Clevry Personality Scales Library

Learn more about Clevry's personality scales, including their definitions and exactly what they measure to help you choose those best suited to your campaign.

Understanding the Detailed Descriptions

The scale definitions at the high and low end of each scale are presented below. These definitions are drawn from the language of the items attached to each scale and appear in profile charts and candidate reports. Information for each scale in the library is presented in this format:

Scale Name

We have also provided some additional notes underneath each table to describe the meaning of each scale in greater detail. These notes do not appear in profiles or reports but do guide the narrative used in computer-generated reports. This additional information is based on our understanding of the scales from their original development in combination with many years of discussing their meaning with clients and respondents. You can draw on these notes to increase the depth of your understanding of each scale and as a basis for feedback discussions.

To understand a scale in more depth, you can review the items themselves in the Technical Information section of this manual. We encourage you to complete any questionnaires using the scales that you include in your bespoke personality questionnaires to better understand how the scale can relate to personality.

Interpersonal Style Scales

Adaptable

Additional notes: The Adaptable scale provides insights relating to the degree of flexibility that the individual demonstrates when interacting with others. The scale does not measure the ability of the person to change or adapt their approach to suit others. Instead, it focuses on the tendency of the individual to demonstrate a fluid interpersonal style or a more consistent style. The scale does not provide information about the effectiveness of the individual’s interpersonal behaviours. The Adaptable scale specifically focuses on the degree to which the individual’s behaviours around other people change across different situations.

Approachable

Additional notes: The Approachable scale is probably the closest to the surface in personality terms. The scale measures the interpersonal warmth of the individual and these behaviours are usually fairly obvious as soon as you interact with the person. It is important to stress that the behaviours associated with the low end of the scale are not negative in nature (in common with all scales).

Assertive

Additional notes: Assertive is a good example of a scale name that is open to misinterpretation by someone who lacks familiarity or training in psychometrics and  Clevry questionnaires specifically. The Assertive scale tells us something about the amount of impact or presence that the individual demonstrates in groups and other interpersonal situations. High scores on this scale are not necessarily associated with very forceful or aggressive behaviours; the scale helps us understand the degree to which an individual tends to assert their existence in social situations.

Direct

Additional notes: The Direct scale provides a picture of how blunt or plain-spoken the individual tends to be. Examples of behaviours associated with the high end of this scale are expressing views with little or no regard for their impact on the feelings of the audience. The low end of the scale is characterised by a more diplomatic approach, with views being couched in language carefully chosen to avoid upset or perhaps not being communicated at all. Linking results from the Direct scale with those from the Influential scale can help paint an interesting picture of the individual’s likely approach to differences of opinion with others.

Gregarious

Additional notes: The Gregarious scale measures how affiliative the individual is at work. The scale was developed to provide insights into the degree to which the individual prefers working alone or with others. The scale is not a measure of how sociable or outgoing the individual is but high scores on the scale are likely to overlap with other extroverted behaviours such as being outgoing and friendly.

Influential

Additional notes: The Influential scale is not a measure of ability; it does not tell us how successful the influence or persuasion skills of individuals tend to be. The scale assesses the degree to which the individual invests energy in trying to win other people around to their way of thinking. Individuals at the high end of this scale will tend to be very persistent in trying to change the views of others that are different from their own.

Independent

Additional notes: The Independent scale describes the individual’s degree of group orientation. Individuals at the low end of the scale will prefer to be seen as a typical group member who demonstrates behaviours congruent with the norms of the group. The high end of the scale represents a more maverick style. Scores at the high end are associated with behaviours around ‘going your own way’ and doing things the way you want rather than complying with the group.

Listening

Additional notes: The Listening scale does not assess the effectiveness of the individual’s listening abilities; the scale differentiates between people who like to talk and those who prefer to listen. Items attached to this scale explore behaviours such as interrupting,  forgetting what the other person has said, and enjoying hearing the opinions of others.

Poised

Additional notes: Poised measures social confidence. Items attached to this scale explore behaviours such as feelings in new social encounters, degree of comfort with new people and expressed confidence. Individuals with high scores on this scale tend to appear polished and composed in even demanding social encounters. The scale measures a different form of confidence from the Self-esteem scale (in the emotional style element of personality). The Poised scale is a component of a broader extroversion personality trait (see construct validity
data for more information).

