Growth Resources - Recent changes [en]

Indicators and Their Measurement

Flc — Fri, 01 May 2026 05:39:17 GMT

(Q-) Social performance

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:39, 1 May 2026
Line 455:		Line 455:
	{\|class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"		{\|class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
	! Code !! Indicator		! Code !! Indicator
	\|- Q-SAUT ££ Expression by respondents of the satisfaction of others in the organization.		\|-
			\| Q-SAUT \|\| Expression by respondents of the satisfaction of others in the organization.
	\|-		\|-
	\| Q-SELF \|\| Expression by respondents of their own satisfaction.		\| Q-SELF \|\| Expression by respondents of their own satisfaction.

Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:18:20 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 30 April 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.		Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

	This article explains how the ~~Acute~~ Intelligence Quotient, or ~~AIQ~~, is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.		This article explains how the Behavior Intelligence Quotient, or BIQ (Read Be IQ), is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.

	The ~~AIQ~~ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.		The BIQ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.

	=Construction of Performance Indicators=		=Construction of Performance Indicators=
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.		Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

	Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the ~~AIQ~~.		Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the BIQ.

	Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about ~~AIQ~~ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.		Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about BIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

	===Optimal Performance===		===Optimal Performance===
Line 78:		Line 78:
	=Deployment of the Measures=		=Deployment of the Measures=

	The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the ~~AIQ~~, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.		The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the BIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

	* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.		* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
Line 89:		Line 89:
	Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.		Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

	Decentralizing the management of ~~AIQs~~ to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.		Decentralizing the management of BIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

File:GRI Model dep variables.png

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:15:16 GMT

Flc uploaded a new version of File:GRI Model dep variables.png

New page

Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:14:49 GMT

Flc moved page Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) to Behavior Intelligence Quotient (BIQ)

New page

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.

The AIQ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the AIQ.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about AIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the AIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing the management of AIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

File:GRI Model dep variables.png

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:29:23 GMT

Flc uploaded a new version of File:GRI Model dep variables.png

New page

Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:23:02 GMT

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 30 April 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.		Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

	This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated ~~using measures of~~ adaptive ~~profiles and combining~~ strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.		This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated by combining adaptive profiles’ metrics with strategic and social performance indicators, along with other, more traditional economic indicators, at the organizational level.

			The AIQ mnemonic reflects the understanding that although measuring social behavior and the resulting adaptive profiles provide powerful, valuable, and acute information far beyond what intuition and private techniques can offer, their benefits are realized only through the people who use them. As explained below, the quotient is calculated at the organizational level. It augments the capacity of those responsible for the organization and its people to see what is otherwise subjective and blurry, and make better-informed decisions on the spot, resulting in increased engagement and alignment over time.

	=Construction of Performance Indicators=		=Construction of Performance Indicators=

Performance Models

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:21:55 GMT

Social Performance

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 30 April 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 68:		Line 68:
	<blockquote>'''By aggregating adaptive profiles, we can analyse a group's social performance.'''</blockquote>		<blockquote>'''By aggregating adaptive profiles, we can analyse a group's social performance.'''</blockquote>

	An organization and team’s success relies not only on each individual's participation but also on their ability to focus their collective efforts. Leaders and managers, as in sports with coaches and captains, play a vital role in building group cohesion, increasing team member involvement, and maintaining high levels of engagement. But how do these performances on the field actually occur, and what results do they generate? The adaptive profiles can explain that<ref> See in this article [[~~Organizational_Performance_Measurement~~#Social_Performance_Indicators\| here on how social performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.		An organization and team’s success relies not only on each individual's participation but also on their ability to focus their collective efforts. Leaders and managers, as in sports with coaches and captains, play a vital role in building group cohesion, increasing team member involvement, and maintaining high levels of engagement. But how do these performances on the field actually occur, and what results do they generate? The adaptive profiles can explain that<ref> See in this article [[Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)#Social_Performance_Indicators\| here on how social performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.

