Part of my personal capabilities series .

A Belbin teamroles inventory (to me) is the most useful test you can do both as a team and as an individual that works in teams.

The basic summary is that, within a given group, people tend to fulfil one or more of 8 basic roles. If you miss a role in your group, you can be hampered; other roles have a one-person-only-please limit. Remember that person that always seems to end up taking charge? Are you the person that ties up the loose ends? Are you constantly spewing forth new ideas?

Each role comes with strengths and with weaknesses. I'll illustrate it by giving some personal examples. I've done the test a few times over the course of 6 years. Three times in a university setting, once just by myself on the internet and once at my current workplace Zest software .

My number one role: monitor/evaluator (Dutch: waarschuwer). Consistently the number one. In every test. And with a, for this role, ridiculous high score. I'm smart and I can analyse well. A definition of this role is "you have a capacity for shrewd judgements that take all factors into account and you seldom give bad advice". Not that I don't make mistakes, but if I really advice against something, I'm often right.

Some drawbacks that I notice in myself. I can be long winded: talking for a long time so that everybody loses my point. Critical and intelligent also equates often to distant and cold. And there's a risk of slamming an overly negative brake on creative discussions and processes.

A point about drawbacks: some drawbacks are allowed drawbacks. They're a package deal. If you want the benefits of a monitor/evaluator, you'll just have to learn to live with some of those attached drawbacks. At the same time, those drawbacks are something I want to be aware of so that I can limit their detrimental effect.

Numbers two and three: company worker/team worker (Dutch: bedrijfsman of teamwerker) and shaper (Dutch: vormer). In the earliest tests company worker was the clear number two, in the more recent ones the shaper takes that spot. I've got a story that illustrates I really have some shaper characteristics later on.

A company worker is loyal (something that's really strong in me). Perfectly willing to do nasty or menial tasks. I can translate goals or customer wishes into practical tasks. Brainstorming how to convert a goal into specific tasks is one of the things I like most.

As a company worker, the demands of practical work can make me a tad conservative. A finely honed system or work approach: don't throw it away before its time. And if I see no practical use in something, it is virtually impossible to motivate me (though loyalty goes a long way).

The second number two spot candidate: shaper. I totally do not fit the "nervous energy" and "aggressive extroverts" characteristics you often see in descriptions of this type! I do have a tendency and desire to technically structure the projects I'm working on or the processes I'm working with. Doing design work on the architecture. Writing programs/scripts that are used to manage the software. Keeping the overview, juggling tasks (and people to do them). If there are obstacles of if there is a looming deadline: I don't mind that much and I'll continue functioning, structuring and pushing myself (or others) along. A shaper is said to be one of the most effective members of a team in guaranteeing positive action.

One of the Belbin summaries I have lists the following three drawbacks that I recognize: prone to provocation, irritation and a tendency to offend others. Those are listed under the heading "allowable weaknesses" but I severely dislike them. Having a technical argument: OK. Being part of a war in a student club: OK, a long as you still can play on the same soccer team with the opponents. But offending persons: bah.

The story with the shaper-drawback that I mentioned. We did this Belbin test with a couple of PhD candidates and got split into two groups afterwards to do some task. We soon discovered that the groups were divided in the most sub-optimal way possible :-) In my group were 4 finishers: ready to do a lot of work and waiting for instructions. And I was the 5th member and my shaper role came front and center: 4 people waiting for structure and instructions. That's what they asked for and what they got. But in the feedback round afterwards I got some hefty feedback that I had given structure, but that I had also driven a 40 ton main battle tank over some quite sensitive feet. Ouch.

For projects, I can function well both as a shaper and as a company worker. In the first case, I try to maintain the overview and try to steer the process and try to have a lot of influence on the architecture. In the second case I'm a loyal team member that gets tasks done.

A couple of weeks ago I read two related things. First was a suggestion to learn to describe yourself in a maximum of 8 words. Probably Tom Peters or Seth Godin. A few hours later I saw Steve Pavlina request people to describe him in three words . Hey, that's a good idea! And I went off in search of spouse and colleagues.

I got feedback from 9 persons total, in a mix of Dutch and English words. That mix probably results in some loss of nuance. On the other hand, it allows me to group mostly-similar items.

Three items were mentioned three times:

• Smart/intelligent. Well, yes :-)
• Headstrong. (Dutch: eigenwijs/onbuigzaam/standvastig). Stubborn, obstinate. If I believe something to be true, I really believe it.

  My PhD topic's solution gained exclamations like "sheer idiocy", "that will never work" and "that is heresy". I did not listen and did not do the same non-working thing that others had done before me.

  A problem I have with a technical discussion: sometimes both "sides" are mostly right, they're just a different technical choice. With the same goal in mind. I can be headstrong in favour of my opinion.

