There is quite a strong indication of pressure in Profile II through the elevation of the Profile, but the size and position of Profile I indicates there could be other issues. Generally where there is an indication that a candidate is under pressure, there has to be a reason.
When Profile I is tight, (as it is in this situation) the shape of the Profile is normally something we would ignore but in this case, Profile I differs quite significantly from Profile II and verges on the possibility of being classified as a “mirror” Profile.
Because there is only one behavioural trait below the neutral zone (Profile I) and the other three behavioural traits are in the neutral zone, there are indicators that the candidate has key feelings of “lost direction” (“where do I go from here, how do I get there, what do I really want, what do I do….”).
When provided with this report, our first interpretation was a key feeling of “trying to do something that he/she knows is not the right thing to do” and even more importantly, perhaps a lack of self-confidence, or a feeling that the candidate has something to hide.
Had the whole of Profile I been below the neutral zone, we would have interpreted key feelings as “I have to work against my ethics”, or “I have something to hide”. It could have even indicated “moral problems". . .
The “I” behavioural trait is very close to being below the neutral zone and the “S” and “C” styles are within the neutral zone meaning that the candidate has provided contradictory answers to the “Most” questions in the questionnaire.
Of course we have to be careful not to “over interpret” behavioural reports and look for something that might not be there. The reports are not designed to measure an individual’s full personality and focus on behaviour, but in circumstances such as this case there were warning signs.
For these reasons, we advised our consultant client to be very careful with the candidate and we recommended that his client be advised accordingly. Subsequently we received a copy of a newspaper article dated 15th October 2010 which was headed “Lavish living ends in jail”. The candidate was in fact jailed back in 2010 for stealing some $380,000 from previous employers to fund a lavish lifestyle!
Obviously this is an extreme case and unusual in that the candidate has had a dodgy past. However, the fact that the Behavioural Report indicated that there were “issues”, goes a long way towards helping in identifying unsuitable candidates.