	In sports, the trust and cohesion built during training are crucial to success. The disengagement of one teammate can impact the rest of the team. During competition, coaches and captains give real-time calls and directions. Some team members may also assume leadership roles. The team’s success relies on social performance and support from leadership, the organization, and the broader community, including educators, families, sponsors, and advocates. In sports, this also includes supporters.		In sports, the trust and cohesion built during training are crucial to success. The disengagement of one teammate can impact the rest of the team. During competition, coaches and captains give real-time calls and directions. Some team members may also assume leadership roles. The team’s success relies on social performance and support from leadership, the organization, and the broader community, including educators, families, sponsors, and advocates. In sports, this also includes supporters.
Line 77:		Line 77:

	As with other characteristics of experience and skills, some social behaviors are expected in positions. The adaptive profiles enable the modeling of expected behaviors in jobs. They enable comparisons of how those behaviors occur over time for individuals in those jobs.		As with other characteristics of experience and skills, some social behaviors are expected in positions. The adaptive profiles enable the modeling of expected behaviors in jobs. They enable comparisons of how those behaviors occur over time for individuals in those jobs.
	Does performance occur at the group level as intended, with appropriate fit among people and with enough diversity? The answer comes by comparing the adaptive profiles of individuals, positions, teams, and organizations. Once a company's management has defined the behaviors expected in positions and teams, aggregating profiles and calculating strategic indicators based on them formalizes the intent and helps manage performance gaps over time<ref> See in this article, [[~~Organizational_Performance_Measurement~~#Strategic_Performance_Indicators\| here on how strategic performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.		Does performance occur at the group level as intended, with appropriate fit among people and with enough diversity? The answer comes by comparing the adaptive profiles of individuals, positions, teams, and organizations. Once a company's management has defined the behaviors expected in positions and teams, aggregating profiles and calculating strategic indicators based on them formalizes the intent and helps manage performance gaps over time<ref> See in this article, [[Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ)#Strategic_Performance_Indicators\| here on how strategic performance indicators are calculated based on the adaptive profiles]].</ref>.

	Discussing these behaviors at the team and organizational levels increases the likelihood of reaching consensus. If social behaviors must be expressed differently across jobs and teams at varying levels of intensity and frequency, recruitment and management must ensure this.		Discussing these behaviors at the team and organizational levels increases the likelihood of reaching consensus. If social behaviors must be expressed differently across jobs and teams at varying levels of intensity and frequency, recruitment and management must ensure this.

Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ)

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:20:35 GMT

Flc moved page Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ) to Acute Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) without leaving a redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 30 April 2026
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.		Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

	This article explains how the ~~Behavioral~~ Intelligence Quotient, or ~~B-IQ~~, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.		This article explains how the Acute Intelligence Quotient, or AIQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

	=Construction of Performance Indicators=		=Construction of Performance Indicators=
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.		Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

	Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined ~~to form~~ the ~~Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ~~.		Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined into the AIQ.

	Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about ~~the B-IQ~~ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.		Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about AIQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

	===Optimal Performance===		===Optimal Performance===
Line 59:		Line 59:

	===Lack of performance===		===Lack of performance===
	If ~~the~~ economic, social, and strategic ~~performances all declined~~, we can conclude that ~~there~~ is ~~a lack of performance~~. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.		If all economic, social, and strategic indicators decline, we can conclude that performance is lacking. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

	The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:		The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:
Line 76:		Line 76:
	=Deployment of the Measures=		=Deployment of the Measures=

	The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc' reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.		The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc', and their combination into the AIQ, reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

	* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.		* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
Line 87:		Line 87:
	Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.		Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

	Decentralizing ~~adaptive profiles~~ to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.		Decentralizing the management of AIQs to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

File:GRI Model dep variables.png

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 04:28:25 GMT

Flc uploaded a new version of File:GRI Model dep variables.png

New page

Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ)

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:59:40 GMT

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 30 April 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Introduction=		=Introduction=
	[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png\|right\|450px]]		[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png\|right\|450px]]
	Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders. This article explains how strategic and social performance indicators ~~are built and used in conjunction~~ with other, more traditional indicators.		Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders.

			This article explains how the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ, is calculated using measures of adaptive profiles and combining strategic and social performance indicators with other, more traditional economic indicators at the organizational level.

	=Construction of Performance Indicators=		=Construction of Performance Indicators=
Line 32:		Line 34:
	Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.		Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

	~~Calculations are made from the profiles: The more similar the profiles are, the smaller the deviations; the more different the profiles are, the greater the deviations.~~ Calculations of ~~the~~ deviations for different people of the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into ~~the~~ strategic and social performance indicators.		Calculations of deviations for different people within the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into strategic and social performance indicators and combined to form the Behavioral Intelligence Quotient, or B-IQ.

	Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.		Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about the B-IQ and performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

	===Optimal Performance===		===Optimal Performance===

Organizational Performance Measurement

Flc — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:41:03 GMT

Flc moved page Organizational Performance Measurement to Behavioral Intelligence Quotient (B-IQ)

New page

=Introduction=
[[File:GRI_Model_dep_variables.png|right|450px]]
Adaptive profiles, as measured at GRI, indicate how individuals function and how their environment influences their ability to adapt, engage, and perform. Once aggregated, these profiles also illustrate the overall behavior of a team, department, or company. They help identify organizational weaknesses by considering not only the organization’s internal requirements, but also its industry and market needs, and the various adaptive profiles of its stakeholders. This article explains how strategic and social performance indicators are built and used in conjunction with other, more traditional indicators.

=Construction of Performance Indicators=

The unique properties of the adaptive profiles enable a precise understanding of people’s performance in context. Two key properties of their metrics are incorporated into the construction of performance indicators that can then be used at a group level. In summary, they are the following:
* '''Property 1''': Adaptive profiles effectively indicate the level of individuals' involvement, engagement, and effectiveness within their environment. Low adaptation combined with high engagement suggests that people are in roles that align with their values, expectations, interests, and social behavior preferences. Conversely, high adaptation and low engagement indicate disengagement, demotivation, and negative emotions among individuals in their roles. These levels of adaptation and engagement reflect either a mismatch between a person’s social behavior values and their position, or ineffective personal development.
* '''Property 2''': Adaptive profiles, including their factors, scales, indicators, and profiles, offer a detailed view of people’s performance, encompassing social behaviors, values, preferences, styles, interests, and more. This view is based on both how people behave and how they think and feel about those social behaviors. Our best estimate at GRI is that the profiles capture up to 90% of people’s social behaviors across the short, medium, and long term. The intensity of these behaviors is influenced by Property 1 above. As a result, we not only gain a better understanding of how people function but also when their social behaviors are likely to be expressed.

=Strategic Performance Indicators=
In fact, people consistently exhibit measurable social behaviors, preferences, and values. On the other hand, positions also have behavioral requirements that reflect the choices of the organization and its stakeholders. If the organization, its management, shareholders, pressure groups, etc., want efforts to be focused in a particular direction and in a relatively consistent and uniform manner, then this should occur. Conversely, if this is not the case, it suggests that management and recruitment efforts are not meeting their goals: behaviors are out of alignment with the objectives.

By comparing actual behaviors of individuals with desired behaviors at the position level, the organization can assess and manage the relationship between actors' behaviors and the organization’s needs, using the same behavioral dimensions. In practice, the difference can be measured between the behaviors described by the PBI (Position Behavior Indicator) profiles of positions and the actual behaviors of people, as shown in the Effective graph of the GRI adaptive profile. The gap between these indicates which actions should be taken to maximize the effectiveness of social behavior at each position.

This performance is called strategic because understanding how to do things across all positions at every level is crucial when setting goals, planning, and controlling. The ways of selecting personnel, implementing processes, innovating, managing change, taking risks, defending, and gaining market share—highlighted by the adaptive profiles—shape how the organization functions. They involve decisions that are hard to reverse at the highest levels of hierarchy. The measurement of strategic performance is operationalized as the variable 'iopstra' (the Objective Indicator of Strategic Performance).

=Social Performance Indicators=
The measures of adaptation and engagement enable us to evaluate the gap between what might be deemed satisfactory from an organizational perspective, whether agreed upon by stakeholders or not, and what manifests at the individual level in terms of personal effectiveness. The organization may desire certain behaviors, but these behaviors may require efforts that create tension and reduce commitment, as noted in property 1 above.

This performance is referred to as social performance. It reflects consideration of people's expectations and values, a good fit between job and personal profiles, a positive understanding of individual differences by management, employees' self-awareness of their capacities and talents, and the proper adjustment of compensation and reward systems. The measure of social performance is represented by the variable 'iopsoc' (the Objective Indicator of Social Performance).

