Factor 1 Introduced: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
As with the three other factors, Factor 1 measures drives, behavior, and motivation with opposite meanings. Look at the extremes of Factor 1: on the low end, it means being submissive, and on the high end, being belligerent. | As with the three other factors, Factor 1 measures drives, behavior, and motivation with opposite meanings. Look at the extremes of Factor 1: on the low end, it means being submissive, and on the high end, being belligerent. | ||
Giving a neutral label like "1" and learning | Giving a neutral label like "1" and learning its meaning and use along the continuum has proven more effective than speaking only about the meaning of one side of the continuum with a label that’s already biased by idiosyncratic connotations, as traits do, while ignoring or being vague about the other side of the spectrum. | ||
Once learned, using Factor 1 as low or high at different intensity levels facilitates its use at the individual, job, and organizational levels for comparisons and better-quality deductions. It also facilitates comparisons between factors, an aspect that adds critical nuance to the behaviors inferred from the profiles. | |||
=Factor 1 Low= | =Factor 1 Low= | ||
Latest revision as of 17:37, 22 February 2026
Introduction
Factor 1 is the first of the four factors at the top of the profile. Factor 1 shows that one needs and is motivated to be agreeable and modest when the Factor is low (on the left), versus being impactful on the environment and dominating when the Factor is high (on the right).
It's important to understand that the factors are measured along a continuous scale, from one extreme to the other. Using “Low” and “high” is only a language convention for positioning the factor. There is no judgment of being right or wrong attached to being low or high on the scale. In fact, all positions offer something different and potentially positive for the person and their environment.
The position on the scale reflects how intense a factor is. The four factors are arranged vertically and connected by lines, as shown on the right. This profile helps explain how the factors interact. These features make the factor model distinct from type- or trait-based models by accurately depicting behaviors, as well as the thoughts, emotions, and growth that accompany them. Once measured and displayed in the adaptive profile, the factors also show how a person adapts and engages in different contexts.
Factor 1’s Intensity
The measurement scale shown below and above the factor is the standard deviation (also called sigma). The distance from the middle, the average, makes the behavior more pronounced in either direction: The further Factor 1 is from the average, the more intense and frequent the behavior, strength, and motivation indicated below. People whose Factor 1 is on average will show a neutral tendency or no inclination toward either side. The factor will be analyzed alongside the three others.
Factor 1 Labeled With a Number
As with the three other factors, Factor 1 measures drives, behavior, and motivation with opposite meanings. Look at the extremes of Factor 1: on the low end, it means being submissive, and on the high end, being belligerent.
Giving a neutral label like "1" and learning its meaning and use along the continuum has proven more effective than speaking only about the meaning of one side of the continuum with a label that’s already biased by idiosyncratic connotations, as traits do, while ignoring or being vague about the other side of the spectrum.
Once learned, using Factor 1 as low or high at different intensity levels facilitates its use at the individual, job, and organizational levels for comparisons and better-quality deductions. It also facilitates comparisons between factors, an aspect that adds critical nuance to the behaviors inferred from the profiles.
Factor 1 Low
Factor 1 on the low side measures a low level or absence of need, drive, and motivation to confront others and dominate. Individuals with a lower Factor 1 are more acquiescent and need to work in harmony. People with an extremely low 1 (fewer than 0.15%) tend to be meek and submissive.
Low 1s’ strengths include the following: being well-intentioned and diffident; having a helpful attitude; being self-effacing, unassuming, reserved, and considerate. Low 1s are naturally collaborative and attentive to others’ needs with support and encouragement. They are friendly and hospitable.
Low 1s are motivated by acknowledgement for being team players. They require a non-competitive, harmonious, and collaborative environment, along with supportive management. Low 1s thrive on encouragement and reassurance in a team setting rather than an individualistic one.
