.
High: 12 and
above
Medium: 9 to 11
Low: 8 and below
Gatekeeper: People who score high on
to encourage all team members to
participate in the discussion.
High: 12 and
above
Medium: 9 to 11
Low: 8 and below
Harmonizer: People who score high on

to mediate intragroup conflicts and
reduce tension.
High: 11 and
above
Medium: 9 to 10
Low: 8 and below
Initiator: People who score high on this
dimension have a strong tendency to
identify goals for the meeting, including
ways to work on those goals.
High: 12 and
above
Medium: 9 to 11
Low: 8 and below
Summarizer: People who score high on
to keep track of what was said in the
meeting (i.e., act as the team’s memory).
High: 10 and above
Medium: 8 to 9
Low: 7 and below
Team Role Preference Definitions and Norms

PM f-500
9_pagefiles
B-6 Appendix B
number (statement numbers are in parentheses) and add up
each subscale. For example, if you checked “Seldom” for state-
ment #1 (“I keep an open mind . . .”), you would write a “2”
on the line with “(1)” underneath it. Calculate the overall
Active Listening Inventory score by summing all subscales.
Interpreting Your Score: The three active listening dimensions
are defined as follows:
• Sensing: Sensing is the process of receiving signals from
the sender and paying attention to them. Active listeners
COWORKER INFLUENCE SCALE
Scoring Instructions: To calculate your scores on the
Coworker Influence Scale, write the number circled for
each statement on the appropriate line in the scoring key
below (statement numbers are in parentheses), and add up
each scale.
Interpreting Your Score: Influence refers to any behavior that
attempts to alter someone’s attitudes or behavior. There are
several types of influence, including the eight measured by
this instrument. This instrument assesses your preference for

using each type of influence on coworkers and other people
at a similar level as your position in the organization.
• Persuasion: Persuasion refers to using logical and emo-
tional appeals to change others’ attitudes. This is one of
improve sensing in three ways. They postpone evaluation
by not forming an opinion until the speaker has finished,
avoid interrupting the speaker’s conversation, and remain
motivated to listen to the speaker.
• Evaluating: This dimension of active listening includes
understanding the message meaning, evaluating the mes-
sage, and remembering the message. To improve their
evaluation of the conversation, active listeners empathize
with the speaker—they try to understand and be sensi-
tive to the speaker’s feelings, thoughts, and situation.
Evaluation also improves by organizing the speaker’s ideas
during the communication episode.
• Responding: Responding, the third dimension of active
listening, is feedback to the sender, which motivates and
directs the speaker’s communication. Active listeners
show interest through nonverbal cues (eye contact, nod-
ding, symbiotic facial expression) and by sending back
channel signals (e.g., “I see”). They also clarify the mes-
sage, such as by summarizing or rephrasing the speaker’s
ideas at appropriate breaks (“So you’re saying that . . . ?”).
Scores on the three Active Listening dimensions range
from 4 to 20. The overall score ranges from 12 to 60.
Norms vary from one group to the next. The following
table shows norms from a sample of 80 MBA students in
two countries (Australia and Singapore). For example,
the top 10th percentile for sensing is 17, indicating that
10 percent of people score 17 or above and 90 percent

score below 17 on this dimension. Keep in mind that these
scores represent self-perceptions. Evaluations from others
(such as through 360-degree feedback) may provide a more
accurate estimate of your active listening on one or more
dimensions, particularly the responding dimension, which
is visible to others.
Rarely/never 5 5 Rarely/never 5 1
Seldom 5 4 Seldom 5 2
Sometimes 5 3 Sometimes 5 3
Often 5 2 Often 5 4
Almost always 5 1 Almost always 5 5
4, 7, 11: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12:
Sensing 1 1 1 5
(1) (4) (7) (10)
Evaluating 1 1 1 5
(2) (5) (8) (11)
Responding 1 1 1 5
(3) (6) (9) (12)
Active listening Add up all dimension
total scores 5
ACTIVE LISTENING YOUR
Average Score 14.6 14.4 16.6 45.6

PERCENTILE SENSING SCORE EVALUATING SCORE
RESPONDING SCORE TOTAL SCORE
Active Listening Norms
PM f-500
9_pagefiles
Appendix B B-7
the most widely used influence strategies toward others
in any position (e.g., coworkers, bosses, subordinates).
• Silent Authority: The silent application of authority oc-
curs when someone complies with a request because her
or she is aware of the requester’s legitimate or expert
power. This influence tactic is very subtle, such as mak-
ing the target person aware of the status or expertise of
the person making the request.