=Economic Performance Indicators=
Performance beyond the strategic and social performance outlined earlier is classified as economic performance. This includes aspects related to finance, production, marketing, sales, and customer relations. It covers the three dimensions of Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard<ref>Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard. Organization Editions. Translation of the original 1996 edition: The balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action.</ref>: financial, customer, internal processes, and innovation, along with part of the fourth dimension, learning and growth. As long as the indicators are outside the performance measures listed in the strategic and social indicators above, they fall within the scope of economic performance. Absenteeism and staff turnover rates, which can be translated into costs, are also included among economic performance criteria.

Economic performance indicators should be broken down into as many indicators as needed, depending on the context. The measurement of economic performance is represented by the variable 'iopecon' (the Objective Indicator of Economic Performance).

=Types of performance=

The strategic performance ('iopstra') and social performance ('iopsoc') indicators are calculated from individual adaptive profiles and expectations in positions (PBI) and expectations in teams (TBI).

Once the individual profiles are available and the position and team expectations are set, the differences are calculated between the various Natural profiles and the position or team profiles on one hand, and between the Natural and Role profiles on the other hand.

Calculations are made from the profiles: The more similar the profiles are, the smaller the deviations; the more different the profiles are, the greater the deviations. Calculations of the deviations for different people of the same teams, departments, or company are integrated into the strategic and social performance indicators.

Depending on how the economic, social, and strategic performance indicators change during the analysis period, we can draw the following conclusions about performance. Different combinations of variables tracked over time lead to four possible outcomes: (1) optimal and pending, (2) lagging, (3) under pressure, or (4) lack of performance.

===Optimal Performance===
If the three indicators of social ('iopsoc'), strategic ('iopstra'), and economic ('iopecon') performance all improve positively over the period considered, we can refer to this as 'optimal performance'. This indicates that people are more satisfied and engaged, that roles in the organization are aligned with the strategy in the short and medium/long term, and that economic goals are met.

'iopsoc' is rising and 'iopstra' is rising, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Lagging Performance===
If only economic and social performance improve, one might conclude there is a 'lagging performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, economic goals are met, but job roles are not filled as originally planned.

It is very likely that there is a selection issue. 'iopsoc' is rising, 'iopstra' is falling, 'iopecon' is reached.

===Performance Under Pressure===
If only strategic and economic performance show positive changes, we can conclude that overall performance is under pressure. This indicates that economic performance has improved, aligning people's adaptive profiles more closely with job profiles, but at the same time, people are experiencing more stress, lower motivation, and less engagement. It is likely there are issues with people management.

The indicator 'iopsoc' is decreasing, 'iopstra' is increasing, and 'iopecon' has been reached.

===Pending Performance===
If only the social and strategic performances improve positively, we can classify this as a 'pending performance.' This indicates that people are more engaged and satisfied, with social behavior more aligned with the strategy, but the economic objectives have not yet been achieved.

This scenario is categorized under the first 'optimal performance' as a special case. The organization is awaiting economic outcomes while avoiding adverse effects on stakeholders. The economic objectives might not have been realistic, yet the organization remains committed. 'iopsoc' is up, 'iopstra' is up, 'iopecon' is not achieved.

===Lack of performance===
If the economic, social, and strategic performances all declined, we can conclude that there is a lack of performance. People are less involved; the adaptive profiles are less aligned with the strategy; the economic results are also lacking. 'iopecon' is not reached, 'iopsoc' is down, 'iopstra' is down.

The following table summarizes the four possible results for performance values:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|-
! !! Optimal Performance (and pending) !! Lagging Performance !! Performance Under Pressure !! Lack of Performance
|-
| '''Strategic performance''' ''iopstra'' || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Social performance''' ''iopsoc'' || Increase ↗ || Increase ↗ || Decrease ↘ || Decrease ↘
|-
| '''Economic performance''' ''iopecon'' || Achieved (or to be achieved) || Achieved || Achieved || Not Achieved
|}

=Deployment of the Measures=

The adaptive profiles show how people perform best and how they adjust to their environment. The development of the two indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc' reflects the organization's overall performance at the strategic and social levels.

* The indicator 'iopsoc' measures how stakeholders’ satisfaction and involvement evolve over time.
* The indicator 'iopstra' measures how the strategy is reached as set with the TBI indicators for the teams, departments, and the organization.

