Saville Consulting Wave

Professional Styles Handbook

PART 2: INTERPRETATION
Chapter 7: Feedback

This manual has been generated electronically. Saville Consulting do not guarantee that it has
not been changed or edited. We can accept no liability for the consequences of the use of this
manual, howsoever arising.
 7.0 Feedback
Wave Styles assessments are used in a variety of contexts where feedback is an integral
part of the process. This chapter starts with examples of three key applications of Wave
where feedback is likely to be given. Feedback should only be given by appropriately
trained users, so please contact Saville Consulting for more information.

7.1 Applications and Giving Feedback

The application of Wave Styles and exactly how the assessment is used in conjunction with
other Wave assessments has a large number of different possible permutations. To give
some insight into how Wave Styles can be applied in different contexts, three common
applications of Wave are used to highlight some of the issues that should be considered.
By the very nature of these applications this is designed to give the user some additional
insight from experienced users rather than provide an exhaustive list of what should be
considered.

Selection
When giving feedback in a selection context, it is not always necessary to give feedback
of the full psychometric profile. Different levels of detail will be appropriate for different
situations. For example, if the selection scenario involves having administered Wave to
20 job applicants, it may be appropriate to give two different types of feedback - one to
those applicants who are selected for an interview and another to those that were not.

For those not chosen for an interview, it might be more appropriate to give a brief
feedback session via telephone and to send them their Personal Report for their own
self-awareness/development. For those applicants selected for an interview, the Wave
Expert Reports (including their Motive-Talent and Normative-Ipsative splits) can be used
to feed into a Competency Based Interview, with particular emphasis on their areas of
strength and limitation with relation to the job description/job profile and on verifying
areas where there could be potential exaggeration or even false modesty (from normative
and ipsative splits).

It also may be appropriate to arrange a session to feedback to the candidates which is

separate from the interview, to build self-awareness of the whole profile for the
candidate. Again, the format of the feedback may vary significantly for individuals that
are appointed and those that are not. For those that are appointed, the Wave Expert
report and particularly the preferred culture can help new appointees and their manager
think of how best to bring the individual ‘on-board’ by identifying areas for the new
appointee and their manager to focus on in the first 100 days.

127

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Points to consider when giving Wave feedback as part of
Selections:
• Not always giving full feedback at interview stage – focusing on areas which are
particularly relevant to the role
• Look in particular at strengths on the profile to verify
• Or limitations to consider impact on performance
• Feed questions into Competency Based Interview*
• Consider Normative-Ipsative splits as areas for further investigation at
interview stage
• Integrate with other information – for example from Assessment Center, etc.*
*If integrating Wave into an Assessment or Development Center matrix or Competency Based Interview,
Wave users typically benefit from mapping the criteria they are assessing to the 147 components of
Behavior, Ability, Global model of the Saville Consulting Wave Performance Culture Framework. This
allows clarity on where each Wave component will relate to performance on the assessment center or
interview.

Development
When giving feedback for development purposes, it is always important to set aside
enough time to give full and thorough feedback on the assessee’s or developee’s Wave
Expert Report Profile. Adequate time should also be allowed for any questions the person
may have and for discussion of implications and future development plans stemming from
the results of the profile. For Wave Professional Styles, initial development feedback
sessions often are timed to run for an hour and a half (although the length of these
sessions is highly dependent on the process).

The Saville Consulting Wave model is built on a strengths perspective; the focus should
be on identifying areas of strength and building on these. While Saville Consulting
emphasize building strengths as the most effective development model for the majority
of people, it is also often important for individuals being developed to understand where
their strengths are most lacking and could adversely impact on their effectiveness at
work. For this reason, the Expert Report profile can also be used to discuss areas of
relative weakness and how these can be incorporated into a development plan.

It may be useful in Development settings, to complement the feedback of the Expert

Report with the Saville Consulting Wave Development Report. This development report
is driven by the same questionnaire which drives the Expert Report and gives an output
which is compatible with Development planning. The Development Report was designed
to help bridge the gap between diagnosis and action planning.

