Should You Answer From Usual Behavior or Your Ideal Self?

What question does the Work Pattern Report actually ask?

The Work Pattern Report asks you to choose the position closest to your usual behavior during the last six months. Its instructions explicitly say not to answer as an ideal version of yourself. They also say neither end of a continuum is better and reserve the midpoint for cases where both sides genuinely fit, rather than using it to appear balanced. So answer the question the report actually poses first; keep the colleague you hope to become as a separate development question. The live page, “100-item work pattern report | Personality Report,” gives those instructions before the assessment begins. A reference frame is the period and comparison a question asks you to use when deciding on an answer. Here, the frame is your own usual behavior across six months, not your best day, your most difficult interaction, or a model of an ideal colleague. That distinction matters because one memorable episode may be relevant without representing the whole period. If a week was unusual, it can help explain why your recollection feels complicated, but it should not quietly replace the six-month window. The task is to summarize the period as best you can, while recognizing that a retrospective answer is still your account rather than a record of every event. The page describes a 100-item interactive self-report, completed five items at a time. Its browser summary is available at no charge; a personalized extended workbook is optional. The local result presents ten separate continuums, response spread, and intersections among patterns. The page advises readers to look for relationships rather than a label, and describes a strong lean as a tendency to examine, not a permanent identity. In practical terms, this is a structured description to reflect on, not an independently observed record, norm-referenced score, or fixed type. The product page establishes what the report asks and provides; it does not establish psychometric validation. Start by answering from the stated six-month frame, then consider what you would like to practice separately.

Sources: 100-item work pattern report | Personality Report

Why does an ideal colleague change the question?

A usual-self answer asks what you tend to do; an ideal-self answer asks what you would prefer to do or be. They answer different questions. The Work Pattern Report specifies the first: choose the position closest to your usual behavior over the last six months. Answering as the colleague you hope to become would shift the reference frame, so the result would describe an aspiration rather than the pattern the report asked you to consider. The aspiration remains worthwhile, but belongs in a separate note as a practice goal. A reference frame is the standpoint from which a person judges an answer, such as comparison with an ideal self, a past self, or other people. Personality questionnaires do not always state that standpoint. When instructions do name it, the wording helps define what a response means. A usual-behavior prompt asks for a perceived pattern; an ideal-self prompt asks about a preferred standard or future possibility. Different answers need not imply insincerity. The study “Effects of Reference Group Instructions on Big Five Trait Scores” examined this issue with the 20-item Mini-IPIP, a brief measure of Big Five traits. Participants answered under different instructions, including no stated comparison group, comparison with other people, and comparison with their ideal or past selves. The authors report that scores tended to look more adaptive under between-person comparisons than under within-person comparisons. The effects of between-person instruction were very small, while within-person instructions could have larger effects. The publisher describes the findings as preliminary. This suggests that a prompt can change the standpoint from which someone rates themselves. The study does not establish how much any response would shift on the Work Pattern Report, or even the direction of a shift on one of its work-pattern continuums. That boundary matters because the measures and prompts are different. The study concerned Big Five trait ratings on the Mini-IPIP, not the Work Pattern Report’s ten decision-and-collaboration continuums. Its findings make a frame effect plausible; they do not supply a conversion rule, adjustment, or estimate for this report. Nor do they show that someone choosing an ideal-self answer is trying to deceive anyone. Someone may answer the question that feels more useful or familiar, perhaps overlooking the time window. That changes the response’s meaning, not necessarily the person’s motive. An example questionnaire in “Administering IPIP Measures, with a 50-item Sample Questionnaire” makes the distinction explicit: respondents are asked to describe themselves as they generally are now, rather than as they wish to be in the future, and to compare themselves with people they know of similar age and sex. This example shows how a questionnaire can specify time perspective and comparison group. It is separate from this report, whose own wording controls interpretation. If a result feels unlike the colleague you hope to be, pause before treating that difference as a defect in the report or a verdict about you. Ask which question you answered: “What do I usually do in the specified period?” or “What would I like to do?” Then consider whether the first answer is a surprising but possible description of your usual pattern, or whether you clearly used the second frame instead. If you recognize a mismatch, reconsider that response under the report’s instruction. Keep the aspiration separate and make it observable in a future situation. Research supports taking wording seriously, but cannot estimate this report’s frame effect or determine an individual pattern. Here, the usual-behavior answer fits; the ideal colleague can guide practice.

Sources: Effects of Reference Group Instructions on Big Five Trait Scores; Administering IPIP Measures, with a 50-item Sample Questionnaire

What does ‘usual behavior over six months’ mean in a changing job?