Extremely Low 1s often lack self-confidence. They have difficulties to say no. They are cautious to the extreme, preventing them from acting. Extremely Low 1s will feel guilty and not dare to express their point of view. The other three factors are influenced by a low Factor 1, which is on the lower side of the scale, bringing them amiability and gentleness.
Factor 1 High
Factor 1 on the high side measures a need, drive, and motivation to dominate and impact the environment. People with a high 1 act individually and exert authority without the need for consensus. The higher the Factor 1, the more adventurous the person will be, and the greater the need to exert authority and take on new challenges. People with an extremely high 1 tend to be belligerent.
High 1 strengths include being assertive, relishing new challenges, and being naturally self-directed and motivated. High 1s are naturally decisive, determined, and ambitious, taking responsibility for their own decisions.
High 1s are motivated by autonomy and the acknowledgement of their own views and ideas; they desire opportunities to control their own activities. High 1s need to be challenged and solve problems to prove themselves competitively. They care about the big picture and want to do things their own way to win.
Extremely High 1s may appear egocentric and show little concern for others' well-being. They are demanding of themselves and others. They are sure to know the truth. Extremely High 1s will be overly argumentative in an attempt to prove their point.
The other three factors that fall on the low side of the scale are influenced by a high Factor 1,, bringing them assertiveness and self-directness.
Factor 1 at Job Level
We find Factor 1, low and high, in many different jobs and at all levels in organizations, including in the C-Suite and on boards of directors. As with the other factors, we find more people with a low or high 1 in some jobs than others.
A low 1 is a critical factor for jobs such as customer service, mediator, or receptionist that require a natural acceptance of other people’s viewpoints. A high level of Factor 1 is important in jobs such as litigation, outside sales, or frontline management that require autonomy and toughness in competitive situations.
When factor 1, low or high, is required at different intensity levels in the job but is not present in the person’s Natural profile, with adequate efforts and support, the person will adapt; the behavior adaptation will appear in the Role profile and, consequently, in the Effective profile; the Effective profile shows the behaviors that will effectively be displayed in the job.
Factor 1 at an Organizational Level
Since an organization’s dynamics are typically explained in a flat two-dimensional 2x2 matrix, which is the easiest to understand and use, rather than a too-abstract four-dimensional space, only the high side of Factor 1 is used in this representation. The grid includes all possible combinations of the four factors, totaling 24, which helps regroup all of an organization’s individual profiles. The high 1-quadrant on the lower-right, which regroups profiles with a factor 1 higher than all other factors, is called Group 1. All other aspects of the low 1 will appear at varying degrees of intensity in the three other quadrants, as shown in the illustration on the right.
Typical organizations in Group 1 are startups and innovative departments within large organizations, whose main characteristics include creating the future through innovation, entrepreneurship, and the creation of new intellectual property; setting stretch goals and pursuing quantum breakthroughs; making decisive, action-focused decisions; and continuous thinking about a new vision[1].
Please note that this typological representation is effective for analyzing an organization’s dynamics. But it is invalid for understanding a person’s natural ways of acting, adapting, engaging, and growing in context. For the latter, the person’s adaptive profile will be needed.
Adapting Factor 1
A High 1 can behave like a Low 1 from time to time. The higher the Factor 1, the more energy it takes and the less interest the person has in behaving like a Low 1. It works the same the other way around: The lower the Factor 1, the less likely the person is to behave at the extreme of the High 1 side.
But when required, people adapt, including in the roles they play in their jobs. When this occurs, the adaptation will be reflected in the Role of the adaptive profile, indicating the extent to which it affects natural behaviors.
How the adaptation happens is also indicated by the factor itself. Low 1s will perceive High 1 behaviors as a necessity for team success. High 1 will perceive low 1 behaviors as a personal challenge.
Relationship with Type A Personalities
There is a relationship between High 1 and Type A personalities, although we do not have a correlation (exact number) for it. But Type A personalities involve other characteristics such as being "multi-tasking" and "impatient", which both involve a low Factor 3. Also, being "rigidly" organized and "status conscious", which are also characteristics of a Type A personality, involve a higher 4 and lower 2.
