Goals and Scientific Foundations
Autoris assessments rest on decades of research in motivation, strengths, feedback, learning and culture. We build on that research with one aim: helping people change what they do and how they see things, so that they and the people around them grow.
This page sets out our goals, the ideas from research behind our design, and the foundations of each assessment. The reference list at the end gathers the key works.
Our goals
A preference describes how we tend to approach work. Skill grows when we learn to choose a different approach as a situation asks for it.
The established instruments for personality, strengths and tendencies give people rich, well-researched pictures, and we use many of them in our own work. Autoris assessments start from a different question: what can I do differently, starting this week? Every design decision serves one of four goals.
Each report ends in a concrete next step, supported by a worksheet built on the ACE it! Method (Address, Create, Execute).
Reports begin with strengths and invite curiosity about how others see us, because people who feel seen are often ready to try something new.
Each assessment takes 4 to 15 minutes to answer, and the results are ready for a conversation with a coach, a team or a learning partner.
The reports show where you stand today and point to the behaviors worth adding, so that you can act beyond your preference when a situation calls for it.
Foundations
Each idea explains a design choice. The full references are at the end of the page.
Managers account for at least 70 percent of the variance in engagement scores across business units (Beck & Harter, 2015). A meta-analysis of 335 samples found that leadership training improves reactions, learning, transfer and results, and that the effects grow with needs analysis, feedback and practice (Lacerenza et al., 2017). Coaching shows positive effects on performance, well-being and goal-directed self-regulation (Theeboom et al., 2014). Autoris assessments start with this question: what helps a person move forward?
Simple, specific plans have strong effects on follow-through (Gollwitzer, 1999), and specific, challenging goals lead to higher performance than a general intention to do one's best (Locke & Latham, 2002). A meta-analysis of multisource feedback found that improvement is most likely when recipients see a need to change, believe change is feasible, set goals and take action (Smither et al., 2005). Autoris reports come with worksheets that turn what you learn into a concrete step.
Behavior varies widely from one situation to the next, and Fleeson (2001) proposed understanding a trait as a distribution of states. Most of us already act outside our typical pattern regularly. People can also change on purpose: those who want to change and take concrete steps tend to move in that direction (Hudson & Fraley, 2015), and a review of 207 studies found measurable personality change after interventions (Roberts et al., 2017). Autoris assessments help you reflect on where you start and choose a next step.
Self-ratings and ratings by others often differ, and comparing the two can be informative (Fleenor et al., 2010). Eurich (2018) describes self-awareness as having an internal and an external side, and the external side means knowing how others experience us. You At Your Best and the Making Others Great Assessment bring in the view of the people around you, and Cultural Compass shows how a whole team sees its culture.
The effect of feedback depends in part on where it directs attention (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Hattie and Timperley (2007) describe feedback on the task, the process and the next steps as most useful for learning. Our reports speak about behavior and what to try next.
In an analysis of nearly 12,000 diary entries, Amabile and Kramer (2011) found that progress in meaningful work, including small progress, is a strong driver of a positive inner work life. Fredrickson's broaden-and-build theory (2001) describes how positive emotions widen the range of thoughts and actions a person considers. Our reports name strengths first and ask for small, specific steps.
Because development takes time, we suggest taking an assessment again after a program or once or twice a year, as a prompt for reflection. A later result is best read together with the view of respondents and the context of the months in between.
Practice
Our workshops with leaders around the world show the same stumbling blocks, again and again. The ACE it! Method and its insights and tools respond to each of them, and the research below explains why they matter.
Creative problem solving traditions begin by understanding the challenge (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004), and Osborn (1953) proposed separating the generation of ideas from their evaluation. The ACE process takes the same order: Address the challenge first, then Create ideas, then Execute.
Schein (2013) describes humble inquiry as asking questions to which you do not yet know the answer, and building the relationship on curiosity. Deci, Connell and Ryan (1989) found that managers who supported their people's self-determination had work groups with more trust and more job satisfaction. Our tools invite people to find their own solutions first.