• Exchange: Exchange involves the promise of benefits or
resources in exchange for the target person’s compliance
with your request. This tactic also includes reminding the
target of past benefits or favors, with the expectation that
the target will now make up for that debt. Negotiation is
also part of the exchange strategy.
• Assertiveness: Assertiveness involves actively applying
legitimate and coercive power to influence others. This
tactic includes demanding that the other person comply
with your wishes, showing frustration or impatience with
the other person, and using threats of sanctions to force
compliance.
• Information Control: Information control involves
explicitly manipulating others’ access to information for
the purpose of changing their attitudes and/or behavior.
It includes screening out information that might oppose
your preference and embellishing or highlighting infor-
mation that supports your position. According to one
survey, more than half of employees believe their cowork-
ers engage in this tactic.
• Coalition Formation: Coalition formation occurs when
a group of people with common interests band together
to influence others. It also exists as a perception, such as
when you convince someone else that several people are
on your side and support your position.
• Upward Appeal: Upward appeal occurs when you rely
on support from people higher up the organizational
hierarchy. This support may be real (senior management
shows support) or logically argued (you explain how your
position is consistent with company policy).

• Ingratiation: Ingratiation is a special case of impression
management in which you attempt to increase the percep-
tion of liking or similarity to another person in the hope
that he or she will become more supportive of your ideas.
Flattering the coworker, becoming friendlier with the co-
worker, helping the coworker (with expectation of reciproc-
ity), showing support for the coworker’s ideas, and asking
for the coworker’s advice are all examples of ingratiation.
Scores on the eight Coworker Influence Scale dimensions
range from 3 to 15. Higher scores indicate that the person
has a higher preference for and use of that particular tactic.
Norms vary from one group to the next. The following table
shows norms from a sample of 70 MBA students in two
countries (Australia and Singapore). For example, the top
10th percentile for assertiveness is 9, indicating that 10 per-
cent of people score 9 or above and 90 percent score below 9
on this dimension. Keep in mind that these scores represent
self-perceptions. Evaluations from others (such as through
360-degree feedback) may provide a more accurate estimate
of your preferred influence tactics.
Persuasion 1 1 5
(1) (9) (17)
Silent Authority 1 1 5
(2) (10) (18)
Exchange 1 1 5
(3) (11) (19)
Assertiveness 1 1 5
(4) (12) (20)
Information

Control 1 1 5
(5) (13) (21)
Coalition
Formation 1 1 5
(6) (14) (22)
Upward Appeal 1 1 5
(7) (15) (23)
Ingratiation 1 1 5
(8) (16) (24)
TEAM ROLES YOUR
Average Score 12.6 10.0 7.3 5.4
PERCENTILE PERSUASION SILENT AUTHORITY
EXCHANGE ASSERTIVENESS
Coworker Influence Scale Norms
(continued)
PM f-500

9_pagefiles
B-8 Appendix B
CONFLICT HANDLING SCALE
Scoring Instructions: To estimate your preferred conflict han-
dling styles, use the first table below to score the response you
marked for each statement. Then, in the scoring key below,
write that score on the line corresponding to the statement
number (statement numbers are in parentheses) and add up
each subscale. For example, if you checked “Seldom” for
statement #1 (“I went along with the others . . .”), you would
write a “2” on the line with “(1)” underneath it.
Interpreting Your Score: This instrument measures your prefer-
ence for and use of the five conflict handling dimensions:
• Yielding: Yielding involves giving in completely to the
other side’s wishes, or at least cooperating with little or
no attention to your own interests. This style involves
making unilateral concessions, unconditional promises,
and offering help with no expectation of reciprocal help.
• Compromising: Compromising involves looking for a
position in which your losses are offset by equally valued
gains. It involves matching the other party’s concessions,
making conditional promises or threats, and actively
searching for a middle ground between the interests of
the two parties.
• Avoiding: Avoiding tries to smooth over or avoid conflict
situations altogether. It represents a low concern for both

self and the other party. In other words, avoiders try to
suppress thinking about the conflict.
• Forcing: Forcing tries to win the conflict at the other’s
expense. It includes “hard” influence tactics, particularly
assertiveness, to get one’s own way.
• Problem Solving: Problem solving tries to find a mutu-
ally beneficial solution for both parties. Information
sharing is an important feature of this style because both
parties need to identify common ground and potential
solutions that satisfy both (or all) of them.
Scores on the five Conflict Handling Scale dimensions
range from 4 to 20. Higher scores indicate that the person
has a higher preference for and use of that particular conflict
handling style. Norms vary from one group to the next. The
following table shows norms from a sample of 70 MBA stu-
dents in two countries (Australia and Singapore). For exam-
ple, the top 10th percentile for yielding is 14, indicating that
10 percent of people score 14 or above and 90 percent score
below 14 on this dimension. Keep in mind that these scores
represent self-perceptions. Evaluations from others (such as
CHAPTER 11 SCORING KEY FOR THE
Average Score 6.8 7.4 8.1 8.9
PERCENTILE INFORMATION CONTROL COALITION
FORMATION UPWARD APPEAL INGRATIATION