Use the recurring pattern that best represents the stated six-month period, including ordinary variation. Do not answer from one exceptional week or from a role expectation alone. If the period was shaped by a new role, leave, crisis, or limited opportunity to show a behavior, keep that context in mind when you interpret the result. The Work Pattern Report explicitly asks for usual behavior over the last six months; it does not ask you to describe an ideal worker or to treat one vivid episode as the whole period. Its midpoint is intended for cases where both sides genuinely fit, not as a way to avoid deciding.

A useful way to think about the window is to separate frequency, salience, and opportunity. Frequency asks how often something happened. Salience is how strongly an episode stands out in memory. Opportunity asks whether the work actually gave you a chance to behave that way. These are related, but they are not interchangeable. A tense exchange may be memorable because it mattered, even if most conversations were routine. Conversely, a person who had little authority to set priorities may have limited evidence about how they act when directing a project. Neither vividness nor lack of opportunity, on its own, establishes the recurring pattern.

Consider an illustrative case, not an observed person: someone moves from individual work into a coordination role halfway through the six-month period. Earlier, colleagues rarely depended on them to set agendas or resolve handoffs; later, those tasks become routine. An answer about organizing shared work could feel different depending on whether they recall the whole period or only the new role. The response is not automatically the newer or older one. Choose what best represents the stated period and keep the transition as context. If the role change made the period unusual, that qualification matters when using the summary.

Research on recall gives a reason not to treat a remembered example as a perfect record, while limiting what can be concluded here. In “A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall,” reports made within 48 hours of stressors corresponded relatively poorly with momentary reports recorded near those events. Some coping was recalled but not reported at the time, and some momentary reports did not appear in recall; discrepancies also differed for cognitive and behavioral coping. This study concerned coping around stressors, not work personality or a six-month assessment. It cannot show that this report is inaccurate or tell respondents how much to adjust an answer. Its narrower lesson is that memory can be selective, so a salient event needs context.

The six-month instruction is a reference period for answering, not a claim that your tendencies are fixed for six months, permanent, or identical across jobs. The report itself describes its continuums as tendencies to examine and says a strong lean is not a permanent identity. So answer from the named period rather than replacing it with a hoped-for future or a single atypical stretch. Where a behavior was seldom possible, or both sides genuinely describe how you worked in different situations, do not manufacture certainty. Use the midpoint only if both sides truly fit, as the instructions say; otherwise retain the best overall answer and carry the unusual circumstances into interpretation.

Sources: 100-item work pattern report | Personality Report; A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall

What can six months of memory tell you—and what can it miss?

A six-month answer is a considered retrospective account: you are describing a period from memory, not replaying a recording of every work episode. Memory can help you summarize what usually happened, but a later summary and reports made close to an event can diverge. That possibility calls for a modest reading of the report. It does not make an ideal-colleague answer a better account of the past; that would answer a different question. A comparison study, “A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall,” examined coping around stressful events. Participants recorded coping close to the stressor using a handheld computer, then reported retrospectively within 48 hours. The two forms of report corresponded relatively poorly: some coping recorded near the event was not recalled later, while some coping reported later had not appeared in the momentary record. The direction of discrepancy also differed by kind of coping: cognitive coping was more likely to be underreported retrospectively, and behavioral coping more likely to be overreported. The study therefore offers a concrete example of how a short delay can alter the account, and why “I remember it this way” is not identical to a contemporaneous record. The boundary matters as much as the result. This was a study of coping around stressors, not a personality questionnaire, workplace behavior, or a six-month summary of usual tendencies. It does not show that the Work Pattern Report is inaccurate, tell us how its respondents remember work, or establish which answer is correct when recollection feels uncertain. Nor does it supply a correction factor that could be applied to a report. Its useful lesson is narrower: reports about a past period are interpretations made from memory, and the content being recalled can affect how those interpretations differ from event-near accounts. More frequent recording can reduce the distance between an event and a report, but it does not create an unbiased gold standard. In “Evaluation of Pressing Issues in Ecological Momentary Assessment,” a 2023 review describes experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment as methods for collecting repeated reports in everyday contexts. The review identifies nine conceptual, methodological and psychometric issues, including how people interpret prompts, what comparison standards they use, missing reports, selection bias, reliability, and the purposes for which momentary data might count as a gold standard. In other words, a diary or stream of prompts adds detail and timing, but its value still depends on what is asked, who responds, which moments go unrecorded and how the answers are interpreted. For a difficult item, a few ordinary examples across the six-month period can serve as memory prompts: recall what was happening, what you did, and whether the situation gave you a real opportunity to act that way. Examples can make a broad judgment more concrete without becoming a second test. Do not count episodes into a score or treat one vivid event as representative by itself. Keep the report’s requested judgment in view, and mark uncertainty where the period is hard to reconstruct. The aim is a reasonable summary of usual behavior under the stated frame, not a forensic reconstruction of every moment. A later ideal or intention may still matter, but it belongs beside that summary as a separate reflection.