Thinking Style Scales

Creative

Additional notes: It is important to distinguish the Creative scale from a measure of creative ability. The scale measures style relating to the type of approaches and solutions that the individual prefers to adopt in response to problems and challenges. People at the high end of the scale will generally look for a new or different way of doing things; they will be temperamentally disposed to avoid simply doing things the way they have been done before. The lower end of the scale represents the ‘if it’s not broke don’t fix it’ approach and will feel more comfortable applying trusted approaches. The scale does not imply a value judgement about which approach is best; the scale simply provides insights into the likely task style of the individual regarding responses to challenges at work.

Detail-Focused

Additional notes: The Detail focused scale does not measure error-checking skills or the ability to attend to detail. The scale assesses the task style of the individual about where they prefer to focus their attention. The scale has a relationship with the Jungian Sensing Type; individuals at the high end of the scale prefer to focus on the concrete and the detail. Their attention to detail is driven by a feeling of enjoyment and comfort with focusing on the finer points. The low end of the scale is associated with a style that prefers to focus attention on broader, more top-level aspects of tasks. Individuals at the low end of the scale may be capable of attending to detail and spotting errors, but it will require effort and maximum performance. People at the high end of the scale prefer to focus energy and attention on detail.

Decisive

Additional notes: The Decisive scale provides insights into the individual’s decision-making style. The scale has a relationship with the Jungian Judging Type;  individuals at the high end of the scale prefer to settle things, achieve closure and make a  decision quickly rather than prolong the decision-making process. Individuals at the low end will prefer to delay deciding until all the options have been considered. Their decision-making style may be more reflective and cautious. The scale does not assess the effectiveness of the individual’s decision-making outcomes; the scale measures the style and pace of how decisions are reached.

Rational

Additional notes: The Rational scale helps us to understand the type of information the individual prefers to focus their attention towards when making decisions and solving problems. The scale has a relationship with the Jungian Thinking Type; individuals at the high end of the scale will base their approach to tasks on data, logic and concrete information, while people at the low end will instead rely on gut feel and prior experience.  While individuals at any point on the scale may make an identical decision, their rationale for the decision will reflect their preferred approach.

Rigorous

Additional notes: The Rigorous scale provides a very focused measurement of conscientiousness. High scores on this scale are associated with behaviours such as applying high standards, taking time and care over work and striving for a perfect outcome.

Risky

Additional notes: The Risky scale measures style relating to the type of approaches and solutions that the individual prefers to adopt in response to problems and challenges. People at the high end of the scale favour adopting a risky solution or approach to tasks and problems. The low end of the scale is associated with a more risk-averse style, where the individual will favour more cautious approaches.

Strategic

Additional notes: The Strategic scale offers insight into the level at which individuals prefer to approach responsibilities and tasks. The low end of the scale is associated with a concrete, pragmatic style. Individuals with a low score on this scale will focus their attention and energies on the immediate, practical issues rather than spend time on the more theoretical aspects. High-end scores are associated with a preference for theory, strategy and complexity. The original label for this scale was ‘global’, which expressed the style of overview and theorising that is being measured at the high end.

Structured

Additional notes: The Structured scale explores the individual’s preferences around planning and organisation. The tendencies being measured by the scale chime with those that differentiate people between Myers Brigg’s Judging-Perceiving dichotomy.  Individuals at the high end of the scale will prefer to have a plan in place while those at the low end prefer a more open-ended, spontaneous approach to tasks and projects. While the scale is in the element of thinking style, it will have implications for culture-fit should the individual find themselves working in an environment that does not share their preference, for example, a highly-structured person working within a chaotic team. The scale Order in the culture-fit element provides information on the values aspect of structure.

Tenacious

Additional notes: A significant theme of the Tenacious scale is tolerance of routine or monotony. Scores at the high end of the scale describe an individual who will knuckle down and complete a task no matter how boring. The scale label, Tenacious, therefore reflects the style of persevering and finishing tasks even when they are monotonous or routine. A combination of the Tenacious, Rigorous and Detail focused scales provides us with an insight into the individual’s broader trait of conscientiousness.

Emotional Style

Calm

Additional notes: The Calm scale measures very similar aspects of emotional style to measures of anxiety, emotional stability and neuroticism. The low end of the scale is associated with an emotional style characterised by frequent worry and difficulty in letting go of thoughts and feelings outside of the workplace. The high end of the scale describes an emotional style that is more relaxed and settled, with infrequent worry. While Calm is an emotional style scale its effects will be seen in behavioural terms. The construct validity section of this manual will provide further insights into how the Calm scale relates to other, classic measures of emotional style.

