Videos
Images
Test Logs
Proctor Comments
Report Section
Mettl Assessment for HR Executives
Sample
| 1537857021940
Test Taker Details
S
Sample
Email Address: sample_report@mettl.com
Test-Taker ID: - 23479682
Last Name:
Not Filled
Date of birth:
Not Filled
Experience:
Not Filled
Country:
Not Filled
How to Interpret the Report?
When interpreting the results, it is important to remember that the scores are not good or bad, only more or less appropriate to certain types of work. Since the results are based on one's own view of behavior, the accuracy of the results depends upon both honesty and self-awareness while taking the test.
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
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
Overall Score Summary
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Strengths
No actionable Insights
Areas of Development
Ethical Propensity
Needs to act in an open and trustworthy manner based on one's moral and ethical principles.
Execution Excellence
Needs to work towards achieving one's targets and goals effectively.
Planning and Organizing
Needs to be organized and systematic in one’s work and effectively plan and prioritize tasks.
EVALUATION OF BEHAVIOURAL COMPETENCIES
Managing Work:
Values shown in above chart are sten scores
Low
(1 - 4)
Moderate
(5 - 6)
High
(7 - 10)
1. Managing Work:
4
Adaptability: Low
Less likely to respond to changes in the organization with a positive outlook. Not very likely to accept change, as may not be very open minded or appreciative of new ideas which can contribute positively to the working environment. Less likely to work on tasks with enthusiasm when situations and goals are dynamic in nature. Less likely to be resourceful during change, rarely contributing towards making the change effective. Not very likely to be open to seeking different ways of carrying out tasks so as to improve work processes or enhance efficiency of one's work.
2
Ethical Propensity: Low
Less likely to act in an ethical or trustworthy manner. May seldom take a stand based on the right thing regardless of the consequence to oneself. Not very likely to be open or transparent in one's dealings with internal and external stakeholders. Less likely to stick to one's professional ethics, morals, and values to complete tasks, especially when it is inconvenient.
2
Execution Excellence: Low
Less likely to be intrinsically motivated to complete one's tasks effectively and efficiently, and may not always be able to work on the given task wholeheartedly. Not very likely to have the ability to understand the end results one is working towards, and may rarely be able to identify the impact of one's actions and outcomes on the larger organization. Less likely to initiate tasks without being asked to or work above and beyond the expectations of a job. Less likely to focus one's attention on minute details of a task, and may rarely show concern for all aspects of the job, ensuring delivery of quality output.
2
Planning and Organizing: Low
Less likely to have the ability to prioritize tasks, and may rarely plan with a realistic sense of time or resources. May not have a tendency to approach every task in a structured or planned manner. May rarely be able to work at a fast pace in order to accomplish multiple goals simultaneously. Less likely to be organized or systematic in one's work in order to successfully accomplish work objectives.
2
Process Orientation: Low
Less likely to adhere to the rules and regulations placed by the organization carefully and may rarely follow instructions and directions in order to complete the assigned tasks effectively. Less likely to consider standard operating procedures in the workplace to ensure consistency. Not very likely to provide a strong and clear rationale to others for why certain rules or procedures must be followed, or explain to them the consequences of adherence and non adherence to the organization's rules and regulations.
Managing People:
Values shown in above chart are sten scores
Low
(1 - 4)
Moderate
(5 - 6)
High
(7 - 10)
2. Managing People:
4
Effective Communication: Low
Not very likely to be able to structure one's thoughts or communicate in a clear, concise and accurate manner. Less likely to be compassionate or considerate of others feeling or emotions, and may rarely 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.
6
Collaboration: Moderate
Somewhat likely to be a good team player and may at times be able to maintain harmonious and cooperative relationships with team members. Moderately likely to work collaboratively with others, with a positive approach towards achieving common goals. May occasionally ensure a conducive environment for others to work well with each other, irrespective of their background. Somewhat likely to offer help to others without being asked to do so.
3
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 provide necessary arguments to win over the other party, and may be somewhat unable to convince others of one's thoughts and viewpoints by answering questions effectively.
4
Networking: Low
Less likely to come across as a warm and friendly person and may not always be interested in socializing and building relationships to develop work opportunities. May not always coordinate with the relevant departments/individuals to achieve common goals. Not very likely to gather information and resources from internal and external sources to ensure that tasks are completed efficiently. May seldom be approachable or maintain contact with immediate stakeholders on a regular basis.
5
Service Orientation: Moderate
May occasionally be able to accurately understand and promptly deliver on a customer's expectations and requirements. May at times be able to provide quality service to customers, and occasionally find new and effective ways to improve service experience for internal as well as external customers. Moderately likely to be courteous, sensitive and respectful in one's behavior, and may occasionally deal with customer queries, requests and complaints in an efficient manner.
Evaluation of Cognitive Competencies:
Values shown in above chart are sten scores
Low
(1 - 4)
Moderate
(5 - 6)
High
(7 - 10)
3. Evaluation of Cognitive Competencies:
5
Attention to Details: Moderate
Moderately likely to notice everything that might be of importance, at any point of time. May moderately be able to capture every minute detail and present the work in a clear, complete, precise and easy to understand language. May be somewhat attentive, focused and average at giving excellent results and in maintaining good quality.
2
Analytical Ability: Low
Unlikely to integrate issues and factors onto a conceptual framework. Unlikely to have the ability to reason and provide systematic solution to a given problem by breaking it down into simple cases, then evaluating different alternatives to the problem in a step by step manner. May not be able to analyze or perceive a given information from different perspectives. May not be prompt in taking actions.
4
Verbal Ability: Low
Unlikely to have a good vocabulary. May be very poor at proper usage of grammar and punctuation. May face problems in understanding word meanings, word relationships and also in interpreting detailed information.
Activity Log
Activity Log
25 Sep,2018
About the Report
This Report is generated electronically on the basis of the inputs received from the assessment takers. This Report including the AI flags that are generated in case of availing of proctoring services, should not be solely used/relied on for making any business, selection, entrance, or employment-related decisions. Mettl accepts no liability from the use of or any action taken or refrained from or for any and all business decisions taken as a result of or reliance upon anything, including, without limitation, information, advice, or AI flags contained in this Report or sources of information used or referred to in this Report.