Sources: A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall; Evaluation of Pressing Issues in Ecological Momentary Assessment

How can you check a pattern without turning examples into a second test?

Use examples to clarify what you meant, not to award yourself a second score. If a report summary seems surprising, look for more than one ordinary episode that bears on the pattern. Note what was happening, what you did, and what else shaped the choice. A mismatch between the summary and one memory is a question to examine, not proof that the report or your recollection is wrong. A compact reflection can use three columns: situation; what I did; what else was happening. This is an editorial aid for organizing examples, not a validated instrument, scoring method, or replacement assessment. For instance, when considering whether you tend to decide quickly or gather more evidence, note the task, the information available, the time pressure, and the action you took. The point is to see what the examples mean in context, not to count them and convert the tally into a new personality result. Different records answer different questions. Your report answer is a present-day summary of how you understand your usual behavior over its stated period. A note made near an event may preserve details that later feel less salient. Another person’s feedback adds an outside view, but that person observes only the situations and behavior available to them. A colleague who sees handoffs may have useful evidence about how you coordinate; they may have little basis for judging how you prepare alone. Their role and access to tasks can shape what they notice. Neither agreement nor disagreement between accounts automatically settles which one is correct. The study “A Comparison of Coping Assessed by Ecological Momentary Assessment and Retrospective Recall” illustrates why these sources should remain distinct. Participants compared coping reports made within 48 hours with reports recorded on a handheld computer close to stressors. Correspondence was relatively poor: some momentary reports were absent from later recall, and some recalled coping had not been recorded near the stressor. The study also found different discrepancies for cognitive and behavioral coping. It concerned coping around stressors, not work personality or a six-month report, so it supports caution about assuming that memory and event-near records will match, not a claim that this report is inaccurate. More frequent recording is not a perfect referee either. “Evaluation of Pressing Issues in Ecological Momentary Assessment” reviews repeated reports collected in everyday contexts and identifies concerns including how people interpret prompts, which comparisons they use, missing responses, respondent selection, and reliability. They still depend on what gets noticed and recorded. Treat a handful of notes as examples, not ground truth. A useful check is modest: describe the situation, the observable action, and the conditions around it; then ask whether another ordinary example supports or complicates that description. If feedback differs, ask what each source could actually observe. This gives the report more context without turning anecdotes into evidence of a fixed trait, a diagnosis, or a formal measure of accuracy.

Sources: Evaluation of Pressing Issues in Ecological Momentary Assessment; A comparison of coping assessed by ecological momentary assessment and retrospective recall

How should you keep the colleague you want to be?

Keep the aspiration, but give it a separate place from the answer you submit. The Work Pattern Report’s instructions ask for the behavior that is usual over the past six months. A development goal asks what you would like to do more often or differently. Writing both down preserves the distinction: one is a description of a recent pattern; the other is an intention for future practice. Neither is a moral grade, and the gap between them does not by itself show that your self-description is inadequate. A useful two-frame note can stay brief. First, answer the report in its stated six-month frame. Second, name the behavior you would like to practice, using words that describe an action rather than an identity. Third, identify a situation in which that action could occur. Fourth, after the situation, record what you did and what shaped the choice. This is a reflection aid, not a second assessment or a validated scoring method. It keeps the aspiration available for action without using it to rewrite the account of what has generally happened. For example, someone about to commit to a shared piece of work might want to ask one clarifying question about a risk before agreeing to a plan. That is more observable than deciding to become “a better collaborator.” The next opportunity could be a planning conversation where the deadline, owner or fallback is unclear. Afterward, the person could note whether they asked, what answer they received, and whether time pressure or the meeting format affected the exchange. This example is illustrative; it does not imply that asking questions is always preferable or that one exchange establishes a lasting work pattern. The distinction also makes a disappointing gap more useful. If the report suggests that a behavior is not yet typical, the aspiration can prompt a small experiment and a later review. If the desired action occurs once, that is evidence about that occasion, not proof that a broad tendency has changed. If it does not occur, the useful follow-up may be about the situation: perhaps the question was unclear, the opportunity was absent, or there was little room to speak. The report itself cannot settle those explanations. So preserve both answers without blending them: describe the usual pattern for the named period, then choose one action to notice or practice in a relevant situation. The aspiration becomes a working question—what would help me do this, and under what conditions?—rather than a preferred profile to select. That lets the report remain a bounded self-description while giving the future colleague you want to be a concrete next step.

Sources: 100-item work pattern report | Personality Report

Why selection research is a boundary, not an accusation

Findings about job applicants answering personality measures in consequential selection settings cannot tell you why someone answered a private reflection report as they did. They do not validate this report for hiring or job recommendations. The research addresses another situation: applicants, selection measures, and group differences between applicants and non-applicants. Applying it to an individual's motive would exceed what it shows.