128

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 The Development report contains four sections:
• Building Strengths – bullet point advice is given on ways to develop and
make the most of existing strengths.

• Possible Overplayed Strengths – the potential pitfalls of possessing

strengths are outlined followed by an example of an action to avoid the pitfall
or unwanted consequence.

• Managing Limitations – areas of limitation are areas where it is important

that an individual is realistic about and can manage them (rather than attempt
to change them).

• Development Tips – finally these are areas where the individual lacks
strength and could choose to develop these. Bullets are provided to develop
these strengths.

The ‘Possible Overplayed Strengths’ category is often particularly powerful in practice for
high performing individuals.

Points to consider when giving Wave feedback for Development:

• Identify and discuss areas of strength on the profile
• Discuss how individuals can ‘play to’ these (e.g., by selecting work which suits
their talents) or develop these further
• Identify and discuss possible limitations and areas for development
(‘Development Tips’ and ‘Managing Limitations’ on the Development Report)
• Discuss how these areas can be managed and developed and whether they
should be, and realistically can be, developed or simply managed
• Explore the implications of areas of strength and areas for development for the
individual on work performance
• Work to create a clear picture with the individuals of what impact development
or the lack of it could have on their core personal objectives e.g., getting
promoted, changing job
• Consider using the Saville Consulting Development Report to complement the
development discussion
• Make sure that follow up action and a system of continued development
support is in place (e.g., action learning set, individual coaching session, review
of development actions)

Wave for Team Development

When giving feedback in a Team Development setting, it is common to use the Saville
Consulting Wave Team Roles report – refer to the Team Roles chapter. This provides the
opportunity for individuals to understand where their own style will impact on 129
performance and where there are likely synergies with others and potential clashes.

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Points to consider when giving Wave feedback for Team
Development:
• Before feeding back the results to individuals it is important that the team is
clear on its purpose, aims and objectives.
• Consider whether team members receive feedback on their results individually
before being given Team feedback? If feeding back Wave Expert as well as
Team Roles then giving individual feedback before giving group feedback is
recommended.
• Consider whether each individual will be identified – using a different symbol
color when plotting a group profile.
• Profile the whole team against the Team Roles model (available from Saville
Consulting) by adding each member’s primary, secondary and two least
preferred team roles – this can be done anonymously or as part of the
facilitation if naming individuals.
• Ask the team members to consider, what are their combined strengths and
potential limitations.
• Get the team members to work out what things it will need to manage carefully
and where they may benefit from extra resources.
• Ask the team members to reflect on past examples if they are an established
team.
• Get the team members to think about the challenges they are about to face.
• Ask the team members what actions they need to take and how they will
review the team’s actions and performance going forward.

7.2 Rich Interpretation – The Deep Dives

Interpreting Facet Ranges - Deep Dive 1
• Where the range of facet scores within any dimension is of three stens or more, this is
indicated by hatching on the dimension scale. Individual facet scores in brackets
alongside each verbal facet description are also provided.

Facet ranges on any dimension provide useful information to the user about an
individual’s breadth of interest/ talent within that dimension. For example, the dimension
of ‘Articulate’ is made up of the facets ‘Presentation Oriented,' ‘Eloquent’ and ‘Socially
Confident.’ Where individuals come out as a sten eight on ‘Eloquent’ and ‘Socially
Confident’ but as a sten two on ‘Presentation Oriented,’ it demonstrates that they do not
feel their strength lies in this area of Articulate. Their overall score on the dimension
‘Articulate’ would still be relatively high but they will show a facet range on this
dimension.

The overall dimension level score (e.g., Articulate) tends to give a good indication of the
level of an individual on a trait (and is a good indicator of performance in the aligned
behavioral criterion). The facets and facet ranges give more information as to what that
130
behavior will look like at a detailed behavioral level.

