Report Section
Mettl HR Manager Assessment
Test Taker Details
S
Sample
Email Address: sample@mercer.mettl.com
How to Interpret the Report?
This assessment measures work-relevant personality traits that might be manifested in work behaviour and therefore influence success on the job. To best use this report:
- Review the overall recommendation first. Based on your need, you might want to prioritize candidates who are ‘recommended', followed by those who are ‘cautiously recommended’.
- If you’re choosing among different candidates within the same band of recommendation, review the competencies’ results. Focus on the competencies you believe are critical for success in the role you’re hiring for, and use those scores to help you prioritize which candidates to select for the next step.
- Remember: This assessment is just one piece of the puzzle. While hiring, it is recommended that you review other information as well – functional and job knowledge, background and past behaviour (e.g. using structured behavioural interviews), reference checks, etc. in addition to the personality assessment.
- Use of Response Styles for Recruitment/Selection: The ideal response style is “Genuine” and it is recommended for further analysis. However, if any candidate’s response style displays Social Desirability, he/she needs to be considered with caution. We do not recommend candidates who display Extreme Responding/Central Tendency/Careless Responding as they indicate that the candidate has not attempted the assessments in the desired manner, and that interferes with an understanding of his/her personality since it would not evoke genuine responses from the candidate's answers. This in turn is expected to interfere with the proceeding decisions, so the candidate may be considered for a re-test. Such cases are usually not considered for a statistical/detailed analysis of scores if required further.
Response Style
Response Style Genuine
Explanation of Response Style:
Genuine
No concerns or red flags just based on response style of candidate.
Social Desirability
If more than 75% of the questions are answered in a manner that indicates an attempt to appear in a falsely positive light or seem ‘socially desirable’.
Extreme Responding
If more than 75% of the questions are answered in a manner that indicates that an individual agrees with the statements at the lower and higher end consistently.
Central Tendency
If the middle response (‘neutral’) is selected more than 30% of the time.
Careless Responding
If more than 95% of the responses selected are from the same direction (i.e. if the candidate selected ‘most like me’ or ‘like me’ from the right-side statement or from the left-side statement alone).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation
Not Recommended
Not Recommended
Cautiously Recommended
Recommended
Strengths
No actionable insights
Areas of Development
Execution Excellence
Needs to work towards achieving one's targets and delivering quality work efficiently, and encourage others to do the same.
Effective Communication
Should learn to communicate in an appropriate manner and put across one's viewpoints clearly and concisely.
Abstract Reasoning
Needs to be able to quickly identify patterns and the logical rule underlying those patterns to arrive at solutions. Also needs to be able to apply innovative ways to solve problems.
Evaluation of Competencies
Managing Work:
Values shown in above chart are sten scores
1. Managing Work:
Change Management: Moderate
Moderately likely to accept change, as may be somewhat open minded and appreciative of new ideas which can contribute positively to the working environment. Somewhat likely to work on tasks with enthusiasm when situations and goals are dynamic in nature. Moderately likely to clearly communicate the need for change and its impact on the team's work, and may occasionally highlight its benefits so that team members are able to adapt more effectively to it. Somewhat likely to find synergies between old and new ways of doing things to reduce the disruption to work as much as possible.
Execution Excellence: Low
Not very likely to be intrinsically motivated to complete one's tasks effectively and efficiently, and may rarely work on the given task wholeheartedly. Less likely to take up tasks without being asked to or work above and beyond the expectations of a job. May rarely instil passion among team members towards the work they do. Not very likely to have the ability to understand the end results oneself and others are working towards or identify the impact of actions and outcomes on the larger organization. Less likely to show concern for all aspects of the job or maintain consistency across tasks in terms of the quality and set standards.
Ethical Propensity: Low
Less likely to share information in an ethical or trustworthy manner. Not very likely to be open or transparent in one's dealings with internal or external stakeholders. May not always be able to answer difficult questions without hiding critical details from teams, and is not very likely to take a stand based on the right thing regardless of the consequence. Not very likely to encourage teams to stick to their professional ethics, morals, or values when completing tasks, even when it is inconvenient.
