Personality assessments can offer a valuable perspective on how traits shape leadership along with daily interactions and long-term growth. Looking at my results from the Big Five assessments, the Enneagram and the 16 Personalities leadership evaluation made me see a mix of traits that feel very true to who I am and a few that made me think about myself differently. On the Big Five I scored high in agreeableness (92%), conscientiousness (83%) and openness (73%) with lower scores in neuroticism (42%) and extraversion (37%). My Enneagram described me as a caretaker, and the 16 personalities assessment identified me as an Architect (INTJ). All these combined results paint a picture of myself as a leader that balances empathy with strategy and points out ways I can grow, especially in my CCMR coordinator role.

Out of the three assessments, I found the Big Five the most accurate because of its strong foundation in research. Costa and McCrae (1992) described it as “a comprehensive model of personality that captures the major dimensions of human individuality” (p.14). My two strongest traits are agreeableness and conscientiousness. Meaning that these are the ones I depend on most as a leader. Agreeableness reflects the way I tend to support, listen, and empathize with people which align with my Enneagram caretaker results. Riso and Hudson (1996) noted that caretakers “seek to be needed and to serve others as a way of purpose” (p.112). This has always been the case for me since I was a child. I can recall playing with my siblings and always wanting to be the doctor or teacher because it validated my sense of purpose. As I grew older, I still strived to be the “caretaker” in the family. As a mother, daughter, granddaughter etc. I go above and beyond for others and tend to put others’ needs before myself. This can also be a weakness at times but I am learning to balance my needs along with others. Conscientiousness highlights my natural drive to plan, organize and follow through. This echoes Myers et al. (1998), who highlighted that Architect INTJs “excel in applying a long-range vision to complex problems” (p.165). One of my biggest pet peeves is when an individual is unprepared or doesn’t follow through with commitment, so this truly made me understand why I feel so strongly about certain traits. Knowing my strengths helps me in my career by building trust with students and colleagues while also designing effective CCMR programs.

These assessments also pointed to growth areas. My lower extraversion means I do not always thrive in social settings, even though education often requires visibility. Goldberg (1993) argued that lower extraversion can “limit spontaneous social engagement” but also encourages “thoughtfulness and independence” (p.28). I see this trait in myself; I do not seek social engagement unless I need to. I am an introverted person who tends to step back and observe or listen rather than being a social butterfly. Another growth area is balancing empathy with assertiveness. My caretaker side sometimes leads me to take on more responsibilities than I need or avoid necessary conflict. Knowing the traits that I can improve will help me grow not only in my career but also as a person. When I was identified as an Architect, it was surprising because it emphasized my long-term vision and strategic mindset. Myers et al. (1998) explained that Architect INTJs “are driven to implement their ideas and achieve objectives through structure and efficiency” (p.168). Normally I see myself as empathetic, but I also realized that strategy and efficiency are equally important to my leadership style. Based on my results, I would describe my leadership style as a mix of servant and strategic leadership. It is said that servant leaders place the good of followers above their own self interest which really captures my caretaking nature. At the same time, the Architect profile reflects a strategic side. This balance fits well within CCMR, where students need both relational support and structured systems. Which confirms how I have been most effective in situations that require both.

I believe that my leadership style strengthens team morale because I push for collaboration and trust. However, my high agreeableness may hold me back from pushing back when needed which is something that I need to improve on. Costa and McCrae (1992) noted that agreeable individuals sometimes “sacrifice assertiveness for harmony” (p.48). Now that I have learned more about my weaknesses, I will aim to stay intentional about communication, schedule check-ins, and work on getting out of my comfort zone. This year, I have been tasked with doing more classroom presentations along with taking lead in TCB teacher and student registration which I feel has made me lean toward logic and efficient decision making.

Overall, these assessments portray me as both caretaker and strategist. I believe the key is knowing when to lean on one or the other. Northouse (2021) argues that effective leaders “adapt their style to the demands of different situations” (p.92). I know that I am empathetic enough to build relationships and trust yet conscientious and visionary enough to design systems that will last. These results align closely with my self-image while also challenging me to grow. In the future I will use these insights to set development goals and grow as a leader so I can prepare students for success in college, career and military readiness.

Reference Page

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

Riso, D. R., & Hudson, R. (1996). Personality types: Using the Enneagram for self-discovery. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

  When I think about my philosophy as a technology leader, I see it as a mixture between empathy and strategy. My personality assessments helped me put language into what I already recognized about myself. Originally, the results felt contradictory because how can you be a caretaker and an architect at the same time? However, the more I reflected the more I saw how they work together. These results combined highlight the way I approach leadership. I always want to support others by assisting colleagues with their tasks or collaborating with other divisions while also building systems that are organized and proactive. My impression of technology in education goes beyond putting devices in students’ hands. For me, technology is about equity and opportunities that stretch outside the classrooms. In my role with CCMR, I have seen how technology can either extend or close gaps. When used well, it creates pathways for students who may have been left behind or not had the opportunity. I believe in Northouse’s (2021) point that effective leaders adapt their style to meet different situations, and technology should work the same way. It should be used as a tool and should serve student needs, not dictate the process of learning. Research supports this, according to Kalogeratos et al. (2023), personality traits shape leadership styles, and leaders who balance empathy with strategy are more likely to guide teams through innovation successfully. I will try to use this balance to make sure that technological integration is meaningful and inclusive.

Supporting my colleagues in using technology is one of my top priorities. Many teachers and administrators feel overwhelmed because things are constantly changing, so I see my role as making innovation more approachable. I try my best to meet teachers where they are, design training during professional development time and make it feel hands-on plus show my appreciation by celebrating small wins. Criado et al. (2025) also found that personality types play a role in how educational teams perform, which confirms my belief that when you tailor support to individual needs it makes growth more effective. My cautious and analytical side shapes how I evaluate new tools. I tend to ask questions like Will this improve student outcomes? Is it sustainable? Does it support teachers’ work? Costa and McCrae (1992) pointed out that conscientious leaders rely on thoroughness and planning, and I see that in my own method. I like to test out new resources and gather feedback before I move forward with my tasks especially when I am training others. My unit team that I currently work with is a great mixture of strong personality traits. I feel like we all bring different strengths to the table, and we mesh well for the most part. Anytime we have deadlines or important tasks we all do our own part to make the outcome successful, and it shows when data is reported. Communication has been a growth area for me. I do not naturally thrive in large group settings however I do know that I have improved in this area. I’ve learned that consistency and clarity matter more than charisma. I send weekly updates, provide clear expectations and try to be transparent with all technology platforms implementations. As Goldberg (1993) suggested, introverts may not dominate conversations but often excel at listening. This strength helps me to connect and build trust with my students and teachers that I work with daily.  

Overall, my philosophy of technology leadership is shaped by both care and strategy. My caretaker side keeps me focused on people and my architect side drives me to design systems that will last. Sometimes these traits can clash but no single leadership style is perfect. Leaders must be flexible and adapt to the situation. Technology leadership is not about shiny new gadgets, but about aligning tools with vision and values. By doing this, every student can leave better prepared for any post-secondary pathway they choose.