Specific goals and specific plans support follow-through (Locke & Latham, 2002; Gollwitzer, 1999). The ACE process asks for a pen and for a clear statement of who does what by when.
People differ in where they spend their energy across Address, Create and Execute. Because behavior varies from one situation to the next (Fleeson, 2001), a preference can be complemented with a practiced alternative. ACE Preferences shows where a focus helps most.
Learning behavior in teams grows with psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), and tutoring research shows how much a skilled partner supports a learner's progress (Wood et al., 1976). Autoris programs and reports invite learning partners and team conversations.
Assessment · 10 to 12 minutes · 360° view
How do I use my strengths, and how do others see them?
You answer on a scale from 1 to 10 across four areas (communication, creativity and openness, learning environment, implementation) and add open answers. People from your professional and personal circles answer the same questions about you. The report places your view and their view side by side.
The report highlights especially strong strengths by a fixed rule, relates the four areas to the phases of the ACE process, and ends with a worksheet that turns insight into a specific step. Respondents appear as a group, with averages, distributions and open answers.
Assessment · 4 to 5 minutes · instant results
Where do I excel across Address, Create and Execute, and where could a focus help most?
ACE Preferences describes results in terms of success phases. Most people have preferences across Address, Create and Execute, and knowing them, so that you can move out of preference on purpose, can make a considerable difference to results.
The results appear instantly, and the report with its optional add-ons for coaches, leaders and learners comes with worksheets that help you build range beyond your usual pattern.
Assessment · 5 to 6 minutes · team culture
What matters most to our team, and how satisfied are we today?
Every team member rates how important each motivator is and how satisfied they are with it today. The gap between the two forms the Cultural Agenda. Answers are anonymous, and a team report needs responses from at least three team members.
A priority matrix weighs importance against the gap, so the most important motivators with the largest gap come first. Worksheets help the team choose a first step and look again later.
Assessment · 10 to 15 minutes · optional 360° view
How do I develop others, and what would they welcome from me?
You place yourself on eight scales: five for everyday preferences and three for how you develop others. Adaptive questions follow your answers, and people you develop can answer the same questions about you as an optional 360° view. The reports are tools for reflection and conversation, and a memorable type name offers a starting point for it.
The report begins with strengths and shows your view and the view of others side by side, including where others would welcome more of you. Its purpose is range: helping leaders act beyond their preference, for themselves and for the people they develop. Open answers focus on what others learn from you and how you move them forward.
References
This list gathers key works behind the Autoris assessments, in alphabetical order. It is a selection and not a complete bibliography. The labels show which assessments draw on each work.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work. Harvard Business Review Press.
Aristotle (c. 350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics, Book III (on deliberation and choice).
Beck, R., & Harter, J. (2015). Managers account for 70% of variance in employee engagement. Gallup Business Journal.
Biswas-Diener, R., Kashdan, T. B., & Minhas, G. (2011). A dynamic approach to psychological strength development and intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(2), 106–118.
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599–670.
Dalio, R. (2017). Principles: Life and Work. Simon & Schuster.
Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective Teaching and Mentoring: Realizing the Transformational Power of Adult Learning Experiences. Jossey-Bass.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Wiley.
Eurich, T. (2018). What self-awareness really is (and how to cultivate it). Harvard Business Review, January 4, 2018.
Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1005–1034.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.
Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. Viking.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53–62.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill.
Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490–507.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75–101.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types (Collected Works, Vol. 6). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921 as Psychologische Typen, Rascher Verlag.)
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development. University of California, Los Angeles.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. Charles Scribner's Sons.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Oxford University Press and American Psychological Association.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Riverhead Books.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624.
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117–141.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2013). Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling. Berrett-Koehler.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. Jonathan Cape.
Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for Performance. Nicholas Brealey.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Autoris reports describe results as they stand today. They are designed for development, reflection, coaching and team conversations.
Choose the assessment that fits your question, answer in 15 minutes or less, and use the results to choose a first step.
See a sample report: You At Your Best · ACE Preferences · Cultural Compass