The profiles enable performance measurement that closely tracks the development of the two indicators 'iopsta' and 'iopsoc' over time, aligning as closely as possible with where the measures are applied: at the individual level with the adaptive profile and at the management level responsible for executing the strategy.

Given the rapid pace of change and organizational complexity, it is essential to reduce non-performance, as indicated by the indicators 'iopstra' and 'iopsoc'. It’s unrealistic to expect that all stakeholders' adaptive profiles will perfectly align with the expectations of their roles, as reflected in the strategic performance indicator ‘iopstra’, or that all social performance indicators will reach their maximum levels, as shown by the social performance indicator ‘iopsoc’.

Excessive adaptation and disengagement, which come with negative emotions, are undesirable. As management research shows, providing feedback to team members and training for managers helps both parties take ownership of the measures.

Decentralizing adaptive profiles to operations enables strategy implementation as close as possible to where decisions are made and actions are taken, ensuring that measures and information best serve the organization and its members at various levels. When incorporated into performance reviews, these measures motivate teams and facilitate organizational change. Ultimately, individual and unit-level measures can be integrated into a management control system to ensure that performance targets are met.

=Notes=

[[Category:Articles]]
[[Category:Performance]]
[[Category:General Framework]]

HPI (Hogan)

Flc — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 01:07:10 GMT

Learning

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:07, 9 April 2026
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 36:		Line 36:
	=Comments=		=Comments=
	=====Theory=====		=====Theory=====
	The HPI was developed within the ~~context~~ of socioanalytic theory, which ~~posits~~ that people are motivated to engage in social ~~interaction~~ by two universal motives: a need for social acceptance and a need for status. The technique explicitly ~~states~~ it focuses on normal personality.		The HPI was developed within the framework of socioanalytic theory, which states that people are motivated to engage in social interactions by two universal motives: a need for social acceptance and a need for status. The technique explicitly emphasizes that it focuses on normal personality. An actor's perspective and an observer's perspective on personality must be distinguished. HPI focuses on measuring reputation, assuming that survey respondents present themselves rather than report their true selves. The theory further states that the results can be used to assess others' perceptions of an individual, with important implications for social acceptance and career success.

	~~An actor's view~~ and ~~the observer's view of personality must be distinguished~~, ~~and since one sees only an actor~~'s ~~behavior~~, ~~assuming that survey respondents present themselves rather than report the truth~~, ~~measurement efforts~~, ~~according to HCI’s theory, should focus on reputation rather than what the person is like "down deep~~."		In contrast, GRI’s theory is driven by individual and organizational performance. When relevant to measure, a person’s reputation is based on characteristics beyond those that instruments like HPI can measure. An adaptive profile reflects a person's well-established life experiences, motives, and environmental adjustments, which can only be captured through appropriately designed instruments.

	The theory continues by stating that profiles can be used to evaluate how others perceive a person, with important consequences for social acceptance and career success. They help experts build a better understanding of a candidate or employee and diagnose a situation. In contrast, GRI’s theory was driven by individual and organizational performance. For GRI, when relevant, a reputation’s measure is based on characteristics beyond those that instruments like HPI or GRI can capture. GRI measures reflect a person's well-anchored life experience, motives, and environmental adjustments, which can only be captured by an appropriately designed instrumentation.		Both systems focus on the normal rather than the clinical side of personality. Although the two systems share a common foundation in the structure of social behavior, HPI and GRI theories take markedly different approaches to addressing individual and organizational challenges. GRI considers the environment and measures adaptation and engagement from behavioral, emotional, and cognitive perspectives in ways that HPI does not. These aspects are incorporated into a symbolic language that can be learned and used by both managers and experts.

	Both systems focus on the normal ~~and “bright side” of personality, as Hogan puts it,~~ rather than the clinical side. Although the two systems share common ~~ground on~~ the ~~basic~~ structure of social behavior, HPI and GRI theories take ~~vastly~~ different approaches to addressing individual and organizational challenges. GRI ~~brings refinements to the scales, takes~~ the environment ~~into consideration,~~ and measures adaptation and engagement from a behavioral, emotional, and cognitive ~~standpoint~~ in ways that HPI ~~can’t~~. ~~Those~~ aspects are ~~built by GRI~~ into a symbolic language learned and used ~~in operations~~ and by experts.