Planning and Organizing: Low
Less likely to have the ability to prioritize tasks, and may rarely plan with a realistic sense of time and resources. May have a slight tendency to approach every task in a structured or planned manner. Not very likely to establish a course of action for oneself or work at a fast pace to accomplish multiple tasks simultaneously. Less likely to be organized or systematic in one's work in order to successfully accomplish work objectives.
Process Orientation: Low
Less likely to adhere to the rules and regulations placed by the organization carefully and may seldom encourage one's team to do the same. May not always be able to lay out clear work procedures that are easy to follow. Not very likely to provide a strong or clear rationale to team members for why certain rules and procedures must be followed, or explain the consequences of adherence and non adherence to the organization's rules and regulations.
Strategic Orientation: Low
May rarely be able to understand the short and long term implications of one's actions on the organization. Not very likely to consider long term success factors or accordingly shape the direction of the organization. May not always be able to consider challenges that are likely to arise in the future or accordingly prepare contingency plans for the same.
Managing People:
Values shown in above chart are sten scores
2. Managing People:
Team Management: Moderate
Moderately likely to maintain harmonious and cooperative relationships with others at the workplace. Somewhat likely to work collaboratively with others, with a positive approach towards achieving common goals. Moderately likely to ensure a conducive environment for team(s) to work well with each other. May at times provide timely and constructive feedback to others, and occasionally use coaching and mentoring techniques to support and guide them to carry out assigned tasks appropriately. Somewhat likely to 'walk the talk' and may at times try to become a person that inspires others to do their best everyday.
Effective Communication: Low
Not very likely to be able to structure one's thoughts or communicate in a clear, concise and accurate manner. May rarely try various methods of communication or modify one's communication style according to the people that one interacts with. Less likely to be a good listener and may rarely participate in conversations whenever necessary. Less likely to work towards improving one's communication skills in order to put across one's point of view effectively.
Networking: Low
Less likely to be interested in building relationships to develop work opportunities or gather resources from various sources to ensure that tasks are completed efficiently. Less likely to be approachable or maintain contact with immediate stakeholders on a regular basis. Not very likely to coordinate with others teams or departments to ensure smooth functioning of work activities, and may rarely network with other teams to effectively leverage their work, their strengths and areas of development to accomplish team's goals.
Service Orientation: Low
May rarely be able to understand others' expectations and requirements efficiently or promptly deliver on the same. Less likely to encourage others to find new or effective ways to improve service experience for internal as well as external stakeholders or focus on continuously providing excellent customer services. Not very likely to be courteous and sensitive in one's behaviour or open to other's views and perspectives in order to understand them better.
Negotiation and Influencing: Low
May seldom be able to identify or utilize the factors that might influence others to take a particular action. May rarely be able to work towards a win-win solution for all parties involved. Not very likely to offer compromises when necessary or provide necessary arguments to win over the other party. May be somewhat unable to convince others of one's thoughts and viewpoints by answering questions effectively.
Cognitive Competencies Analysis:
Values shown in above chart are sten scores
3. Cognitive Competencies Analysis:
Critical Thinking: Moderate
Moderately likely to be able to critically assess situations and identify informational gaps. Also somewhat likely to be able to evaluate given information and draw logical conclusions. Moderately likely to have the ability to think out-of-the-box to solve various problems.
Abstract Reasoning: Low
Unlikely to have the ability to quickly identify patterns and the logical rule underlying those patterns to arrive at solutions. May not be able to gather work related information quickly, from various sources and apply it in innovative ways to solve problems. May not have lateral thinking abilities and fluid intelligence. May not be creative in thinking and in integrating data logically to arrive at solutions.
Verbal Reasoning: Low
Unlikely to process, retain and synthesize large amount of information in a workplace. May have poor reading skills and may take a lot of time to absorb information and deliver outputs as compared to those with excellent reading skills.
Domain Competency Analysis:
Values shown in above chart are sten scores
4. Domain Competency Analysis:
Domain Ability: Low
Less likely to think critically about an information presented to him/her, which is required to lead to a well thought-out solution. He/she may not always be able to apply managerial skills and communicate newly acquired skills for improving the existing processes.