• Driven/dedicated. (Two were Dutch: gedreven, gepassioneerd). I sometimes stay up till 5:00 in the morning to finish off a particular bug or customer problem. (As an aside: a common defence tactic I use is by being non-dedicated to something that I don't like. Passive resistance.)

Three items were mentioned twice:

• Efficient.
• Friendly.
• Thorough. (Dutch: grondig).

And 11 items were mentioned once. Conservative; deep thinker (diepe denker); helpful (hulpvaardig); introvert; lax (laks); open mind (open blik); owl; tranquil (kalm); sympathetic (sympathiek); to the point; self-confident (zelfverzekerd).

So, thanks to all that send me three words. If someone else wants to send me his or her three words that best describe in their opinion: please do send them to me (reinout@vanrees.org). Also other feedback: much appreciated.

This experiment has been helpful to me. Good to see how others perceive me. And helpful to prod me to keep improving my strengths (smart, dedicated, efficient, friendly, thorough) and to watch out for steam-rolling over other peoples' toes (driven, headstrong).

The StrengthsFinder 2.0 is basically an online test for which you get an access code by buying the accompanying book. It is an improved version of a quite old method by Gallup.

Basic premise: you only look at your strengths and focus on them. There's a big list of various strengths and the online test selects 5 of them and follows up with a few extra tips.

Here's my list, partially for my own reference, partially because it can perhaps help others to use that to both their and my advantage.

Input

One word: INFORMATION. I want more. Random reading on wikipedia. Targeted reading on wikipedia. Around Christmas, I read a book about Sherman's march to Atlanta. This made it obvious I didn't know a lot about the USA civil war. One week and some regular wikipedia reading later, this was rectified.

Faced with a new technology, I want input. Information. A good book to read about it. Reading a bunch of blogs about it. Getting a feel. New stuff also gets compared to the existing available knowledge, so also without reading a lot about something new I can often extract a quick intuitive smell.

Intellection

A busy brain. And introspective (like you see in this article...). And I like intellectual discussions. Above-mentioned input strength makes sure I gather a lot, intellection makes sure I mill it around in my brain.

Trying to understand/introspect myself in this case (coupled with input and context) also flows over into wanting to understand historical figures. I've got three biographies of Montgomery, two of Erwin Rommel, stuff about Napoleon. I've read about Scipio and Caesar. Etc.

Learner

I want to learn and improve. Yeah. New ideas, new knowledge.

Context

Historical data. Whether about the history of Zope and Plone or about Scipio's tactics to bash the hell out of Carthage. More. More. I do also like websites like John Robb's global guerrillas that combine historical insight with modern insights to show how terrorists and others operate now.

Responsibility

According to the book: People who are especially talented in the Responsibility theme take psychological ownership of what they say they will do. They are committed to stable values such as honesty and loyalty.

There's one other part I want to cite: Chances are good that you are occasionally willing to be vulnerable. Perhaps you claim your talents or admit your weaknesses. Your openness may help some people know you better as a person.

Responsibility sounds very very good, but remember that this is a book about strong points. I do have a small weakness here and there :-)

In total, I quite enjoyed doing the test. And I got a bit more insight out of it. So well worth the 15 Euro or so that went into it.

From an ennegram intro: The Enneagram is mainly a diagnostic tool of one's emotional outlook on life. It will not cure one's problems, but may help point out their underlying fixations. It is also useful as a guide to how other people see the world differently. From browsing a few resources on the web, I get the impression that it is mostly used for self-help and that the scientific theory behind it needs some work. For an hour of browsing joy, I'd advise 9types.

To get right to the core: my type is number 9, "the mediator". The 9types website gives the summary "the withdrawn approval-seeker". The sentence I like most from the main description of type 9 is: Inertia is in fact a chronic problem for 9s, who often find it hard to get started on things. However, this inertia can also work to their advantage, because once started 9s can make slow-but-steady progress, becoming surprisingly relentless in their pursuits.

Getting started on my study. Just getting down to work. Major problem. It took me 9 years, but with a slow but steady progress I did finish it. I even went on to get a PhD. Even with kids running around the house.

One thing I also recognise: the distaste for conflict. If people start to irritate eachother, I often feel bad. I sometimes try to quiet the short-term irritation down. To this there is one exception. In a next entry in this personal capabilities series I'll describe my belbin teamroles. My strongest teamrole is "monitor", which means I have keen sense for major things that are wrong. If some decision in a group is really wrong or has some serious drawbacks, I'm known to say so and to oppose it. I was, for instance, one of the persons at the core of the most serious conflicts (solved, btw) at my former student club C.S.R.-Delft because something was wrong there. Somewhat out of character for a type 9!