The 2006 meta-analysis “A Meta-analytic Investigation of Applicant Faking on Personality Measures” combined 33 studies comparing applicant and non-applicant scale scores. Across job types, applicant averages were higher on extraversion (d = .11), emotional stability (.44), conscientiousness (.45), and openness (.13). Differences varied by job: for some roles, including sales, the ordering changed substantially. Direct Big Five measures also showed larger differences than indirect measures. These group averages do not establish that every applicant altered an answer, reveal any one person's motive, or show that an aspirational answer is deliberate deception. An applicant-versus-non-applicant comparison also does not test the effect of asking someone to describe an ideal colleague; that is a different question.

The Work Pattern Report is not presented as an employment selection measure. Its assessment page asks for usual behavior over the prior six months, describes ten continuums and a local summary, and says a strong lean is a tendency to examine rather than a permanent identity. It offers no norm group or selection score and says the result is not a hiring score. Its instructions define a self-reflection frame; they do not establish reliability, validity, or evidence for predicting job performance. The description cannot by itself establish suitability, competence, or likely performance.

Selection has its own evidence requirements. “Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures,” issued by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and approved by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives in 2018, is described by its publisher as authoritative guidance for employee selection testing. A tool used for employment decisions needs support appropriate to that intended use. The available extract does not warrant a detailed account of every technical requirement, and this report supplies no such evidence.

Do not diagnose faking, suitability, or performance from this report. If an assessment is used in an employment decision, ask what instrument, evidence, population, and intended use support it. The Work Pattern Report cannot answer those questions for an employer. For personal reflection, keep the answer tied to usual behavior in the stated period and any desired change as a separate development aim.

Sources: A Meta-analytic Investigation of Applicant Faking on Personality Measures; Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures; 100-item work pattern report | Personality Report

What if the report feels wrong or the six-month period was unusual?

A report that feels wrong is a reason to inspect the answer frame and the period, not to assume the instrument has uncovered a hidden truth or produced a defective result. Ask what made it feel wrong. Did you answer for the colleague you hope to become, read an item differently from what it asked, lack opportunity to show the behavior, or have an unusually changed six-month period? These problems call for different responses. The Work Pattern Report instructs respondents to choose the position closest to their usual behavior over the last six months. It says neither end is better and reserves the midpoint for cases where both sides genuinely fit. If you answered from an ideal self but can now identify what you usually did, reconsider only the affected items. Do not revise others merely because you prefer a different profile. Changing answers to improve the result changes the question. (See “100-item work pattern report.”) An unfamiliar result alone does not show that a report is wrong. A tendency may appear mainly in particular situations, or your attention may be drawn to behavior you wish you had shown. The reference-frame study “Effects of Reference Group Instructions on Big Five Trait Scores” found that instructions to compare oneself with an ideal or past self could affect Mini-IPIP ratings. Its authors describe the findings as preliminary. This makes frame effects plausible, but the study cannot predict changes in this report or your answers. If the period was unusual, keep that context beside the report. A new role, extended leave, or a crisis may have changed which behaviors were needed or possible. Leave the result as a dated account and treat its relevance to current work as provisional. If you lacked experience with a prompt, mark uncertainty rather than making a confident claim. It has no norm group or validated cutoff that can settle a disagreement between your impression and its summary. Its local summary is a reflection aid, not an external verdict. (See “100-item work pattern report.”) Correct a clear misunderstanding of the six-month frame; otherwise keep the answer and note its context. Retakes aimed at a more satisfying profile cannot settle which account is right. Keep desired behavior as a separate practice goal, and treat the report as context-bound self-description, not diagnosis or permanent identity.

Sources: 100-item work pattern report | Personality Report; Effects of Reference Group Instructions on Big Five Trait Scores

What should you do next?

Answer the Work Pattern Report for the behavior that best represents your usual work across its stated six-month window. Keep the colleague you want to become as a separate practice goal. The Work Pattern Report instructions say neither end of a continuum is better and reserve the midpoint for cases where both sides genuinely fit. It is a prompt for noticing tendencies, not a verdict about role suitability. The live assessment page describes a free browser summary across ten continuums, with response spread and paired intersections; a personalized workbook is optional and paid. These features organize reflection, but do not establish a norm, job match, or independently verified account of behavior.

Choose one behavior to notice in an upcoming work situation. If you want to make decisions more deliberately, for example, observe whether you ask for missing information before committing. Treat this as an observation, not a score: one exchange may reflect the task, time pressure, authority, or opportunity as much as a recurring tendency. If a pattern raises a career or collaboration question, compare it with actual work demands and events rather than letting a continuum answer decide it. Explore the prompts at [/assessment](/assessment) when structured reflection would help, or read report guidance at [/topics](/topics). Keep the answer, name one aspiration, and watch for a chance to practice it.

Sources: 100-item work pattern report | Personality Report

Questions readers ask