Disclosure

Additional notes: The Disclosure scale explores the individual’s expressed or outward emotional style. Scores at the low end of the scale relate to a style characterised by a more guarded emotional style, where the individual demonstrates a more private style with feelings minimised in terms of their obviousness to others. Individuals with high disclosure scores will be characterised by a more open emotional style, with feelings on display and easily accessible to others.

Emotional Analysis

Additional notes: The Emotional analysis scale provides us with insights into how much time and energy the individual likes to devote to reflecting on their feelings and the emotional events they encounter. It is a very ‘internal’ scale in the sense that it explores internal processes rather than expressed emotions or behaviours. Unlike some models of emotional intelligence, the scale does not seek to assess the accuracy of the individual’s insights or their ability to understand their emotions.

Internal Control

Additional notes: The Internal control scale helps us to understand the feelings of control or powerlessness the individual tends to experience concerning events and outcomes. The scale is related to Rotter’s (1966) concept of ‘locus of control’ in the sense that it explores the degree to which the individual feels a sense of personal control over their life. The scale and its items place the concept into a more occupationally focused context but still include references to concepts like ‘fate’ and ‘luck’, which are related to the beliefs that determine the emotional style being measured.

Optimistic

Additional notes: The Optimistic scale does pretty much what it says on the tin. It explores the extent to which the individual’s emotional landscape is coloured by a more optimistic or pessimistic view of the future and past events. Middle scores on this scale suggest a more flexible emotional style concerning feelings about the likely success of outcomes.

Resilient

Additional notes: The Resilient scale explores the extent to which the individual is thick-skinned rather than emotionally sensitive. The scale focuses on resilience and sensitivity in response to criticism, rudeness or perceived slights from others.

Self-Esteem

Additional notes: The Self-esteem scale helps us develop an understanding of the individual’s internal confidence. The items attached to this scale explore thoughts and feelings that the individual experiences about their capabilities, strengths and weaknesses. The low end of the scale is characterised by frequent feelings of self-doubt and a lack of confidence in one’s abilities. The scale is different from the Poised scale in the sense that it explores inner confidence rather than expressed or social confidence.

Self-Sufficiency

Additional notes: The Self-Sufficiency scale explores the individual’s need for emotional support from others. Items in the scale explore feelings relating to the emotional resources the individual needs to draw support from in testing times. At the high end of the scale, the individual describes their source of emotional support as being internal, with support from others being minimised or even avoided. Interpretations of this scale can be enhanced in combination with results from the Independent and Disclosure scales.

Stress Management

Additional notes: The Stress management scale explores the individual’s typical emotional response to working under time pressure. Items in this scale focus specifically on task-related sources of stress such as deadlines, time pressure and work volume. Individuals at the low end of the scale describe themselves as needing calm working conditions and a need to feel unhurried and unpressured to produce their best work. High-end scores are associated with an emotional style that responds positively to stress at work, with feelings such as energy, focus and effectiveness.

Motivation

Caring

Additional notes: Like all Motivation scales, Caring explores values relating to rewards and challenges to establish how important to the individual as a source of job satisfaction and career motivation. The Caring scale provides insights into the degree to which the individual finds looking after other people motivating. Items in the scale cover themes such as helping people overcome challenges, taking an interest in the problems of others, and performing work that has an altruistic outcome or broader benefit for others. It is important to note that people with low scores on this scale are not being described as uncaring; they simply do not find looking after others at work a source of motivation.

Friendship

Additional notes: The Friendship scale measures the extent to which the individual values work as a source of friendship and social life. Scores at the high end of this scale indicate that a social life at work, with close, personal relationships, is an important source of motivation for the individual.

Money

Additional notes: The Money scale helps us establish how important salary and a high standard of living is to the individual as a source of motivation. Items relating to the high end of this scale include content with very strong assertions of the importance of being rich, earning money and enjoying material luxuries.

Originality

Additional notes: The Originality scale explores a different theme to the Creative scale in the thinking style element of the Clevry scales library, although the two constructs are likely to inform one another within the structure of an individual’s personality. The Originality scale helps us to understand how important self-expression and creativity are to the individual’s sense of motivation and satisfaction at work. Individuals at the high end are likely to enjoy being a source of innovation and will be motivated by having their ideas implemented.

Praise

Additional notes: The Praise scale assesses how important regular praise and recognition are to the individual. Scores at the high end of the scale indicate that regular praise is critical to the individual’s continued sense of value and motivation.