A work-related comment that sounds mostly fitting: Relaxes in the absence of friction. Wants things to feel comfortable and to run without hassle. Wants the "job family" to get along. Has a deep desire to have good feelings on the job, between authority and employee. (From work).

For those who know the enneagram theory: I'm a 9 with a 1 wing.

The most benefit I got out of the enneagram theory is from a summary of callahan's "the enneagram for youth". It contrasts the way you probably behave when you're OK with the way you probably behave when you're a bit in the shit:

• When a Nine comes to believe in its self-worth, it develops the freedom of expression and assertiveness of a healthy Three, the principles of a healthy One, the responsibility of a healthy Six, and the self-confidence of a healthy Eight. (Quote from callahan)
• When a Nine retreats from the demanding world, it develops the panicky cowardice of an unhealthy Six, it fears failure like an unhealthy Three, becomes rigid like an unhealthy One, and turns angry like an unhealthy Eight. (Quote from callahan)

Not everything applies, but it was a help to recognise certain things.

To close this off, an example type 9: Eisenhower. To make the types more clear, many webpages include examples of well-known persons divided by type. For me, I'm not talking about Eisenhower-the-president as I don't know anything about that period. I'm talking about Eisenhower-the-general. Eisenhower is definitively not the best general of the second world war, someone like Erich von Manstein would kick his butt. But he was a great diplomatic general, coordinating the combined efforts of the US and the UK armies. Trying to keep both Patton and Montgomery more-or-less happy. Smoothing things. I'm still under the impression that the US-UK cooperation in the second world war was much smoother than the UK-FR cooperation in the first world war. So Eisenhower has a 9's inertia to keep on going, despite occasional setbacks, homefront pressures, a multi-national conglomorate of armies. And he's got the 9's desire to smooth things out.

Hey, I'm an INTP ! According to that page, I took this particular test halfway 2003.

INTP is one of the Myers-Briggs type indicators . I that system, you've got 4 aspects, each with two possibilities. A fairly simple system. I'll list my takes on the 4 of them below.

(I+T) Introverted Thinker

Logic, order, good thinkwork. Analysing things. I want to understand things, mechanisms, reality, current politics, history, etc. According to the theory, this aspect is the main characteristic of an INTP.

(N+P) iNtuition, Perceiving

I want to understand things (as an introverted thinker). Perhaps ironically, one of the ways in which I try to piece everything together is via intuition. I want to understand the whole. I want to perceive everything. To use my christian background as an example: when I study the bible, I'm always conscious of my intuitive grasp/image of the whole of God's character. What I'm reading at that moment has to be integrated into the whole. It all has to fit. If something (intuitively, by feeling) doesn't seem to fit, it might be needed to look for different explanations, to look further/deeper.

If I look at the description at typelogic, I especially recognise the following points:

• "INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible."
• "Mathematics is a system where many INTPs love to play, similarly languages, computer systems--potentially any complex system. INTPs thrive on systems."
• "Introverted Thinking strives to extract the essence of the Idea from various externals that express it."

In quite a number of christian environments, there's some attention to God's gifts (Dutch: gaventest ). The basic idea is that God gives every human being certain capabilities. In practice, this theory fully focuses on the use of those gifts for church activities. In general, I think they're way less researched than the belbin/enneagram type of personal capabilities theories.

Anyway, I'm including this test (which we did recently with a small bible study group) here as it does give some background. In the (Dutch) test I did, there were 24 categories. I'm including my top 5. The first two ones are the highest scores, 3 till 5 are a little bit below those.

Computer capabilities (vakmanschap)

Definitively not included in the bible, but the test apparently placed great responsibility in the hands of those individuals that could either tame a computer or handle financials. Well, of course I scored major points here.

Knowledge (kennis)

Gathering knowledge and information and being able to pass it along to others. Yep, this actually fits. People look at our (my plus Annie's) bookcases in the living room and are pretty impressed. Ahem, the other half is upstairs :-) At work, I regularly pass along handy blog entries or mailinglist posts to possibly interested colleagues. On the churchy side: once a month, I get to amuse the 11+12 year olds at sunday school. For that, I often do quite a lot of research. I show maps. I grab video fragments off the internet. I search for photos. All to make the subject of that week more palatable and remindable for the kids.

Serving (dienen)

Basically behind-the-scenes work. Setting up the chairs. Brewing coffee. Cleaning up afterwards. Making minutes. Yes, I really don't mind.