	=====Forced or Free=====		=====Forced or Free-Choice=====
	HPI uses a forced-choice questionnaire that includes 206 True/False ~~sentences~~, scored on a 10-point scale, and takes about 30 minutes to 1 hour to complete<ref>Publisher says around 20 minutes. Users interviewed say around 30 to 45 minutes. We retained the latest numbers in our analysis.</ref>. The GRI survey's open-ended free-choice scenario strategy differs ~~vastly~~ from HPI~~. It asks only two questions and proposes adjectives to check~~, ~~based on whether they are part of the participant’s experience. It~~ usually ~~takes~~ around 10 minutes to answer.		HPI uses a forced-choice questionnaire that includes 206 True/False statements, scored on a 10-point scale, and takes about 30 minutes to 1 hour to complete. <ref>Publisher says it takes around 20 minutes to complete the survey. Users who were interviewed say around 30 to 45 minutes. We retained the latest numbers in our analysis.</ref>. The GRI survey's open-ended, free-choice scenario strategy differs markedly from HPI, usually taking around 10 minutes to answer. The first question is about the participant's experience of their environment, an approach closer to a 360-degree than a self-assessment only, as HPI proposes.

	In both cases, statistics are applied to the answers, helping to relate results to a larger population and understand how the dimensions compare with each other. In the case of GRI, however, one of the survey questions is about the participant's experience of their environment, ~~which is~~ closer to a 360-degree ~~approach~~ than ~~only~~ a self-assessment.

	=====Intensity<ref>See this article here[[Scales and Intensity\| for more information about the importance of scales and intensity]] when measuring a personality dimension.</ref>=====		=====Intensity<ref>See this article here[[Scales and Intensity\| for more information about the importance of scales and intensity]] when measuring a personality dimension.</ref>=====
	~~Hogan recognizes~~ the low and high ends of ~~the HPI scale~~, although each is labeled in favor of one side, and is broken down into four to eight subscales, for a total of 42 subscales, as trait systems typically do ~~to bring~~ more granularity. Ultimately, HCI is used as a trait system.		The HPI identifies the low and high ends of its scales, although each scale is labeled in favor of one side only, and is broken down into four to eight subscales, for a total of 42 subscales, as trait systems typically do, in the hope of providing more granularity. Ultimately, HCI is used as a trait system.
	The scales are measured in percentile scores ~~that indicate~~ where a person stands ~~in relation~~ to a large norm group of the general working population. The percentiles are organized into four broad categories for interpretation: Low (0 to 25th percentile), Below Average (26th to 50th percentile), Above Average (51st to 75th percentile), and High (76th to 100th percentile).
			The scales are measured as percentile scores, indicating where a person stands relative to a large norm group of the general working population. The percentiles are organized into four broad categories for interpretation: Low (0 to 25th percentile), Below Average (26th to 50th percentile), Above Average (51st to 75th percentile), and High (76th to 100th percentile).

	In contrast, GRI’s scales are in standard deviations, which ~~provide~~ a more accurate ~~measure of~~ a behavior’s occurrence, ~~its~~ intensity, and the emotions and cognitions that accompany it. The granularity and precision for describing social behavior come from analyzing the four factors together and their relative ~~positions, which the standard scale makes possible. Additional granularity comes from analyzing adaptation, engagement, and response levels in the environment~~, which, again, ~~are enabled by~~ the standard deviation ~~scales~~.		In contrast, GRI’s scales are measured in standard deviations, which offer a more accurate way to gauge a behavior’s occurrence, intensity, and the emotions and cognitions that accompany it. The granularity and precision for describing social behavior come from analyzing the four factors together and their relative intensities, which, again, the standard deviation scale makes possible.

	=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> =====		=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> =====
Line 63:		Line 60:
	The HPI model does not account for behaviors that people feel compelled to adapt to their environment. HPI’s measurement combines natural and adaptive behaviors into a single metric. In the HPI model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they answer the survey.		The HPI model does not account for behaviors that people feel compelled to adapt to their environment. HPI’s measurement combines natural and adaptive behaviors into a single metric. In the HPI model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they answer the survey.

