ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Although my name appears alone on the title page of this thesis, many people have helped along the way. Were it not for their support, expertise, and encouragement I could not have completed this thesis or the graduate degree. I dedicate this page to thank those who have helped me along the pathway to attaining this important goal. I would like to thank the faculty of the Master of Professional Communication at Weber State University for providing challenging coursework and teaching me how to critically evaluate new concepts and perspectives. I sincerely enjoyed my experience with each professor and will fondly remember the time spent in their courses. My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Sheree Josephson in her role initially as director of the MPC program, and later as my committee chair. Her passion for research helped plant within me a deep-seeded curiosity in using quantitative data to answer the questions that intrigue me. Her patience and persistence have been invaluable resources in helping me complete this thesis. Had it not been for the empowering encouragement from Dr. Bruce Bowen, associate provost for enrollment services at WSU, this endeavor would have been delayed even longer than it was. I would like to thank him for helping me recognize time would pass regardless of my progression towards a graduate degree. He was a primary motivator to embark on this journey. In addition, I want to thank Scott Teichert, director of admissions at WSU, for taking on a variety of roles throughout the completion of this degree. He provided critical insight as a committee member for this thesis. He also has been a confidant, mentor, guide, teacher, boss, and a great coach both professionally and during my time in the MPC program. But most of all, I’d like to thank him for his friendship. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my wife, McKenzie Hopkin. The past two and half years have been filled with many exciting changes in our lives; a new job, moving multiple times, the birth of our first child, and buying our first home. The time commitment for the MPC program has been a weight she has had to carry alongside me. She has been my greatest supporter the entire way and without her willingness to bear so many burdens, I would not have been able to complete this degree. I thank her for her practical and emotional support. Running head: AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 1 Are We Hiring the Right Students? Exploring personality traits and job performance among admissions ambassadors W. Francis Hopkin Weber State University AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 2 ABSTRACT A study was conducted to examine the frequency of personality types among admissions ambassadors in Utah. The study examined the relationship between personality and overall job performance ratings. One hundred thirty-two participants from five colleges and universities in Utah were surveyed to determine their personality type. The personality types were identified using the Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test. The four types of personalities used in this test are artisans, guardians, idealists, and rationals. The same participants were then rated by their supervisors based on their performance as admissions ambassadors. Individual interviews were conducted with the ambassador supervisors from each of the schools in order to determine what categories should be used to measure job performance of the participants. These interviews were also used to define an appropriate performance rating scale. The frequencies of personality types revealed a significant difference in the types of personalities among the participants. There was also significance found in the relationship between the different personality types and performance ratings. It was discovered that the individuals conducting the performance evaluations at certain schools gave significantly higher ratings in comparison to other individuals. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 3 Literature Review An extremely disappointed, and maybe even angry, admissions ambassador hung his head and left his supervisor’s office. The advisor couldn’t help but ask himself, “How did this happen?” It had only one been one year since that particular student had captivated everyone during his interview to become an admissions ambassador. He had impressed committee members so much that they unanimously elected to hire him. This was unheard of. Out of the nine other applicants that day, none of them passed through the process with such ease. Despite his positive first impression, this particular ambassador seemed to struggle in the program from the beginning. Whether it was his lack of attention to detail or the inability to stay focused, it seemed he just didn’t have the personality traits typically seen in high-performing ambassadors. His inability to meet the expectations of the organization led to the uncomfortable discussion in his supervisor’s office. Following his termination, the supervisor continued to wonder how he could have been so wrong about someone everyone was so excited to hire. What could they have done to identify potential warning signs that may have existed in this candidate? This research study will examine the relationship between the personality traits and job performance of student recruiters in an attempt to identify tools that can be used to ensure the selection of the best possible candidates for this critical position. Importance of student recruiters Student recruiters, often called admission ambassadors, are undergraduate students on college campuses who provide prospective students and their families with a current students’ perspective of life on campus. Ambassadors help answer challenging questions while working to ease the fears of worried parents and hesitant students (Fippinger, 2009). Different institutions AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 4 utilize these ambassadors in a variety of ways. But no matter how they are used, the principal purpose ambassadors fulfill is to provide assistance for prospective students during the college decision process. While many factors affect the college choice process, as early as 1981 research indicated that current college students can be a major influencing factor of college choice for prospective students (Chapman, 1981). As teenagers progress toward adulthood, they increasingly look to their peers for advice, acceptance, and validation. The decision of what college to attend is being made at a tumultuous time in the life of the student. Thus, this transitional decision can be greatly facilitated by the assistance of capable peers. Abundant research concludes that during this time in an adolescent’s life, teenagers tend to trust the opinion of their peers as much as anyone (Conner, 1994; Dupre, Miller, Gold, & Rospenda, 1995). Recognizing the impact peers have on college choice, recruitment professionals rely heavily on the perception current students can offer prospective students during the recruitment process. Colleges want to be viewed as having a friendly, welcoming atmosphere. By using student ambassadors to give campus tours, appear in promotional materials, and act as peer mentors, colleges can positively affect the experience prospective students have while researching a school. Prospective students depend upon their interaction with ambassadors as a way of validating everything they have read or heard about an institution (Sevier, 2000). Two marketing professionals, Sevier and Kappler (1996) recognize this phenomenon and point out that students desperately want to know how friendly the campus is and if they will fit in and be accepted. Three strategies – the campus visit, the type of photographs used in the recruiting funnel, and how the student is generally treated – are primary avenues through which friendliness must be projected (Sevier & Kappler, 1996). AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 5 It has become a common practice within higher education to hire student leaders to give campus tours, visit local high schools, attend recruitment fairs, and act as orientation group leaders, all in an attempt to create a friendly, accepting environment associated with their institutions. These student recruiters must enjoy