Rarely/never 5 1
Seldom 5 2
Sometimes 5 3
Often 5 4
Almost always 5 5
FOR ALL STATEMENT ITEMS
I i Y S Thi i f
Yielding 1 1 1 5
(1) (7) (16) (20)
Compromising 1 1 1 5
(2) (10) (11) (17)
Forcing 1 1 1 5
(5) (8) (12) (15)
Problem solving 1 1 1 5
(3) (9) (13) (18)
Avoiding 1 1 1 5
(4) (6) (14) (19)
CONFLICT HANDLING YOUR
Average Score 11.0 13.8 10.2 13.5 15.9
Median (50th percentile) 11 14 10 13 16

PROBLEM
PERCENTILE YIELDING COMPROMISING AVOIDING
FORCING SOLVING
Conflict Handling Scale Norms
PM f-500
9_pagefiles
Appendix B B-9
through 360-degree feedback) may provide a more accurate
estimate of your preferred conflict handling style.
ROMANCE OF LEADERSHIP SCALE
Scoring Instructions: Use the table below to score the response
you marked for each statement. Then, add up the scores to
calculate your Romance of Leadership score. For example, if
you marked “Disagree” for statement #1 (“Even in an eco-
nomic . . .”), you would write a “2” on the line with “(1)”
underneath it.
Interpreting Your Score: Romance of leadership is a phenome-
non in which followers (and possibly other stakeholders)
want to believe that leaders make a difference in the organiza-
tion’s success. People with a high romance of leadership score
attribute the causes of organizational events much more to its
leaders and much less to the economy, competition, and

other factors beyond the leader’s short-term control. This
scale ranges from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating that
the person has a higher romance of leadership. The following
norms are derived from a large sample of European employ-
ees with an average age in their mid-30s and work experience
averaging about 15 years. However, these norms should be
viewed with caution, because the romance of leadership scale
is a recent development and norms for any instrument can
vary from one group to the next.
CHAPTER 13: SCORING KEY FOR
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
PREFERENCE SCALE
each response you marked. Insert the number for each state-
ment on the appropriate line in the scoring key. For example,
if you checked “Not at all” for item #1 (“A person’s career
ladder . . .”), you would write a “0” on the line with “(1)”
underneath it. After assigning numbers for all 15 statements,
add up the scores to estimate your degree of preference for a
tall hierarchy, formalization, and centralization. Then calcu-
late the overall score by summing all scales.
Interpreting Your Score: The three organizational structure di-
mensions and the overall score are defined below, along with
the range of scores for high, medium, and low levels of each
dimension based on a sample of MBA students.
Strongly disagree 5 5 Strongly disagree 5 1
Disagree 5 4 Disagree 5 2
Neutral 5 3 Neutral 5 3
Agree 5 2 Agree 5 4

Strongly agree 5 1 Strongly agree 5 5
3, 5, 7, 9: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10:
Not at all 5 3 Not at all 5 0
A little 5 2 A little 5 1
Somewhat 5 1 Somewhat 5 2
Very much 5 0 Very much 5 3
2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13:
Tall Hierarchy 1 1 1 1 5
(H) (1) (4) (10) (12) (15) (H)
Formalization 1 1 1 1 5
(F) (2) (6) (8) (11) (13) (F)
Centralization 1 1 1 1 5
(C) (3) (5) (7) (9) (14) (C)
Total score Add up all dimension scores
(Mechanistic) (H 1 F 1 C) 5 Total
CONFLICT
HANDLING YOUR

Total score: 1 1 1 1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 1 1 1 1
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
5
38–50 Above average romance of leadership
27–37 Average romance of leadership
10–26 Below average romance of leadership
ROMANCE OF
LEADERSHIP SCORE INTERPRETATION
Romance of Leadership Norms
Organizational Structure Preference Subscale
Definitions and Norms
PREFERENCE SUBSCALE DEFINITION INTERPRETATION
Tall hierarchy: People with high scores
on this dimension prefer to work in or-
ganizations with several levels of hierar-
chy and a narrow span of control (few
employees per supervisor).
High: 11 to 15
Medium: 6 to 10

