Interpretive Guide - Essay Example

Introduction

The big idea I discovered during our discussion is, people same colour characteristics, especially red, might fail to agree with each other due to their competitive nature. This is because the individuals from this colour are often assertive, authoritative, and directing, as their goals often align with accomplishing tasks, and are concerned with the organisation of individuals, resources, money and time, as long as these aspects with assisting the accomplishment of the set tasks (Interpretive Guide, n.d.).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Insights

The insights I gathered from the discussion is, people of different colours work better together as opposed to people who share the same characteristics. This is because, the people who share the same colour are competing for the same interests meaning, instead of conflict resolution, there will be rivalry or competing interests even when it is not apparent (Scudder et al., 2011). The second insight is, how each individual behaves is motivated often by a strong desire to achieve the best of themselves. Each person dedicates their time to achieve better results compared to the current or the previous level, or situation. The third insight is, though the motivation changes amid conflicts when the strengths are overdone, they are often perceived as weaknesses. Heated debates result in improved motivation as each individual want to achieve particular results/ or a win; however, one ought to be careful to avoid overdoing a particular aspect, as it may be deemed as the only option thus being deemed a weakness or a point of attack.

Same Group Characteristics

Using an example for the insight number one, if Mary and Susan are red, their characteristics include assertiveness, directing individuals and resources to achieve goals, making them leaders, authoritative, and individuals who challenge others (Scudder et al., 2011). While in the same group, they will try to outdo each other, use persuasion to woe others on their side, resulting in unhealthy competition. However, if I (a blue) and Mary were in the same group, it is likely to be conflict-less and successful since, while she is working hard to accomplish the task and lead, I, on the other hand, will be assistive, meaning, I will make it easier for her to achieve the set goal fostering a good relationship (Scudder et al., 2011). However, if she becomes so authoritative or too ambitious, I might be drained, resulting in a fallout.

Conclusion

Thus, on the second insight, Susan will, for example, dedicate all her time trying to refine her leadership skill set to ensure that each group she leads does what she directs it to do because they are motivated by her leadership (Interpretive Guide, n.d.). I will also improve my skills to ensure that I am an essential member of the group she leads. In the third insight, as Mary and Susan develop the competing interest, each will be devising a way of either outdoing the other or using persuasion to a fallout with particular members or the whole group. While each has the best interest for each group, their overdone strengths might be termed as their weaknesses because, at some point, they might become too much.

References

Interpretive Guide. (n.d.). Strength Deployment Inventory ®: an interpretive guide. https://www.brighterstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SDI_Interpretive_Report.pdf

Scudder, T., Patterson, M., & Mitchell, K. (2011). Have a nice conflict: How to find success and satisfaction in the most unlikely places. John Wiley & Sons.