meeting new people, developing relationships, and extolling the virtues of their school (Fippinger, 2009). In the competitive world of college recruiting, enrollment goals hinge on the institution’s ability to select the best student recruiters and leaders to act as ambassadors and representatives of the college. Job performance and personality Because these student ambassadors can have such an influential impact on how the college is perceived, it is essential the process used to hire these students is sound and attracts the right type of applicant. Hiring processes in general have traditionally placed great value in a job interview or a professional resume in order to select candidates. Interviews have been an assessment tool in attempting to identify an applicant’s cognitive ability, job knowledge, social skills, and even aspects of their personality (Robertson & Smith, 2001). Resumes are routinely used by organizations because of their perceived effectiveness and low cost in evaluating the alignment between the requirements of the job and the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics of job applicants (Dipboye & Jackson, 1999). Ironically, past research contradicts this practice by showing that those conducting these interviews tend to exaggerate their own ability to predict future job performance based on a singular interview (Myers, 2007). Research also suggests that employment recruiters often look beyond the objective data presented in resumes to make inferences about subjective information AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 6 such as personality characteristics (Wright & Domagalski, 2011). Additional research found that many personality characteristics were not reliably discernible and did not demonstrate validity when compared with actual personality scores for a sample of graduating college students (Cole et al., 2009). As a result, many organizations have explored alternative methods to incorporate in the hiring process. One approach has been to examine personality traits as predictors of job performance. Identifying personality traits during the hiring process is not a new concept. The Institute of Personality and Social Research (IPSR) at the University of California-Berkeley is one of the leaders in this field. As early as 1949, IPSR began conducting research on how well personality could predict job performance (IPSR, 2006). It specifically attempted to determine job performance in military settings. It looked at such things as what personalities would make good behind-the-lines secret agents during World War II (Caudron, 1997). It was found that military personnel with similar personalities tended to be attracted to the same jobs (Weinrach & Srebalus, 1990). Although the practice of identifying personality traits during the hiring process began in the mid-1900s, it has commonly been met with great skepticism. In 1965, researchers believed it was impossible to conduct a review of the criterion-related validity of personality due to the lack of available studies in the literature (Guion & Gottier, 1965). Since that time, ample research has been conducted to establish the credibility of the practice. Researchers have been particularly interested in the use of personality assessment being implemented during the hiring process, and research studies were designed to examine the role of personality within personnel selection (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Thanks to studies such as these, the initial skepticism surrounding the AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 7 role of personality in the selection process has been converted into a confidence that it can be an invaluable tool to aid in the selection process (Robertson & Smith, 2001). Additionally, Tews, Stafford and Tracey (2011) found that while general mental ability was a very strong predictor of employee performance, it still isn’t as powerful of a forecaster as personality. Personality Theories Many tools and techniques exist to aid a selection committee in the hiring process. Personality-based assessments are becoming more popular in determining the best candidate for the position. Hiring professionals have discovered that no matter how skilled and competent the candidate is, it’s the less-obvious personality traits that allow employees to grow and progress within an organization (Caudron, 1997). These traits include, but are not limited to, how they communicate with co-workers, how they handle conflict, or how they manage their time. The emergence of these tools and techniques has relied on the evolution of different personality theories. Hogan and Shelton’s socioanalytic perspective on performance theory (Hogan & Shelton, 1998) has been one of the leading theories. Hogan and Shelton contend that personality factors, specifically social skills, allow people to more successfully accomplish their occupational goals (1998). In addition, Tett and Burnett (2003) offer a theory of "trait activation" to explain how any given trait comes to be related to job performance. Trait activation theory proposes that five individual situational features are applicable to trait expression (job demands, distracters, constraints, releasers, and facilitators), operating at task, social, and organizational levels (Tett & Burnett, 2003). While trait activation theory is complex, it provides a framework that offers a promising foundation for improving personality test validity in work settings (Tett & Christiansen, 2007). One of the most widely accepted models of personality traits is the Five AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 8 Factor Model of Personality (Wu & Stemler, 2008). This model is commonly referred to as the “Big Five Model” (Wu & Stemler, 2008). This model emerged as a product of decades of research in the field of personality theory. As a result, fairly broad agreements regarding the structural organization of traits in terms of five domains were developed: agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability (Goldberg, 1990). One of the personality traits that has received considerable attention is conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is characterized by behavioral attributes such as dependability, persistence, and hard work (Wright & Domagalski, 2011). It has been found to correlate with job proficiency across a wide variety of occupational groups including professionals, managers, and semiskilled jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Moy & Lam, 2004). Another common theme among many personality theories is that of leadership in relation to personality (Bass, 1990; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan,1994). For quite some time, psychologists have recognized that by combining the study of cognitive ability and personality, they can predict job effectiveness reasonably well (Hogan & Holland, 2003), especially in managerial jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991). A review of the literature showing a strong relationship between personality and general job performance is abundant and accessible. However, research related to personality and job effectiveness in college-age students is less plentiful. A few studies have shown that the success of Resident Assistants (RAs) can be linked to certain personality traits (Wu & Stemler, 2008). RAs who are social, warm, friendly, and extraverted were identified as more effective (Dickson & Thayer, 1983). Likewise, personality traits of positive affect and extraversion were positively associated with job performance (Deluga & Masson, 2000). But little research has been done to AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 9 look at the more specific nature of the relationship between personality traits in admissions ambassadors and performance ratings. If a strong relationship can be found between successful admissions ambassadors and certain personality types, college recruiting professionals can improve their ability to ensure the selection of the best possible candidates for this critical position. By selecting the best possible candidates, they will then be able to more effectively portray a friendly, accepting atmosphere that prospective students are hoping to find during the college selection process. The purpose of this study is to begin looking at relationships between personality and performance