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Interpreting Motive-Talent Splits - Deep Dive 2
• If an individual shows a difference of three stens or more between the Motive and
Talent score on a dimension, this is highlighted in the Psychometric Profile of the
Expert Report and may indicate a point of interest.

If Motive higher than Talent:

If Motive is higher than Talent on a particular dimension, this demonstrates that
individuals have more interest and motivation than they perceive to have talent in this
area. It may be that they would like to be better at this area, but feel their talent is not
as high as they would wish.

Individuals may well consider this area as a motivated development need. For example,
they want to be more Analytical or Self-assured. There are many reasons why individuals
may report such a discrepancy, for instance their work environment or culture might be
preventing them from developing this talent or they may simply lack the appropriate
skills. This highlights a particular area for development or training to help individuals to
achieve their potential in this area.

• Giving Feedback:

• Explore the discrepancy, discuss the potential development need and discuss
ways in which the individual could be helped to develop in this area.

• In a Coaching or Development setting, for example, three points could be

considered:

1. How much of a development need is this area?

2. How will developing this area impact upon work performance?
3. To what degree is it possible to develop this area?

If Talent higher than Motive:

If Talent is higher than Motive, this indicates that individuals may feel that they have a
high level of effectiveness in this area but they are not particularly interested in or
motivated by this area. For example, individuals who showed a Motive-Talent split in this
direction on the dimension ‘Directing’ may feel they are good at being in control of a group
and directing others but this is not an area that they are motivated by.

It is important to understand whether the individual finds the talent easy or difficult to
display. If displaying this talent is challenging for the individual, this may lead to
becoming strained or even mentally drained or stressed by constantly having to push him
or herself to demonstrate a talent they have little motivation to display. In such cases
external rewards and encouragement may help sustain performance as this behavior is
not intrinsically rewarding. For example, showing lower Motive than Talent on the
dimension of Organized may lead to burnout if the work environment continuously 131

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 demands use of such attributes. Another, alternative is to change the demands of the job
or change to a job with different demands.

A discrepancy between Motive and Talent could be caused by a number of factors. It is

possible that it is due to environmental factors or personal factors. Environmental factors
could include unrealistic expectations of the current work environment, e.g., being
required to constantly demonstrate behaviors related to a certain attribute, or
alternatively feeling de-motivated by the demands of the current work environment. On
the personal factors side, this could simply be an area which the individual is not
interested in and wishes to avoid working in for future roles.

• Giving Feedback:

• Explore the discrepancy, try to understand why motive is lower (e.g., work
environment? Lack of interest in this area?) and what impact this may have on
performance (e.g., only rare or occasional display of effective behavior?)

• In a selection setting, in a structured interview, for example, it may be useful

to:

1. Seek a behavioral example of this dimension

2. Discuss the underlying motivation
3. Probe of the frequency of demonstrating this or similar behaviors

Motive-Talent split on Ratings Acquiescence

On rare occasions it is possible for a motive-talent split to occur on an individuals’ Ratings

Acquiescence. When talent is higher than motive (as depicted below) an individual may
be highly capable but disengaged with what they are doing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Reliable
Ratings Acquiescence
Overall, fairly critical in self-ratings

When motive is higher than talent (as depicted below) an individual might not feel they
are performing as well as they would want to be performing.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Reliable
Ratings Acquiescence
Overall, fairly critical in self-ratings

132

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Interpreting Normative-Ipsative Splits - Deep Dive 3
• If individuals show a difference of three stens or more between their Normative and
Ipsative score on a dimension, this is highlighted in the Psychometric Profile of the
Expert Report and may represent a point of interest.

Normative-Ipsative splits are useful in that they target specifically where there may be
some response distortion in the profile. Rather than have a single measure of ‘Social
Desirability’ or even ‘Lie scale’ which attempts to give an overall indication of whether
there was an attempt to distort results, Normative-Ipsative splits pin-point where
individuals give more than one version of the truth.