DIY handiness (handvaardigheid)

I already mentioned sunday school. I'm the only man at our church that does that. Three times a year, there's a special longer-running project (christmas, easter, pentecost). Sometimes, some special prop needs to be made out of some pieces of wood or so. Wild panic ensues at the meeting at which that becomes clear. Until I tell the rest that I'm prepared to build it. I get to duck all the rest of the work and responsibility, provided I get cracking with a hammer and a saw. No kidding. I'm not that handy, but relatively... Stereotypes...

Teaching (onderricht)

I can be terribly unclear when explaining things. I've got a lot I'd like to say and sometimes the sentences get a bit long... But I bloody well don't shy away from explaining some things to 11 year old youngsters. Or reading some bible verses out loud in a church service. Whether 3 or 300 people, I don't mind. 30k neither, probably. One thing that's mentioned as crucial in the "God's gifts test": honesty/real-ness. You gotta be real. You've got to be honest and open when you teach. Regarding most topics, I don't mind being open and honest. I don't mind listing my top 5 gifts here in public, so take that as proof :-)

This might sound like I'm pounding my own chest, but remember there were 24 gifts in this test and I've only listed 5. I'm not a visionary. You shouldn't entrust me with caring for really really hurt caring souls. I'm not much of a (monetary) giver. Encouraging others structurally? Neither. Etcetera :-)

Part of my personal capabilities series.

For me, putting my reaction to a lifehack.org article about intelligence types online was a good way of starting off a series I planned to do about the various tests/classifications/surveys I've filled in over the years that try to map your personality/capabilities/preferences into certain categories. Think of belbin's team roles, enneagram's 9 types, etc. I'll file all those results here using the tag capabilities.

Why?

• It is a handy reference for myself. From time to time I want to look up what my belbin types were. Or that handy enneagram link for my specific type.
• I don't mind publishing this kind of information. At the moment, a google search for "reinout van rees" give some 73400 results at the moment, so you can probably deduct some of the outcomes anyway if you put your mind to it. And: it can help people to interact better with me as they understand me better.
• These kind of results can't hurt. Not one personality type is bad. Not one team role is bad. Every team role is needed sometimes, for instance.

On the other hand, I'm probably doing something courageous/stupid here, as I will be unable to get it out of a lot of search engine's caches or http://archive.org. For those that thought they removed stuff from the internet: search for it on archive.org and start screaming. Unless your website is very very very small, quite a lot of content is historically cached :-)

Lifehack.org has a list of intelligence types and invites everyone to think about them. Well, why not! You've got to list the types you think you're good at.

Linguistic and verbal intelligence

I read a lot. And at conferences I'm always writing up summaries that I put online at this weblog. A number of people at various conferences gave me positive feedback on this. I'm pretty happy with the speed with which I can write things down. The verbal intelligence bit isn't something I'd say I possess, I can be quite difficult to understand if I'm trying to explain something or if I'm trying to state my position.

Logical and mathematical intelligence

Technical university. Good with computers. 'nuff said.

Spatial intelligence

This is a harder one, I don't recognize all that's mentioned in the description at lifehack.org. I do like photography. Geometry is nice. And I'm real good at directions. I like maps a lot. So: yes, this is probably me.

One specific point that I like to mention: I can often remember quite vivid and detailed images of places where I've been. And I'm good with maps. Our honeymoon was somewhere in Germany (along the Mosel river) and I had rented a car to get us there. I memorised the route. I drove there all the way (Annie has no driver's license) and let Annie have the map, inviting her to guess where we'd end up. I needed a refresher for the last 5 km, but that's ok :-)

There's one other thing (geotagging), but I'll save that for a separate blogpost.

Musical intelligence

Remembering old songs? Yes. Good feeling for rhythm. For quite some time I played the guitar. I'm not really musical in the sense of playing instruments well, but that guitar was for accompanying a couple of songs we customarily sing at the start of a small bible study group. They always obeyed the rhythm I set down (and it would most times be ok). Nice, strict, steady.

My preferred musical style (for listening) is progressive rock, which is often quite complex. For an example, look at this Neal Morse video on youtube, a great part is between 1:00 and 1:30. Often several melody lines that you can try to follow mentally. I enjoy listening to such songs several times in order to pick up all the various instruments. Then I can try to follow all those various instruments at the same time when listening to the song, "explicitly" enjoying them all at the same time. Great.

That's 4 types of intelligence. Well, what are the 4 that I'm missing?

• Body and movement intelligence.
• Interpersonal intelligence.
• Intrapersonal intelligence. (Though I might "score some points" here: I do analyze things and I'm trying to find out my strengths and weaknesses like I'm doing here in this post. Perhaps it is just the naming of this intelligence type that bothers me.)
• Naturalist intelligence. Nature is fine, but I enjoy the landscape even more if there's a nice railway running through it :-)

So. That's part 1. Part 1? I'll explain later.