Dimension Interpretations — Preview
Condensed previews. Full Advanced Report includes extended narrative and behavioural evidence mapping.
Interpersonal Aggression Risk
60/100 — Developing
A Developing score in this dimension reflects a transition phase. The foundation is there; the consistency and depth are not yet fully established. This is a workable gap and the most common developmental profile at this career stage. Specific, structured investment — not broad professional development — is the most efficient path.
- Build one specific new habit in this dimension over the next 90 days. Small, consistent, and deliberate — not an episodic programme.
- Seek direct feedback from a trusted colleague on what this capability looks like from the outside. Their observation is more accurate than your self-assessment.
Property Deviance Risk
55/100 — Developing
This dimension is present and functional but has not yet reached the level of consistent, reliable strength. There are contexts — typically those with higher stakes, greater ambiguity, or extended duration — where the capability is less reliably available. Targeted development would close this gap meaningfully within 6–12 months.
- Build one specific new habit in this dimension over the next 90 days. Small, consistent, and deliberate — not an episodic programme.
- Seek direct feedback from a trusted colleague on what this capability looks like from the outside. Their observation is more accurate than your self-assessment.
Production Deviance Risk
85/100 — Strength
This is a well-established strength in the candidate's profile. Self-reported responses are consistent across all sub-items, and the score reflects both breadth and depth of capability in this dimension. At this level, the developmental priority is not building the capability but leveraging it deliberately — identifying where this strength creates the most organisational value and directing it there.
- Identify the two or three contexts in your current role where this strength has the highest leverage and invest disproportionately there.
- Document what you do in this dimension — the practices, disciplines, and approaches — so that it can be transferred to others you develop.
Integrity Compromise Risk
90/100 — Strength
This is a well-established strength in the candidate's profile. Self-reported responses are consistent across all sub-items, and the score reflects both breadth and depth of capability in this dimension. At this level, the developmental priority is not building the capability but leveraging it deliberately — identifying where this strength creates the most organisational value and directing it there.
- Identify the two or three contexts in your current role where this strength has the highest leverage and invest disproportionately there.
- Document what you do in this dimension — the practices, disciplines, and approaches — so that it can be transferred to others you develop.
Political Behaviour Risk
69/100 — Developing
This dimension is present and functional but has not yet reached the level of consistent, reliable strength. There are contexts — typically those with higher stakes, greater ambiguity, or extended duration — where the capability is less reliably available. Targeted development would close this gap meaningfully within 6–12 months.
- Build one specific new habit in this dimension over the next 90 days. Small, consistent, and deliberate — not an episodic programme.
- Seek direct feedback from a trusted colleague on what this capability looks like from the outside. Their observation is more accurate than your self-assessment.
Withdrawal Risk
50/100 — Developing
A Developing score in this dimension reflects a transition phase. The foundation is there; the consistency and depth are not yet fully established. This is a workable gap and the most common developmental profile at this career stage. Specific, structured investment — not broad professional development — is the most efficient path.
- Build one specific new habit in this dimension over the next 90 days. Small, consistent, and deliberate — not an episodic programme.
- Seek direct feedback from a trusted colleague on what this capability looks like from the outside. Their observation is more accurate than your self-assessment.
Misuse of Information Risk
55/100 — Developing
This dimension is present and functional but has not yet reached the level of consistent, reliable strength. There are contexts — typically those with higher stakes, greater ambiguity, or extended duration — where the capability is less reliably available. Targeted development would close this gap meaningfully within 6–12 months.
- Build one specific new habit in this dimension over the next 90 days. Small, consistent, and deliberate — not an episodic programme.
- Seek direct feedback from a trusted colleague on what this capability looks like from the outside. Their observation is more accurate than your self-assessment.
Substance and Dependence Risk
84/100 — Strength
This is a well-established strength in the candidate's profile. Self-reported responses are consistent across all sub-items, and the score reflects both breadth and depth of capability in this dimension. At this level, the developmental priority is not building the capability but leveraging it deliberately — identifying where this strength creates the most organisational value and directing it there.
- Identify the two or three contexts in your current role where this strength has the highest leverage and invest disproportionately there.
- Document what you do in this dimension — the practices, disciplines, and approaches — so that it can be transferred to others you develop.