Low: Below 6
(continued)
PM f-500
9_pagefiles
B-10 Appendix B
Interpreting Your Score: These corporate cultures may be
found in many organizations, but they represent only four
of many possible organizational cultures. Also, keep in
mind that none of these cultures is inherently good or bad.
Each is effective in different situations. The four corporate
cultures are defined in the table at the top of the right col-
umn, along with the range of scores for high, medium, and
low levels of each dimension based on a sample of MBA
students.
PREFERENCE SUBSCALE DEFINITION INTERPRETATION
Formalization: People with high scores
on this dimension prefer to work in
organizations where jobs are clearly
defined with limited discretion.
High: 12 to 15

Medium: 9 to 11
Low: Below 9
Centralization: People with high scores
on this dimension prefer to work in
organizations where decision making
occurs mainly among top management
rather than spread out to lower-level
staff.
High: 10 to 15
Medium: 7 to 9
Low: Below 7
Total Score (Mechanistic): People with
high scores on this dimension prefer
to work in mechanistic organizations,
whereas those with low scores prefer
to work in organic organizational struc-
tures. Mechanistic structures are char-
acterized by a narrow span of control
and high degree of formalization and
centralization. Organic structures have
a wide span of control, little formaliza-
tion, and decentralized decision making.
High: 30 to 45
Medium: 22 to 29
Low: Below 22
CHAPTER 14: SCORING KEY

FOR THE CORPORATE CULTURE
PREFERENCE SCALE
Scoring Instructions: On each line below, write in a “1” if you
circled the statement and a “0” if you did not. Then add up
the scores for each subscale.
TOLERANCE OF CHANGE SCALE
ately disagree” for statement #1 (“I generally prefer the unex-
pected . . .”), you would write a “2” beside that statement.
After assigning numbers for all 10
statements, add up your scores to es-
timate your tolerance for change.
Control Culture 1 1 1 1 1 5
(2a) (5a) (6b) (8b) (11b) (12a)
Performance Culture 1 1 1 1 1 5
(1b) (3b) (5b) (6a) (7a) (9b)
Relationship Culture 1 1 1 1 1 5
(1a) (3a) (4b) (8a) (10b) (12b)
Responsive Culture 1 1 1 1 1 5
(2b) (4a) (7b) (9a) (10a) (11a)
Corporate Culture Preference Subscale

Definitions and Norms
CORPORATE CULTURE DIMENSION
AND DEFINITION
SCORE
INTERPRETATION
Control Culture: This culture values the
role of senior executives to lead the or-
ganization. Its goal is to keep everyone
aligned and under control.
High: 3 to 6
Medium: 1 to 2
Low: 0
Performance Culture: This culture val-
ues individual and organizational perfor-
mance and strives for effectiveness and
efficiency.
High: 5 to 6
Medium: 3 to 4
Low: 0 to 2
Relationship Culture: This culture val-
ues nurturing and well-being. It consid-
ers open communication, fairness,
teamwork, and sharing a vital part of
organizational life.

High: 6
Medium: 4 to 5
Low: 0 to 3
Responsive Culture: This culture values
its ability to keep in tune with the exter-
nal environment, including being com-
petitive and realizing new opportunities.
High: 6
Medium: 4 to 5
Low: 0 to 3
Neutral 5 4 Neutral 5 4
1, 3, 7, 8, 10: 2, 4, 5, 6, 9:
PM f-500
9_pagefiles

Appendix B B-11
Interpreting Your Score: This instrument is formally known as
the “tolerance of ambiguity” scale. The original scale, devel-
oped 50 years ago, has since been revised and adapted. The
instrument presented here is an adaptation of these revised
instruments. People with a high tolerance for ambiguity are
comfortable with uncertainty and new situations. These are
characteristics of the hyperfast changes occurring in many or-
ganizations today. This instrument ranges from 10 to 70,
with higher scores indicating a higher tolerance for change
(i.e., higher tolerance for ambiguity). The table at the right
indicates the range of scores for high, medium, and low toler-
ance for change. These norms are estimates from recent stud-
ies using some or all of these items.
50–70 You seem to have a high tolerance for
change.
30–49 You seem to have a moderate level of
tolerance for change.
10–29 You seem to have a low degree of tol-
erance for change. Instead, you prefer
stable work environments.
TOLERANCE FOR
CHANGE SCORE INTERPRETATION
PM f-500
9_pagefiles

