What are the best practices for integrating personality assessments into Accountability Chart role definition and refinement?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Integrating personality assessments into Accountability Chart role definition is about matching natural wiring with 'Right Person, Right Seat' criteria. Best practices begin with understanding that assessments like Kolbe A, DISC, StrengthsFinder, and Culture Index are tools for insight, not rigid determinants. First, clearly define the GWC (Get It, Want It, Capacity To Do It) for each seat before overlaying personality data. Once the core responsibilities and desired outcomes are established, then bring in the assessment results.

For role definition, use Kolbe A to ensure the conative demands of the seat align with the individual's natural way of taking action. A 'Finance' seat, for example, might demand a high 'Fact Finder', while a 'Sales' seat benefits from a 'Quick Start'. DISC can inform the communication style and interaction needs of the role. A 'Marketing' role might thrive with a 'High I' for creative outreach, whereas a 'Compliance' role might require a 'High C'. StrengthsFinder helps identify inherent talents that can be leveraged, ensuring a 'Director of Strategic Planning' seat is filled by someone with 'Strategic' or 'Futuristic' themes. Culture Index ensures the individual's inherent pace and autonomy align with the cultural demands of the seat and the organization.

Crucially, create leader-to-leader use guides that translate these insights into actionable strategies for managers. These guides should help leaders understand how to best support, communicate with, and develop individuals in their specific seats, based on their personality profiles. This integrated approach leads to more precise role definitions, higher engagement, and better performance across the Accountability Chart.