Original questions, explicit rules

Each of ten dimensions has two questions. Answers receive 0, 1 or 2 points in their listed order. Dimension score = combined points ×25. Higher scores describe the behaviors emphasized by this questionnaire; they do not establish competence. Self-report and socially desirable answers are important limitations.

Archetype matching

For each archetype, calculate the weighted mean of the ten dimension scores. The highest mean wins; ties use the order below. This picks an emphasized behavior pattern, not a validated personality category. All-equal scores select Diagnostician by the disclosed tie rule.

Diagnostician

2, 4, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Operator

1, 1, 4, 4, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Builder

3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Fixer

3, 2, 3, 4, 1, 1, 4, 3, 1, 2 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Integrator

2, 2, 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Contrarian

3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 5, 1, 3, 1, 2 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Investigator

2, 5, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Strategist

3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4 — in the dimension order below. Full reflection

Ten dimensions, twenty scenarios

1. Ambiguity tolerance

An important request is underspecified. What is your first move?

0. Wait until every requirement is fixed
1. Name the biggest unknown and ask one focused question
2. Run a small reversible test while naming the unknowns

Two plausible explanations fit the same failure. What do you do?

0. Pick the familiar explanation
1. Keep both explanations and inspect a discriminating clue
2. Design a low-cost test that could reject either explanation

2. Evidence discipline

A confident report has no linked sources. How do you use it?

0. Act because it sounds coherent
1. Check the key claim before relying on it
2. Trace the consequential claims to original evidence and note gaps

One measurement contradicts your favored explanation. What happens?

0. Treat it as an exception
1. Check whether the measurement is reliable
2. Check it, then revise the explanation if the conflict holds

3. Ownership

A task sits between two teams. What do you do?

0. Assume another team will pick it up
1. Ask for a named owner and deadline
2. Help establish ownership and a clear handoff with the affected teams

Your own recommendation caused rework. How do you respond?

0. Focus on why others misunderstood it
1. Acknowledge the error and propose a correction
2. Own the impact, correct it and change the process that allowed it

4. Speed

A decision must be made today with incomplete information. What helps?

0. Keep investigating without a decision deadline
1. Separate reversible and irreversible choices
2. Time-box key checks and choose a reversible next step

A low-risk task is nearly finished. What do you do?

0. Continue polishing without a stopping rule
1. Check it against a clear acceptance criterion
2. Finish at the agreed quality threshold and obtain useful feedback

5. Systems thinking

The same problem returns after each local fix. What do you inspect?

0. Only the most recent mistake
1. The handoff before and after the failure
2. Inputs, incentives, feedback and downstream effects

A speed improvement increases another team’s checking workload. What matters?

0. The local time saving
1. Ask the other team about the cost
2. Measure the whole workflow, including verification and exceptions

6. Contrarian reasoning

Everyone agrees on the proposed solution. What do you add?

0. Nothing; agreement is enough
1. Ask what assumption is least tested
2. Offer the strongest alternative and a fair test between them

A senior person makes a questionable claim. How do you challenge it?

0. Avoid the issue
1. Ask a respectful evidence question
2. State the concern, uncertainty and evidence that would change your view

7. Execution

A good idea has stalled for a week. What moves it forward?

0. Discuss it again without a concrete step
1. Choose one deliverable and owner
2. Ship the smallest useful step with a deadline and feedback

A project plan has many actions but no success criterion. What do you do?

0. Start the easiest actions
1. Ask what outcome the actions should produce
2. Define an observable outcome and tie the first delivery to it

8. Adaptability

New evidence makes the current approach less promising. What changes?

0. Defend the original plan
1. Review the cost of changing direction
2. Change the approach and preserve what was learned

A tested method works in one setting but fails in another. What next?

0. Apply it harder
1. Inspect the contextual difference
2. Adapt the method, test the change and record its limits

9. Communication

A colleague cannot act on your explanation. What do you change?

0. Repeat it with more jargon
1. Use a concrete example and ask what is unclear
2. Connect the issue, evidence and requested action; confirm shared understanding

Two teams use the same word for different things. What do you do?

0. Assume the difference will resolve itself
1. Ask each team for an example
2. Agree a working definition and document the decision it affects

10. Judgment

An efficient action could harm someone if the assumption is wrong. What matters?

0. The average time saving
1. Check the consequence and who owns the decision
2. Scale evidence and safeguards to the consequence before acting

A useful estimate is uncertain. How do you present it?

0. Give one precise number without limitations
1. Give the estimate with key assumptions
2. Explain the range, assumptions and what would update it

Explore your problem-solving pattern

Part of the Hive Free Tools Network · Explore tools · Local Hive Passport