Normative-Ipsative splits on a profile highlight specific areas for further verification. In

other words, Normative-Ipsative splits in Saville Consulting Wave allow the Wave user to
understand the specific areas where socially desirable responding (or overly self-critical
responding) may have occurred.

Differential interpretations of Normative-Ipsative Splits in both directions are discussed

on the next page.

If Normative score higher than Ipsative score

Where individuals have a higher normative score than ipsative score, it may mean that
they have been less self-critical and have possibly exaggerated their normative
description. This means that when individuals were asked to rate themselves on this
dimension, they have rated themselves relatively highly, in comparison to when they
were asked to rank this dimension against other dimensions. Individuals may be
responding normatively by answering how they would like to see themselves if given free
reign (no constraints on their behavior). For example, they may like to think of themselves
as highly ‘Attentive’ to others. However, when presented with the choice of other areas,
the importance of being attentive may be relatively weak (if there are tasks to complete,
people to influence, ideas to generate, etc., then being Attentive is less of a priority). One
hypothesis in feedback that could be explored is that this may follow through into them
acting more like their Normative description when there is no pressure or constraint, but
more like their Ipsative score when there is less freedom or more pressure.

It is important to understand the reasons for an individual receiving a Normative-Ipsative

split in this direction. It could demonstrate high self-confidence in this area. However, in
a recruitment situation, Normative-Ipsative splits in this direction could demonstrate an
attempt to distort or ‘fake’ results consciously or unconsciously in favor of what an
individual thinks the interviewer or recruiter is looking for.

• Giving Feedback:

• Check/Verify for potential exaggeration/distortion

• Ask which of the two markers (N or I), they feel is most representative of them
• Ask for examples of times when they’ve demonstrated this attribute. This may 133
help you to build up a clearer picture of if and when each of the two scores is
more representative of their behavior.

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 If Ipsative score higher than Normative score
If individuals have a higher Ipsative score than Normative score, this highlights an area in
which they may have been overly modest or self-critical. This area could be one in which
the individuals are higher than the rating portrays.

In this situation individuals have rated themselves as lower on this dimension than they
have ranked it in a forced-choice situation. So, although individuals may feel that they are
not particularly strong in this area, they may have more talent or motive than they initially
give themselves credit for. One hypothesis to explore is that they may have a negative
stereotype of themselves in this area but that they can give positive, concrete examples
of where they have risen to the challenge and demonstrated strong performance in this
area. This could lead to them demonstrating better performance on this dimension in the
workplace than would be expected from their psychometric profile. A component of
feedback which may result from one or more Normative lower than Ipsative splits is
helping to build confidence in the area identified.

• Giving Feedback:

• Check/Verify for potential false modesty/self-criticism

• Ask which of the two markers (N or I), individuals feel is most representative of
them
• Ask for examples of times when individuals have demonstrated this attribute.
This may help you to build up a clearer picture of which of the two scores is
more representative and which is more distorted (or when effective behavior is
more likely to be seen).

7.3 A Note on Scores

It is possible on Wave Professional Styles or Wave Focus Styles to receive a sten score of,
for example, nine on an overall dimension, while all three facets that make up the
dimension are sten scores of eight. This is to be expected and is a normal property of
standardizing scores in a hierarchical scale structure.

The individual facets each measure similar, related, but not perfectly correlated
constructs. It is, therefore, more unusual for someone to be high on all three facets of a
dimension than to have a combination of scores with some high and low variation. The
presence of three consistently high facet scores, therefore, is more unusual than the
presence of a mixture of facet scores. The summing and norming of three facet scores
into one dimension score may result in a higher score than the simple average of the three
facets.

134

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Figure 7.1 An example of Standardizing Sten Scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Reliable
Meticulous Sten 9

more attentive to detail (8); very thorough (8);

ensures a high level of quality (8)

This is also true at the other end of the sten scale where someone has three scores of
two on the underlying facets which leads to a dimension sten score of one.