ratings of student recruiters and leaders. The project will answer the following research questions: RQ1 What personality types are most frequently found within admissions ambassadors? RQ2 What is the relationship between personality type among admissions ambassadors and job performance? RQ3 In which performance rating category does each personality type receive the highest rating? AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 10 Methods The following discussion of methods is divided into both quantitative and qualitative procedures. This research project utilized a duel methods approach, implementing both research tactics. This section will discuss each method separately. Participants Participants were selected using non-random convenience sampling from five admissions ambassador programs from colleges and universities in Utah. Because of the nature of the research questions, participants had to be an ambassador at an institution of higher education in Utah in order to participate. The ambassador programs used in the project were also selected using convenience sampling. At the onset of the study, it was anticipated that over 200 ambassadors would complete the survey. Between the five participating institutions, 240 ambassadors were invited to take the survey. Participation was on a voluntary basis. If they chose not to participate there was neither penalty nor loss of benefit to which they were otherwise entitled. One hundred thirty-three responses were received from the personality assessment. All participants were informed this survey was part of a research project being completed in conjunction with a thesis for a Master of Professional Communication student. Incentives were not offered or awarded for completing this survey. Of the total valid responses received, 63 (47.7%) were male and 69 (52.3%) were female (see Figure 1). Of the respondents, 15 (11.4%) were students at Utah State University-Eastern, 39 (29.5%) were students at Utah State University, 16 (12.1%) were students at Snow College, AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 11 42 (31.8%) were students at Southern Utah University, and 20 (15.2%) were students from Weber State University (see Figure 2). Figure 1 Figure 2 One respondent clearly falsified the answers by using an incorrect name and answering all 77 questions of the personality survey in two minutes. In order to maintain the integrity of the data, it was decided to not include that response in the research. 63 69 Gender Male Female 39 42 15 20 16 Institution Utah State University Southern Utah University USU - Eastern Weber State University Snow College AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 12 Quantitative methods The first step in the project was to collect the personality data using two surveys in Google Forms. The first survey contained an informed consent form and collected demographic information such as name, gender, tenure as an ambassador, and school. It also asked them to submit a four-digit code to be used on the second survey (see Appendix 4). After completing this survey, each participant was given a link to the second survey. By having two separate surveys, the researcher was able to collect the personality assessment data without directly connecting it to information that would allow someone to identify the individual participants. The second survey was a 77-question personality questionnaire (see Appendix 5). The Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test was used to measure and define personalities of the respondents (Keirsey, 1998). Many personality tests exist and could have been used but were too broad in their scope, required specialized training in order to distribute, or were excessively time-consuming. The Keirsey test is thorough but not too in depth. Because it can be self-administered, it does not require any special training or certification in order to distribute. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter identifies four core temperaments (Keirsey, 1999). These core temperaments are identified by a two-letter abbreviation and a name: Artisans (SP), Guardians (SJ), Idealists (NF), and Rationals (NT). AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 13 2-Letter Code Name Description SP Artisans Tend to be fun-loving, optimistic, and realistic. They love to be spontaneous and bold. It is easy to get them excited about something. This excitement adds to their playful nature. SJ Guardians Are dependable, helpful, and hard-working. They are very loyal to those they love and respect. They are very dedicated to the task at hand, but have a lot of fun with friends as well. NF Idealists Take pride in being loving, kindhearted, and authentic. They make inspirational leaders. They are very enthusiastic and have the ability to look for potential in others. They value friendly cooperation. NT Rationals Tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, strong willed, and logical. They can be extremely independent and self-contained. They focus on solving the problems that face them. Because of this problem solving ability, they are strategic leaders who constantly seek high levels of achievement. These four core temperaments can each be categorized into four additional individualized categories, creating a total of 16 possible personality types. Artisans (SP) 4-Letter Code Name Description ESTP Promoter Witty, clever, and fun, they live with a theatrical flourish which makes even the most routine events seem exciting. Have a knack for knowing where the action is. ISTP Crafter Have an innate ability to command tools and to become expert at all the crafts requiring tool skills. Find enjoyment if it’s impulsive, unplanned, serving no purpose other than the doing. ESFP Performer High-spirited and fun-loving. Take great interest in stimulating those around them, even charming them. Often described as the center of attention or life of the party. ISFP Composer Tend to express themselves through action rather than verbally. Prefer to feel the pulse of life through their five senses. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 14 Guardians (SJ) 4-Letter Code Name Description ESTJ Supervisor Are squarely on the side of rules and procedures, and can be quite serious about seeing to it that others toe the mark. They go by the book and keep their feel firmly on the ground. They are sociable and civic-minded and are usually pillars of their community. ISTJ Inspector Look carefully and thoroughly at the people around them. Characterized by decisiveness in practical affairs and are “super dependable.” Their words seem to be simple and down-to-earth. ESFJ Provider Take the role of social contributor, happily giving their time and energy to make sure that the needs of others are met. Highly cooperative and maintain teamwork among their helpers. ISFJ Protector Primary desire is to be of service to others. They are diligent and willing to work long hours. Thoroughness and frugality are important to them. They are humble to the core. Idealists (NF) 4-Letter Code Name Description ENFJ Teacher Have a natural ability to lead others toward learning. They are wonderful group leaders because their enthusiasm can inspire other to live up to their expectations. Naturally communicate personal concern. INFJ Counselor Strive to help people realize their human potential. Can be complicated, reserved, and mysterious. Extremely sensitive to people and can recognize another’s emotions or intentions – whether good or evil. ENFP Champion Find profound meaning in people and events. Want to experience all the significant developments in the world. Their enthusiasm is boundless and often contagious. Others look up to them for wisdom, inspiration, courage, and leadership. INFP Healer Present a tranquil and pleasant face to the world, but inside they are anything but serene. Have a deep sense of idealism that comes from a strong sense of right and wrong. Though reserved and soft-spoken, they are fierce protectors of home and family. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 15 Rationals (NT) 4-Letter Code Name Description ENTJ Fieldmarshal Born leaders; ready, willing, and able to command people. Bring order and efficiency wherever they are. There must be a reason for doing anything, and people’s feelings usually are not sufficient reason. INTJ Mastermind Skilled in forming contingency plans. While they may appear quiet, they usually rise to positions of responsibility due to their long, hard work ethic. They are steady in the pursuit of their goals. Have a drive to completion. ENTP Inventor They are intensely curious and continuously probe for possibilities. Have an insatiable hunger for knowledge. Tend to be non-conformists, stave off routine, and give themselves room for creativity. Seldom critical or nagging. INTP Architect Believe that the world exists to be analyzed, understood, and explained. Curiosity concerning the world’s fundamental principles and natural laws is a driving force for them. They prize intelligence and can seem arrogant or impatient toward others with less ability or who are less driven. For the purpose of this study, I examined both the core temperament types as well as the four-letter code personality types of the participants. For comprehensive and detailed descriptions of the personality types, refer to The Sixteen Types (Keirsy, 1998). The results of the survey were confidential but not anonymous. In order to compare the personality types of the participants with their performance rating, it was necessary to know the names of the respondents. Qualitative methods In addition to a personality assessment, I needed to determine and qualify the job performance of each participant. Participant observation was used to accomplish this objective. Each supervisor conducted these observations for the ambassadors at their institution. This type of qualitative research was chosen because it is particularly useful in observing the participants AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 16 in their natural setting (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). It is also useful in qualifying the participant’s communication process over time. All five colleges already implemented their own performance rating systems. But this research project required a performance rating system that could be used universally among all participating institutions. Specifically, the job performance rating system needed to answer the question of how effective these individuals are as ambassadors. Individual interviews were conducted to determine the criteria for rating the participants. Five recruitment officers and/or ambassador advisors from the participating institutions volunteered to take part in these interviews. Based on the results from the interviews, a rating system was developed that would be used to qualify the job performance in four areas; interpersonal communication, work ethic, self-motivation, and commitment to the program. Each area would be rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale. Once the criteria for ranking were established, all five professional staff members began evaluating the respondents from their school. A complete list of questions and discussion topics was developed and was used in each interview, but during the course of each conversation, additional follow-up questions may have been asked and some of the planned questions were intentionally omitted due to time restraints. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 17 Results The following results are divided into both quantitative and qualitative outcomes. This research project utilized a duel methods approach, implementing both research tactics. This section will discuss the results of each method separately. Quantitative results Of the 132 respondents, 84 (63.6%) had a “SJ” temperament, 34 (25.8%) had a “NF” temperament, 12 (9.1%) had a “SP” temperament, and two (1.5%) had a “NT temperament (see Figure 3). Looking at the more specific personality groups, it was found that only 12 of the 16 personality types were represented among respondents. Of the 132 respondents, 51 (38.6%) had an ESFJ personality type, 17 (12.9%) had an ESTJ personality type, 12 (9.1%) had an ENFJ personality type, 11 (8.3%) had an ENFP personality type, 10 (7.6%) had an ISFJ personality type, eight (6.1%) had either an ESFP or INFJ personality type, six (4.5%) had an ISTJ personality type, three (2.3%) had an INFP personality type, and two (1.5%) had either an ESTP, ISFP, or ENTJ personality type (see Figure 4). Figure 3 84 34 12 2 Temperament SJ NF SP NT AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 18 Figure 4 Measures of central tendency and dispersion were computed to summarize the length of time the participant had been an ambassador. Of 132 ambassadors, the average amount of time they had worked was 1.92 years; N=132, M=1.92, SD=1.03. Measures of central tendency and dispersion were also computed to summarize the performance ratings for all categories including the overall performance rating. Results for overall performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.73, SD=.1.94. Results for interpersonal communication performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=8.12, SD=.1.62. Results for work ethic performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=8.01, SD=.1.98. Results for self-motivation performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.81, SD=.2.20. Results for commitment to the program performance rating are as follows; N=132, M=7.94, SD=1.91. 2 8 2 17 6 51 10 12 8 11 3 2 Personality ESTP ESFP ISFP ESTJ ISTJ ESFJ ISFJ ENFJ INFJ ENFP INFP ENTJ AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 19 One purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in the number of temperaments or personality types among admission ambassadors. First, the four temperaments were examined: SP, SJ, NF, and NT. A one-variable Chi square test was run (χ2(3) = 121.33, p <.05). The results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the number of personality types observed. An examination of the data shows the biggest difference exists in the number of observed frequencies of SJ personalities in comparison to the other three groups. Analysis also showed a large difference in the number of observed NT personality types. It was found that the SP and NF groups were more similar in the number of observed frequencies and is assumed that the significance is not found in the frequencies of these two variables (see Appendix 1). Next, the 12 personality types were examined. A one-variable Chi square test was run (χ2(11) = 180.73, p <.05). The results indicate there is a statistically significant difference in the number of personality types observed. An examination of the data shows the biggest difference exists in the number of observed frequencies of ESFJ personalities in comparison to the other groups. It was found that the remaining groups were more similar in the number of observed frequencies and is assumed that the significance is not found in the frequencies of these variables (see Appendix 1). A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare each of the four temperament types with the performance rating categories. There was no statistical difference in the overall performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .22, p>.05]. Likewise, there was no statistical difference in the interpersonal communication performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .06, p>.05], the work ethic performance AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 20 rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .50, p>.05], the self-motivation performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .72, p>.05], or the commitment to the program performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .24, p>.05] (See Appendix 2). There was also a one-way between subjects ANOVA conducted to compare each of the 12 personality types with the performance-rating categories. Similar to the four temperament groups, there was no statistical difference in the overall performance rating between each personality type [F(3, 128)= .14, p>.05], the work ethic performance rating between each personality type [F(3, 128)= .09, p>.05], the self-motivation performance rating between each personality type [F(3, 128)= .14, p>.05], or the commitment to the program performance rating between each personality type [F(3, 128)= .18, p<.05]. There was, however, a statistical difference in the interpersonal communication performance rating between each temperament category [F(3, 128)= .01, p>.05] (See Appendix 2). In order to determine exactly where the difference exists, post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD were used. These comparisons indicated the mean rating for ISFP personality type (M = 4.50, SD = 3.53) was significantly different than ESTJ personality type (M = 8.71, SD = 1.72), ESFJ personality type (M = 8.43, SD = 1.25), and ENFJ personality type (M = 8.58, SD = 1.24). Finally, a one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the overall performance ratings from each of the schools. There was a significant difference between the scores at the five different institutions [F(4, 127)= .00, p<.05]. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Snow College (M = 8.75, SD = 1.39) and SUU AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 21 (M = 8.79, SD = .98) were significantly higher than USU (M = 6.92, SD = 1.53), WSU (M = 6.95, SD = 1.96), and USU-Eastern (M = 6.80, SD = 3.26). These results show the individuals conducting the performance evaluations at Snow and SUU gave significantly higher ratings in comparison to the individuals at USU, WSU, and USU-Eastern (see Appendix 5). Qualitative results One of the challenges unique to this research project was defining what a “good” ambassador is. Although the participating institutions have ambassador programs with similar functions, each office gives their ambassadors different responsibilities and requirements. This made it difficult to define and ultimately rate the performance of each participant. In order to establish reliability in the rating scale, it was necessary to conduct interviews with each supervisor conducting the performance evaluations. The purpose of the interviews was to develop a rating scale that would be as universally effective as possible despite the individual differences between the ambassador programs. Individual Interviews The following section represents an overview of the dialogue that took place during the individual interviews. A more in-depth and detailed transcription was recorded (see Appendix 3). It was found that all ambassador programs used their students to conduct campus tours, visit high schools, attend college fairs, and help answer questions from prospective students. Each program utilizes their ambassadors with slight variations, but the general consensus was an ambassador’s role is to provide a student’s perspective of the institution. Additionally, it was found that an ambassador’s most critical function is to interact with a wide variety of people. They need to be hard workers and have high interpersonal communication skills. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 22 Each advisor indicated they tried to hire a variety of personality types. The believed there was not a “cookie cutter” ambassador. Rather, they reported that they tried to hire those ambassadors who they felt could bring something unique to their team. The examination showed that the advisors looked for traits such as leadership experience, high energy, commitment, self-motivation, and critical thinking abilities during the ambassador evaluation process. Creative and outgoing personality traits were also desirable to the supervisors. As mentioned previously, it was a challenge to define what a “good” ambassador is. But following the interviews, it was determined that commitment to the program could be a viable measure of effectiveness. It was clear that an attitude of helping was important in determining the difference between a “good” and a “bad” ambassador. Higher ranking ambassadors seem to have an innate desire to serve those around them. They look for ways to help. One interviewee described it by saying, “This is a personal philosophy, but I believe people are motivated by one of three basic reasons, each one more noble than the one preceding it; fear, duty, then love. Most of us are motivated by one of these at a given time, but great ambassadors do what they do because they love those they serve.” It was determined that each school had its own way of evaluating ambassador performance. Each school judged performance based on the expectations laid out in a contract. The manner in evaluating these expectations varied from school to school, but ultimately individual job performance was based on how well the contract was fulfilled. An examination of the relationship between personality and performance was brought up during these interviews. It was the feeling of the advisors that they tend to hire individuals with AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 23 very outgoing personalities. However, a belief was found that it is difficult to find an ambassador who was exceptional at all the tasks ambassadors are asked to perform. Interview Results Following the interviews, it was determined that many of the topics addressed could be categorized into four main areas. These four themes seemed to be important to all of the supervisors, no matter how they used their ambassadors. Each supervisor rated participants from their institution based on the following criteria: 1. Interpersonal Communication Skills – They have the ability to relate to a wide variety of individuals: students, parents, counselors, campus partners, etc. They are confident in what they say, how they say it, and when they say it. They’re friendly and have a desire to help in any situation. They maintain composure under pressure. 2. Work Ethic – They're reliable, consistent, responsible, punctual, proactive and organized. They are adaptable and can change at a moment’s notice. They have the ability to think critically about the tasks at hand and act accordingly. 3. Self-motivated – They have a desire to continuously learn and improve. Even the most experienced ambassadors can still learn things. They are willing to take ownership of projects and see them through to completion. They hold themselves accountable to expectations. They not only do what is expected of them but strive to exceed the expectation. They have the ability and desire to seek out tasks without being told. They have the self-discipline to be productive at all times. 4. Committed to the program – They see and understand the purpose of the ambassador program and are invested in building upon that vision. They truly want to AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 24 serve the individuals they come in contact with. They are dedicated to the mission of the admissions and recruitment offices. They have knowledge of the institution mission and opportunities. In addition to scoring participants in each of these four areas, supervisors were asked to give each of their participants an overall rating. Results of the measures of central tendency from these performance evaluations can be found in the quantitative results section of this paper. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 25 Discussion Quantitative Discussion Research Question 1 asked what the most commonly found personality types among admissions ambassadors were. One of the most interesting findings was the statistically significant difference in the observed core temperaments and personality types. By far the most common temperament was SJ, or Guardians. This core temperament seems to be very dedicated to the task at hand, yet still desires to make the job as fun as possible. It was also intriguing to find that out of 132 participants only two had the personality type NT or Rationals. This core temperament tends to be extremely independent and self-contained. These findings were most surprising because compared with the qualitative findings supervisors felt they didn’t look for a specific type of personality when making hiring decisions. In fact, they claimed to avoid the practice of hiring a certain “type” of ambassador. However, according to these results, ambassador programs hire a statistically significant number of SJ students while avoiding NT students, despite their best efforts. Looking into the more specific personality types, similar results were discovered. A surprising number of ESFJ personality types, which is a subcategory of the SJ core temperament, were present in comparison to all other types. This could be because of the responsibilities ambassadors are asked to perform. It was found that each supervisor viewed the role of ambassadors to be a representative of their institution – literally someone to be the “face” of the university in many aspects. ESFJ type personalities tend to be more gregarious. Words used to describe this type of