Running head: INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
3
My Individual Results and Applications
BUSI 340 – ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR I
Professor Terrence Allen Conner
Student Name
Liberty University
May 6th, 2011
Abstract
I am currently employed as a customer service representative at
a local bank. My daily tasks consist of processing transactions
for customers, assisting customers via telephone with general
bank questions, and providing them with updates of bank
products that can meet their individual needs. Attention to
detail is a valued trait for my position as I am expected to be
completely accurate in all my transactions. My organization
consists of eight tellers, two associate branch managers, and one
branch manager.
Identifying your self-monitor personality
1. The purpose is to help estimate my level of self-monitoring
personality.
2. 33 (A) + 35 (B) = 68
3. All of my scores were in the “High” category. I am sensitive
to the expressive behavior of others and am aware of the

feelings and perceptions of others. I am also highly able to
modify my behavior to fit the situation or individual when
needed.
4. By knowing my results of this test, I can be better prepared
to adapt to my environment and each different situation that I
may experience in the future. I am currently employed at a
financial institution and I deal with many different types of
people every day. I have to be prepared to change my
presentation and personality depending on the person or people
that I am dealing with. Some customers just want the straight
facts with no other types of conversation, while some customers
want to know every bit of information about me and the bank.
By being able to adjust my personality and behavior, I can
relate more to my customers and create an excellent relationship
which benefits me and my organization that I work for. It also
benefits the new customers because they feel more comfortable
with who they are trusting their money with and will feel secure
in their decision to bank with us.
I believe that having the ability to modify one’s behavior is a
necessity in all aspects of life, not primarily just in business.
According to the results of this assessment, I am able to follow
the cues given from other people of who I am interacting with
in order to meet the requirements or mood of the individual
situations (McShane & Von Glinow, 2008, p. 545). Having this
useful ability to read people is a great way to develop real
relationships with many different types of people. It will help
facilitate me to be able to further my career and to overcome
everyday circumstances successfully.
BUSI 340
Individual Learning Project Instructions
The Individual Learning Project is an opportunity for you to
evaluate yourself and your role within your organization by

completing 10 self-assessment activities. You will begin the
paper by completing a modified Abstract that details a past,
present, or future job you will use as a basis for analyzing the
self-assessment results. You will then write a full-page analysis
of each assessment and combine all 10 together according to the
provided format for submission at the end of the course. You
will find the Appendix B (Scoring Keys for Self-Assessment
Activities) PDF in Module/Week 8 and in the Individual
Learning Project Instructions folder.
These are the activities you must complete. They are found at
the end of the indicated chapter.
CHAPTER
SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY
2
Are You Introverted or Extraverted?
5
Need Strength Questionnaire
8
What Team Roles Do You Prefer?
9
Active Listening Skills Inventory
10
How Do You Influence Coworkers and Other Peers?
11
Dutch Test for Conflict Handling
12
Do Leaders Make a Difference?
13
What Organizational Structure Do You Prefer?
14
Which Corporate Culture Do You Prefer?
15
Are You Tolerant of Change?
After completing an assessment, analyze it by using the scoring
key located in Appendix B of your textbook and write an

analysis with the following components:
Title of the self-assessment (centered at the top of the page)
1. Purpose of assessment
2. Your actual score
3. The interpretation of your score, using the key
4. How you can use the results of this self-assessment to
improve your effectiveness and/or efficiency in an organization
Write each analysis on 1 page, compiling 10 pages
Page and Paper Format:
· Components 1–3 above must not exceed ¼ of the space on the
page.
· Component 4 above must occupy the remaining ¾ of the space
on the page.
· All pages must be double-spaced with 1” margins (right, left,
top, bottom) and left-justified.
· Font must be Times New Roman and 12-pt size.
· Titles for each component must be centered according to
current APA format.
· The first line of paragraphs must be indented 5 spaces.
· For the submitted collection of analyses, attach a standard
cover page like the sample document accompanying these
instructions. Your submissions must also include a reference
page if you have any quoted sources within the project.
· Submit the collection as a Microsoft Word document.
· Page headers must include short title and pagination (use
Microsoft Word header function). Cover page is not numbered.

All other pages are numbered using the standard number format
(1, 2, etc.).
Grading
Consult the accompanying rubric for how your instructor will
grade this assignment. Also, any form of plagiarism, including
cutting and pasting, will result in zero points for the entire
assignment. All quoted materials must be properly cited in
current APA format.
Page 2 of 2

Running head INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATIONS INDIVIDUAL .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATIONS INDIVIDUAL .docx

Similar to Running head INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATIONS INDIVIDUAL .docx (20)

More from cowinhelen

More from cowinhelen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATIONS INDIVIDUAL .docx