Borderline scores can also create similar effects. The facet scores could all be high sten
‘8’s leading to their sum reading a ‘9’ or even a ‘10’.

7.4 Feedback Process

This section provides some guidance to users on approaches to delivering feedback based
on Wave Styles reports.

Preparing to Give Feedback

Step 1: Consider the purpose

Step 2: Understand job requirements and identify key Wave dimensions or
competencies
Step 3: Review entire report(s); think through ‘splits’ in the Expert Report
if appropriate
Step 4: Take notes and/or use highlighter pens to guide feedback
discussion
Step 5: Schedule protected time and location for feedback meeting
Step 6: You may choose to integrate with other assessment data (e.g., track
record/resume, interview results, aptitude assessments) during the
feedback session to look for themes and explore any ‘red flags’ in
more depth. Alternatively, you may decide to keep the information
from this report independent from other assessments to avoid
‘contamination’ until it is time to integrate as part of the decision
making process.

135

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Introduction to Feedback

Feeding Back with the Expert Report

1. Completion atmosphere

“Was there anything when you completed that would lead to the results being
unrepresentative?”

• how did you find it?

• how long did it take you?
• anything happening at the time of completion?
• any distractions during completion?
• where were you completing it?

2. Review points covered in the ‘About this Report’ section on page 2 of the report:

a) Report will look at motives, preferences, needs and talents in work-specific

areas
b) Results are compared against a comparison group, e.g., 1,000 professionals
c) Stens = standardized 10 point scale on normal curve with scores of 5 or 6
typical and 1 and 10 highly unusual/rare
d) Results are based on self-report data so will reflect the individual’s own self-
perceptions
e) Report is confidential (explain who will see results)
f) Data has shelf life of 12 to 24 months, depending on circumstances

3. Introduce Saville Consulting Wave Model hierarchy (4 clusters, 12 sections, 36

dimensions and 108 facets), using page 4 of report as a demonstration (if
preferred)

4. Feedback the Executive Summary Profile on page 4 of report

5. Feedback the Response Styles Summary on page 5 of the report (if appropriate)
NB. This may not be necessary in some situations (e.g., recruitment) as this page is intended
to provide detailed information on an individual’s response styles and possible
inconsistencies (see Scale Descriptions chapter for interpretation of the Response Style
Summary scales) for users of the assessment, in order to highlight areas that may need
probing in interview.

6. Feedback detail of the report using the Psychometric Profile on pages 6 to 9 of

the report

7. Explain M-T splits and N-I splits (see Richer Interpretation section in this chapter
for information on interpreting splits)

136

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 8. Make links – particularly to the impact on performance – i.e., this can be to the
performance clusters and sections that the scales are based in.

9. Use the sandwich approach (i.e., present strengths, areas to develop, then close
with strengths)

10. Summarize key points

11. Conclusion and next steps

Feedback Approach
• Encourage inputs – ask open questions, ask probing questions; avoid
closed, hypothetical and multiple questions
• Be attentive
• Be sensitive
• Be objective – avoid value judgments
• Be specific
• Have the courage to confront all the data

Discussion Process
Use the mnemonic EAT PEAS to guide you through the feedback session.

E Explain/introduce dimension/facet
A Ask, or
T Tell the position/scores on the dimension/facet and splits
P Probe with behavioral questions
E Example (ask for examples of times when the individual has demonstrated
this approach)
A Advantages/Disadvantages (more for developmental applications)
S Summarize

Self-Report Descriptors
Useful terms for Feedback sessions:

• “You describe yourself as...”

• “You suggest that…”
• “You have indicated that…”
• “You see yourself as…”
• “Your responses indicate…”

137

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Sten Descriptions
Useful terms for describing sten scores:

7.5 Faking and Distortion

An issue that is often raised as a concern when using personality measures, particularly
for assessment, is that of ‘distortion.’ Distortion can take the form of candidates
attempting to ‘fake’ their results by second guessing what a desirable profile would be for
a particular job and trying to complete the questionnaire in a way that may achieve the
desired result.