individual include playmate, liberator, optimistic, and excited (Keirsey, 1998). They like to perform. If the supervisors are looking for people to represent their school, it AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 26 is understandable that ESFJ type personalities would rise to the top. Their traits were identified by the supervisors in the evaluations as indicators of good ambassadors. Another responsibility ambassadors are asked to fulfill could help explain why so many ESFJ personality types surfaced in this study. The role of an ambassador is also to be a mentor for prospective students and answer the many questions that come up during the college decision process. It was noted in the review of the literature that ambassadors help answer challenging questions while working to ease the fears of worried parents and hesitant students (Fippinger, 2009). The personality of ESFJ tends to take the role of social contributor, happily giving their time and energy to make sure that the needs of others are met. While it may be unintentional, hiring committees may recognize this trait during the hiring process and have a tendency to hire this specific personality type. The data don’t seem to provide a clear answer as to why only two students with NT core temperament were found among all participants. It may be because this personality type tends to shy away from the spotlight. Unlike people with the SJ temperament, they do not like to perform. Words used to describe this personality include pragmatism, skepticism, calm, reason, and individual (Keirsy, 1998). Perhaps the reason why there are so few of this type is that people with this temperament don’t even apply to become an admissions ambassador because they have no desire to be put in front of groups of people. Research Question 2 attempted to identify a relationship between high performance ratings and certain personality types. Based on the findings, there is no statistically significant difference in the any of the performance rating categories of each of the four temperaments. The low numbers in some of the groups, such as NT, could have contributed to this lack of AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 27 significance. There was, however, one category in which a significant difference could be identified when looking at the 12 different personality types. The mean overall performance rating for ISFP, or Composer, was significantly lower than three of the other personality types: ESTJ (Supervisor), ESFJ (Provider), and ENFJ (Teacher). One of the purposes of this study was to determine if specific personality types performed significantly higher or lower than the majority of other categories. If significance could be identified, hiring managers could possibly use personality type to help make decisions during the selection process. While it is interesting to identify that one of the 12 groups was significantly different, having discovered only one difference does not provide the evidence to support the use of personality assessment as a defining tool in the hiring process. Qualitative Discussion This research project did not intend to identify or examine differences between the five ambassador programs that participated in the project. But some interesting variances were discovered. It was found that the most basic responsibility of ambassadors in all five programs is to recruit prospective students. The way each institution uses ambassadors toward this end was unique and eye-opening. Weber State University (WSU) seemed to put more of a focus on giving each ambassador one high school to be in charge of. The ambassadors take personal responsibility for the success at their school. They are heavily involved in the goal setting and planning for their assigned high school. In addition to their high school, they conduct campus tours, work more office hours than any of the other schools, and even serve as New Student Orientation group leaders. Their role in Orientation is the biggest difference in comparison to the other schools. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 28 Utah State University (USU) takes a much different approach. It has the most ambassadors out of the five programs and has more flexibility in how it uses them. USU ambassadors have different groups of ambassadors assigned to specific tasks. Some are assigned to give campus tours; others are assigned to be in the high schools. The most unique assignment they have in comparison to the other schools is that they assign their most experienced ambassadors to be presidential ambassadors. This group is assigned to work with the university president and typically act as hosts and hostesses to special guests of the president. They are typically ambassadors who have been in the program a number of years. USU ambassadors don’t vary too much in what they do. For example, if they are assigned to visit high schools, they rarely give campus tours. Utah State University-Eastern has the fewest number of ambassadors, and thus has the most varied responsibilities. These ambassadors spend significant amounts of time in high schools, but aren’t assigned specific schools. They visit a number of schools as often as they can. They conduct campus tours similar to Weber State ambassadors, but they are not intimately involved with Orientation. They do, however, take a larger role in campus activities. Due to the small size of USU-Eastern, any student receiving a leadership scholarship is required to be involved in on-campus activities. Not only are they required to attend campus events, they participate in planning many of these events. The ambassador programs at Snow College and Southern Utah University (SUU) both have a combination of the responsibilities mentioned among the other institutions. Both programs have a similar number of ambassadors and use them in a wide variety of tasks. Like USU-Eastern, recruitment is one of the key roles for their ambassadors, but they also take a significant role in overall student involvement. They are required to participate on planning AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 29 committees for on-campus events and are required to join multiple clubs and organizations. Like USU and Weber State, however, their recruitment assignments are specific and limited. They only visit assigned high schools rather than going to whatever one is convenient for them like USU-Eastern. Neither of these schools requires office hours for their ambassadors. While these qualitative findings don’t support or add to any of the research questions, they were interesting findings. Limitations The most profound limitation encountered was the difficulty in defining what a “good” ambassador is. Research Questions 2 and 3 were completely dependent on the concept of being able to rate individual ambassadors on their performance. It was challenging to establish a rating system that could be used effectively for all five institutions. This difficulty was a result of the fact that the ambassador programs at each institution use their students for a wide variety of things. Because of this variation, it was found that an individual ambassador could be very good at one aspect of their job but lack ability in others. When this is the case, it is difficult to give them an overall rating. Another limitation associated with the rating system is the difference in how each supervisor rated ambassadors. For example, performance scores given by one particular supervisor were higher on average than the others. As described in the results section, there was a significant difference in how high two supervisors scored their ambassadors in comparison to the three additional supervisors. For lack of a better description, this caused low inter-coder reliability. It would add to the reliability of the research if one person could observe and rate each respondent. While this is an unlikely scenario, it would increase the inter-coder reliability. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 30 The validity of the personality test could be a possible limitation as well. Researchers have shown that inconsistencies can exist under certain circumstances while administering personality quizzes (Reddock, Biderman, & Nhung, 2011). One of the most common inconsistencies is the variation in answers given by participants. Inconsistent answers to the same questions have been found as individuals take the test multiple times (Reddock, Biderman, & Nhung, 2011). These inconsistencies should be examined and taken into account for future research. Finally, an interesting observation was made in relation to the ambassadors who actually participated in the personality assessment. At the onset of the study, it was anticipated that over 200 ambassadors would complete the survey. Between the five participating institutions, 240 ambassadors were invited to take the survey. Participation was on a voluntary basis. If they chose not to participate there was neither penalty nor loss of benefit to which they were otherwise entitled. One of the admissions advisors observed those students from his school who chose to participate were the higher performing ambassadors in general. He further recognized those who did not participate were the students who struggle getting involved in the program and most likely would have received lower ratings. Thus, another limitation of this study is that only the more motivated and higher performing ambassadors chose to participate in the first place. Had all ambassadors who were invited to take the personality assessment participated, the performance ratings as well as the observed personality types may have changed. Future Research Many ideas and opportunities for future research were discovered during the completion of this project. Most importantly, future research should address the limitation of lack of inter- AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 31 coder reliability. In order to consistently and reliably rate performance, additional methods should be explored. If one person cannot accurately rate each participant, it might be necessary to limit the participants to a single school. Using the data set identified in this study, future research could isolate the students from individual schools instead of combing them all into one large group. In addition, there were several independent variables identified through the survey. These include gender, the length of time a student has been an ambassador, and school. Additional independent variables could be identified and compared. These could include age, high school, GPA, or major. Another key research project should involve using a different personality assessment tool. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter personality test was chosen for this project because of its accessibility for distribution. It does not require specialized training or certification in order to administer. Future research could explore additional assessment tools that may be more specific and deliberate in identifying personality types. Conclusion This research was incredibly eye-opening for me. I learned that selecting the right ambassadors during the hiring process plays an integral role in establishing a recruitment team that can accomplish the goals and needs of the university. The review of the literature showed ambassadors truly do help convey a very strategic image of the university as well as serve as mentors for prospective students trying to decide which school to attend. I learned that research supports the need to diversify the tools used in the selection process. Traditionally, measuring cognitive ability has been a key instrument in predicting job AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 32 performance. But research supports the need for additional tools. While ample evidence exists to support the reliability of using personality traits to predict job performance in certain industries, it has not been explored sufficiently in the realm of admission ambassadors. As we seek data supported answers for relevant, experienced-based questions, we develop research that we’re truly invested in. I believe the best research is born out of these experienced-based questions. This study was the product of such a question for me. It was intriguing to investigate this topic because it is something I am faced with on a daily basis. While much remains to be learned about the personality types of admission ambassadors, this study helps open the door to this limited research topic. Findings from ambassador personality research may provide insight into the efficacy of using students in the college recruitment process. Continued research will also improve the selection process so hiring committees can avoid the uncomfortable and costly scenario of having to fire someone they had been certain was a great candidate. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 33 References Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2001). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial application. New York: Free Press. Cole, M. S., Field, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Recruiters’ inferences of applicant personality based on resume screening: Do paper people have a personality? Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 5-18. Conner, M. J. (1994). Peer relations and peer pressure. Educational Psychology in Practice, 9, 207-215. Caudron, S. (1997). Hire for attitude: It’s who they are that counts. Workforce, 76. Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490-505. Deluga, R. J., & Masson, S. (2000). Relationships of resident assistant conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect with rated performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 225-235. Dickson, G. M., & Thayer, J. D. (1983). Resident assistant temperament: Is there an ideal? The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 13, 26-32. Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1999). Interviewer experience and expertise effects. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 229-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dupre, D., Miller, N., Gold, M., & Rospenda, K. (1995). Initiation and progression of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine use among adolescent abusers. American Journal on Addictions, 4, 43-48. Fippinger, A. (2009). An appreciative approach to training undergraduate admissions student workers. College and University, 85(1), 53-56. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 34 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164. Hogan, R., Curphy, G., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100-112. Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129-144. Institute of Personality and Social Research. (2006). Institute of Personality and Social Research University of California Berkley. Retrieved Oct 16, 2011, from http://ipsr.berkeley.edu/about.html Keirsey, D. (1998). The sixteen types. Del Mar, CA: Nemesis Book Compamy. Keirsey, D. (1999). Please understand me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Compamy. Myers, D. G. (2007). Psychology (8th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Reddock, C. M., Biderman, M. D., & Nguyen, N. T. (2011). The relationship of reliability and validity of personality tests to frame‐of‐reference instructions and within‐person inconsistency. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(2), 119-131. Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 441-472. Sevier, R. A. (2000). Building an effective recruiting funnel. College Admission, 169, 10-19. Sevier, R. A., & Kappler, S. D. (1996). What students say: Results of two national surveys of how students choose a college. Stamats Communications. Retrieved Nov 1, 2012, from http://www.stamats.com/information/whitepapers/pdfs/WhitePaper3.pdf Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. Tett, R. P., & Christiansen, N. D. (2007). Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmidt (2007).Personnel Psychology, 60, 967–993. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 35 Tews, M. J., Stafford, K., & Tracey, J. B. (2011). What matters most? The perceived importance of ability and personality for hiring decisions. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52, 2. Wu, M. B., & Stemler, S. E. (2008). Resident advisor general intelligence, emotional intelligence, personality dimensions, and internal belief characteristics as predictors of rated performance. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 528-559. Weinrach, S. G., & Srebalus, D.J. (1990). Holland’s theory of careers. Career Choice and Development: Applying Contemporary Theories to Practice (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. Wright, E. W., & Domagalski, T. A. (2011). Improving employee selection with a revised resume. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(3), 272-286. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 36 Appendix 1 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 37 Appendix 2 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 38 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 39 Running head: AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 1 Appendix 3 Appenix 3 represents an overview of the dialogue that took place during the individual interviews. The researcher planned a complete list of questions and discussion topics to be used in, but during the course of each conversation additional follow-up questions may have been asked and some of the planned questions were intentionally omitted due to time restraints. For the purpose of this transcription, each question will be presented and the varying answers will be identified using a participant number (P1, P2, P3, or P4). 1. How does your office utilize student ambassadors/student recruiters? P1 – We use them to help give a student’s perspective during the recruitment process. We expect them to be able to interact with a wide variety of people. They go to high schools and help students get excited about college. P3 – They help us recruit. They give campus tours and really become the face of the university. We also use them as orientation tour guides. We require quite a bit of the ambassadors and use them for a wide variety of things. Many campus partners use them for their events. They host students who come to campus. We have them work in our office helping with mailings and communication plans. They really do a lot for our office. P4 – We have them spend a lot of time in the high schools and at recruitment fairs. They’re our campus tour guides. Our president uses the older ambassadors as hosts/hostesses at special events. We use them to make outbound phone calls as well as answer email questions. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 41 2. What are the most critical functions you ask them perform? P2 – An overall critical thing we ask them to do is just being able to interact with people. They need to have a vast knowledge of the university and the opportunities we have to offer. They also need to be hard workers who we can trust to get the job done. If I had to say the most important thing, I think the most critical thing would be to be able to recruit students. P3 – The most important things they do involve working with prospective students. Whether it’s in a high school, at a college fair, on a campus tour, or on the phone with a student they have to be able to communicate. They have to want to help people. “If they really want to help people, they’ll have their best interest at heart and will do what they can to make sure they have a great experience.” 3. What traits do you look for when hiring these students? P1 – We look for leadership experience, high energy individuals, and people who are team players. They need to be creative. They have to be able to change and adapt at a moment’s notice. They need to be able to both lead and follow. P2 – We look for hard workers who demonstrate a desire to recruit. We want students who are dedicated to the school. We really look for students who can interact with others. P3 – Students with critical thinking abilities. We don’t want to hire a bunch of kids who we have to babysit or constantly be telling them what to do. “They need to be able to see a problem and find a solution.” P4 – “We look for reliable, punctual, dependable students who are willing to take ownership.” They need to have high interpersonal communication skills. We like to higher creative outgoing students. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 42 4. In your opinion, what are the most significant factors between a “good” ambassador and a “bad” ambassador? P1 – Our most successful ambassadors seem to be the ones who have a high level of buy-in to our philosophy. “Calling them ‘good’ or ‘bad’ seems kind of harsh, but when they really commit to what we’re trying to do with our program, they seem to enjoy it more and really work for our objectives.” P2 – “Being an ambassador means different things to different people. But the best ambassadors have a desire to serve others.” Being self-motivated is also a good indicator of a great ambassador. P3 – They need to have a desire to continuously improve. They all start out as excited freshman who want to do be the best they can be, but some of them seem to taper off in productivity the longer they’re an ambassador. The good ambassadors always are trying to improve and realize there’s always something they can learn. P4 – “This is a personal philosophy, but I believe people are motivated by one of three basic reasons, each one more noble than the one preceding it; fear, duty, then love. Most of us are motivated by one of these at a given time, but great ambassadors do what they do because they love those they serve. We’re in the business of helping people and the best ambassadors have a burning desire to help.” 5. How do you evaluate their performance? P1 & P2 – We hold interviews each semester and have created evaluations to measure their performance. The professional recruiter who works most closely with them reviews their performance from the past semester and sets goals for the upcoming one. They’re basically an opportunity to encourage them to keep doing the best they can. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 43 P3- We developed something we call “justifications.” They are annual meetings in which the ambassadors must prove, or justify, why they should be part of the team. It gives us a chance to look at what they’ve accomplished and work on ways they can improve. P4 – We really don’t have an evaluation process. They’re only ambassadors for two years. If they don’t fulfill their contract, then they aren’t re-hired the following year. 6. What criteria do you use when evaluating their performance? P1 & P2 – They sign a contract at the beginning of the year which lays out all of their responsibilities. The contract is very explicit in our expectations and any consequences for non-compliance. They are graded on work ethic, timeliness, the number of recruitment activities they’ve participated in, and involvement on campus. P3 – They basically have to justify why they should be receiving their scholarship. We look at how effectively they’ve fulfilled their duties and make sure they’ve completed everything. We look at involvement, we test their knowledge of campus by having them take a quiz, and we look at how many high school visits they attended. We try to provide feedback and set goals to help them improve. 7. In your experience, how does personality relate to performance? P1 – I think we typically try to hire people with very outgoing personalities. Our ambassadors do such a wide variety of things, even if they’re not the most outgoing person, they can still be a great ambassador. P3 – The way we use our ambassadors, we like to have a very exuberant type of personality. They are with people so much they need to be able to interact and entertain. We want ambassadors who can entertain. The more their personality allows them to do that, the better they seem to perform. AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 44 P4 – “I can’t seem to find very many ambassadors who are great at everything. Some have personalities that make them great office workers, while others are more extraverted and are great at presenting and working with people. I’m not sure personality matters as much as simply having a desire to help people in their own way with their own abilities.” AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 45 Appendix 4 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 46 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 47 Appendix 5 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 48 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 49 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 50 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 51 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 52 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 53 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 54 AMBASSADOR PERSONALITY TYPES 55 Appendix 5