Self-Development

Additional notes: The Self-development scale measures the extent to which the individual is motivated by personal development activities at work. Scores at the low end of the scale indicate that the individual is more motivated by focusing on work and doing a good job than opportunities for further learning and development. Scores at the high end are associated with a strong motivational focus on self-development; the individual may make career choices based on opportunities to develop.

Status

Additional notes: The Status scale explores how motivated the individual is by symbols of status at work, such as job title, prestige and profile/visibility. Individuals at the low end of the scale are likely to regard such symbols as superficial.

Striving

Additional notes: The Striving scale explores two related themes that tell us something about what motivates the individual at work. The first theme is around how busy the individual needs to feel; the second explores the achievement or outcome focus of the individual’s motivational style. Scores at the high end, therefore, describe an individual whose motivation stems from pursuing a succession of achievements or goals and keeping busy. Individuals at the low end are happy to focus on the process of work and can experience spells of relative inactivity without their motivation being adversely affected.

Variety

Additional notes: The Variety scale assesses how motivated the individual is by dealing with a variety of tasks and challenges at work. People at the high end of the scale are likely to feel motivated by roles that involve lots of plates spinning at the same time.

Culture-Fit

Authority

Additional notes: The culture-fit scale explores the individual’s values and beliefs that underlie their preferences for the environment within which they work (be it the team, leadership style or organisational culture). The Authority scale explores the beliefs of the individual around leadership style, specifically the extent to which they believe that any leader should be open to feedback, criticism and the opinions of those they lead. Scores at the high end of this scale indicate beliefs around a more traditional model of leadership, in which authority and hierarchy are respected. Individuals with high scores on this scale are likely to prefer working within a culture with a clear leadership structure. High-scoring individuals are also likely to value the opportunity to lead others.

Change

Additional notes: The Change scale explores the individual’s values around organisational change. Individuals with scores at the high end of the scale will be very comfortable working in a culture that features frequent change; the individual is likely to feel motivated by newness and novelty and therefore may find it difficult to sustain themselves in a culture that favours stability, tradition and the familiar.

Competition

Additional notes: The Competition scale focuses on the individual’s value for working in a competitive environment. People scoring at the high end of this scale value rivalry, targets and competition at work and will feel motivated by comparing their performance to others and winning. The low end of the score indicates a great value for cooperation. Individuals with low scores are unlikely to feel motivated by competition.

Ethics

Additional notes: The Ethics scale explores the individual’s beliefs around the tension between commercial imperatives and ethical standards. People at the high end of the scale describe their ethical and moral position as being strong and fixed. Individuals with high scores on this scale are likely to feel uncomfortable working in a culture that favours business needs over ethical or professional considerations.

Humour

Additional notes: The Humour scale focuses on the individual’s cultural fit values for fun, frivolity and light-heartedness in the workplace. Individuals with low scores favour a more sober and serious working environment and are likely to take a dim view of frivolity in the workplace. High scorers are likely to feel most comfortable working in an environment that is not too earnest and will enjoy a laugh and a joke at work.

Intelligence

Additional notes: This scale is not a measure of intelligence or ability. Users who are familiar with the 16PF should not conflate the Intelligence scale with Cattell’s Reasoning factor. The Intelligence scale measures the individual’s values for working within a culture that includes intelligent, academically or professionally well-qualified people. Individuals at the low end of the scale will favour a more down-to-earth, practical working culture where experience and common sense are valued over academic achievement.

Loyalty

Additional notes: The Loyalty scale explores the individual’s beliefs about the employer-employee relationship and the extent to which they value making a long-term commitment to a single employer. Items relating to the high end of the scale include themes about identifying oneself closely with one’s employer. Individuals with scores at the low end of the scale will prefer to maintain a more distanced (and in their view realistic) relationship with their employer and are unlikely to experience conflicting feelings of loyalty if presented with a more attractive offer elsewhere.

Order

Additional notes: The Order scale provides insights relating to the individual’s value for structure in the workplace. High-end scores indicate a preference for an organisational culture featuring rules, processes and standard operating procedures. Individuals with low-end scores are likely to feel frustrated by working in a very ordered, structured or rule-bound culture.

Profit

Additional notes: The Profit scale explores the individual’s beliefs relating to the importance of business and commercial considerations. Individuals with scores at the low end of this scale are likely to feel uncomfortable working for an organisation that emphasises the bottom line and other commercial considerations over all else.

Response Style Scales