	How people adjust their behavior and how they are engaged are key pieces of information that connect individuals to their environment and job demands, yet~~, unlike GRI,~~ the HPI model has no capacity, in its format or by design, to measure these elements.		How people adjust their behavior and how they are engaged are key pieces of information that connect individuals to their environment and job demands, yet the HPI model has no capacity, in its format or by design, to measure these elements.

	=====Work relatedness=====		=====Work relatedness=====
Line 69:		Line 66:

	=====Representation Model=====		=====Representation Model=====
	HPI results come with reports, as all systems do; The measures are represented as bar charts that show the percentile scale and where the measure stands, as personality traits typically do. In contrast, ~~GRI presents~~ the ~~measures with~~ adaptive profiles ~~and using standard deviation scales, which~~ more accurately help concentrate, compare, learn, and use the measured information.		HPI results come with reports, as all systems do; The measures are represented as bar charts that show the percentile scale and where the measure stands, as personality traits typically do. In contrast, the adaptive profiles present the measures in a way that more accurately help visualize, concentrate, compare, learn, and use the measured information.

	=====General validity=====		=====General validity=====
	A general comment applies here to ~~people who receive their~~ HPI ~~results~~: ~~they~~ typically accept information from reports ~~and feedback sessions. This~~ is unsurprising because ~~the~~ survey responses~~, after statistical computation,~~ reflect what people know about themselves. ~~This is no sarcasm, but esoteric~~ techniques, although ~~void~~ of real statistics, use the same principles ~~for reading~~ people's minds and ~~providing~~ feedback.		A general comment applies here to the HPI reports: participants typically accept information from reports, which is unsurprising because survey responses generally reflect what people know and validate about themselves. Esoteric techniques, although devoid of real statistics, use the same principles to read people's minds and provide feedback.

	In comparison, ~~nuances from a GRI feedback session arise~~ not only from the strategy adopted for the measurements and the nature of the ~~dimensions being~~ measured ~~but also from the scales used to measure them and how the~~ dimensions ~~relate to one another~~. ~~Commenting on the context,~~ adaptation, engagement, and response levels provide additional indications for development and adjustments ~~that are hard, if not impossible, to apprehend by other techniques~~.		In comparison, validity in the adaptive profiles arises not only from the strategy adopted for the measurements and the nature of the measured dimensions. Nuances in adaptation, engagement, and response levels provide additional indications for learning, development, and environmental adjustments. They help validate the utility and positive impact of the factor-based model.

	=====Learning=====		=====Learning=====
	HPI learning typically focuses on the dimensions measured and ~~on the applications of~~ these measures for personal, recruitment, and organizational development, including delivering a quality feedback session. Since the HPI scales don’t capture a person’s adaptation, engagement, and other ~~essential~~ characteristics that connect ~~a person~~ to their environment and ~~affect~~ their motivation and relationships ~~with others~~, the learning can only have a ~~slight impact~~ on ~~a modus operandi for~~ long term personal and organizational ~~development~~.		HPI learning typically focuses on the dimensions measured and how to use these measures for personal, recruitment, and organizational development, including delivering a high-quality feedback session. Since the HPI scales don’t capture a person’s adaptation, engagement, and other vital characteristics that connect someone to their environment and influence their motivation and relationships, the learning can only have a limited effect on long-term personal and organizational growth.

	~~In contrast~~, ~~GRI~~ is ~~learned as a tool for analyzing people and organizations that must be augmented by~~ other ~~information~~ about the ~~person~~ and ~~the~~ environment~~, information that is easier to collect, including through social scan techniques~~. ~~The information provides~~ new insights that initially seem counterintuitive and ~~compete with one’s private technique and other~~ techniques ~~being used~~. ~~When learned and trusted, it ultimately~~ helps develop more realistic, effective ~~solutions from the outset of the learning process~~.		Meanwhile, learning about adaptive profiles happens during the analysis of management, recruitment, and organizational practices. The information from the adaptive profile is combined with other data about the individual and their environment. This learning uncovers new insights that may initially seem counterintuitive and challenge personal techniques. It quickly helps develop more realistic and effective strategies for managing people in context.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

	[[Category:Personality Assessment]]		[[Category:Personality Assessment]]