High 1s Can be Team-oriented Too
High 1s can be team-oriented, but not in the same way Low 1s are. Low 1s need team consensus or input from others to take risks or make unpopular decisions.
High 1s do not need the team to back up their decisions, including when they are unpopular, and more so, the higher the factor 1 is. But eventually, they need Lower 1s, the team buy-in for their execution, and will delegate roles and take a leadership position within the team dynamic.
Factor 1 in Personality Research
Low Factor 1 aligns with the agreeableness factor of the Big Five, characterized by markers such as peaceful, tolerant, forgiving, good, peace-loving, or unselfish[2].
With the Big Three, low 1 aligns with the affiliation factor, expressed in traits such as kind, helpful, sympathetic, peaceful, and compassionate[3] (also including high 2). It points to the condition of being part of a larger social entity striving for intimacy, union, and solidarity[4].
In the Big Five personality model, a high Factor 1 score corresponds to the opposite pole of the agreeableness factor. It is characterized by adjectives such as domineering, self-important, interfering, quarrelsome, bossy, or rigid.
With the Three-Factor approach, a high Factor 1 indicates the opposite end of the affiliation spectrum, with traits such as egotism, aggression (though some traits may also be low in Factor 4). The authoritarian behavior, as found with extremely high 1, has been described by Adler[5] and Adorno[6]. High 1s are found in innovative situations that typically require a strong aspiration of change[7], and a high tolerance for risk (also coming with a Low 4)[8].
High 1 behaviors are evident in environments requiring self-efficacy in situations of great change[9], when it is necessary to persist despite negative feedback and rejection[10], in adversarial situations[11], or with a determination to perform above the average[12].
We find high 1 in the assertiveness facet of Costa and McCrae[13] or the agency component of Depue and Collin[14], which reflects social dominance, the enjoyment of a leadership role, assertiveness, and a subjective sense of potency in accomplishing goals.
Notes
- ↑ Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., Thakor, A. V. (2006). Competing Values Leadership. Creating Value in Organizations. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
- ↑ De Raad B., Hendricks A. A. J., Hofstee W. K. B. (1992). Towards a refined structure of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, Vol. 6, p. 301-319.
- ↑ De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P. H., Timmerman, M. E., de Roover, K., Mlačić, B., Church, A. T. (2014). Towards a Pan-cultural Personality Structure: Input from 11 psychological Studies. European Journal of Personality, 28, 497-510.
- ↑ Leary, T., (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: a functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. New York: Ronald Press.
- ↑ Adler, A. (1939). Social interest. New York: Putnam.
- ↑ Adorno T. W. and others (1950). The authoritarian personality, New York, Harper.
- ↑ Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., Cooed, C. D. (1997). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.
- ↑ Bommer, M., Jalajas, D. S. (1999). The threat of organizational downsizing on the innovative propensity of R&D professionals. R & D Management, 29, 27-34.
Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9, 204-215. - ↑ Thatcher, J. B., Perrewé, P. L. (2000). An empirical examination of computer self-efficacy: The role of personality and anxiety. Presented at the Southern Management Association Meetings Proceedings, Orlando, FL.
- ↑ Nease A., Mudget B., Quinones M. (1999). Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 84, No. 5, p 806-814.
- ↑ Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically-derived variables predicting career and academic behaviour: Self-efficacy, interest congruence, and consequential thinking. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 34, 293-298.
- ↑ Stajkovic, A. D., Sommer, S. M. (2000). Self-efficacy and causal attributions: Direct and reciprocal links. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 707-737.
Luthans F., Stajkovic A., Luthans B. C., Luthans K. W. (1998). Applying Behavioral Management in Eastern Europe. European Management Journal. Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 466-475. - ↑ Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
- ↑ Depue, R. A., Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine facilitation of incentive motivation and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-569.