Saville Consulting Wave® uses a variety of techniques to help reduce and identify
candidate attempts at distortion, both in terms of prevention and detection.

Prevention:

Prior warnings
To reduce the risk of faking or distortion, candidates are encouraged to be honest in their
answering of the assessment and prior warnings are given that faking can be detected.
For example, the following points are included in Wave administration:

• “Please be as honest as you can. There is no one right or wrong answer; job
roles vary and there are many ways of being effective in any one job.”

• “A number of response checks are built into the questionnaire to check the
138 consistency and accuracy of your responses. Your responses will also be
compared and verified against other information collected about you.”

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 In order to decrease the likelihood of distortion or faking, you should ideally repeat this
advice in any supporting emails that you send out prior to the assessment or at the
beginning of the session in a supervised administration.

More information is provided in the Administration and Security chapter.

These points are particularly important to reinforce where there is a high stakes selection
scenario where the motivation to fake may be greater.

Feedback & Integration of results

To reduce the risk of faking or distortion, it is also advised that prior to completion it is
made clear to the candidates that their results will be considered and cross-referenced
with other assessment information collected and that their results are likely to be further
explored with behavioral examples in a feedback session.

Detection:

Normative-Ipsative Splits
These are built into every dimension of the Wave questionnaires and are designed to
detect inconsistencies in responding style. These provide a local means of detecting
potential distortion within individual behavioral areas (rather than one scale of “social
desirability”).

Response Style
The Response Summary Page provides an overview of the individual’s style of
responding. For example, this will show if an individual has responded in a self-confident
way (high Ratings Acquiescence) and has a low Normative-Ipsative Agreement overall
(which could suggest potential exaggeration or distortion). It is worth noting that while
high Ratings Acquiescence may indicate an overly positive self-view of capability, on
average high Ratings Acquiescence scores do show a relationship to higher overall
effectiveness at work. In other words, a high Ratings Acquiescence score does not always
indicate distortion on the part of the respondent.

In order to establish whether the high Ratings Acquiescence score is a fair reflection of
high capability and motivation across many behaviors or whether this reflects distortion,
it is important to explore whether there is behavioral evidence to support the high
Ratings Acquiescence score. If in the course of the feedback interview, behavioral
evidence to support high self-belief such as strong track record of exceptional delivery or
performance is not found, this could indicate distortion on the part of the individual. This
could take the form of either unconscious distortion – where individuals have an overly
positive view of themselves, or conscious distortion – where individuals are making a
deliberate, conscious attempt to make themselves look better on the profile.

For more details on interpreting Response Summary Scales see Scale Descriptions 139
chapter.

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 An Example of Faking - Low Motivation Responses
Despite all of these measures, gross distortion can occur and this can be highlighted by
several features of the Wave Report.

Gross distortion in a candidate’s responses can manifest in an extreme Response

Summary overview. See Figure 7.2 below.

Figure 7.2 An example of an invalid administration on the Response Summary

140

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Such a Response Style also results in the following features on the Wave Psychometric
Profile:

Figure 7.3 An example of an invalid administration on the Psychometric Profile

As can be seen from the above example, an invalid administration or attempts at

distortion often result in lots of M-T splits and N-I splits on the profile.

141

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.

 Upon further investigation of the candidate in this example, it was found that the
responses had followed a clear pattern throughout completion of the questionnaire. By
looking at the detailed response pattern, it was found that the candidate had responded
to items using a similar pattern across the page. An example of the individual responses
to one set of items is given below.

Figure 7.4 An example of the responding pattern of a faking candidate

The same pattern was found across all this candidate’s responses to the questionnaire.

This individual appears to be poorly motivated and probably did not even read the
statements when quickly completing the questionnaire. This administration was not
done in a selection setting. However, in a selection or workplace setting, where
motivation is high, faking or distortion can still be detected through looking at sections
such as the Response Style and Psychometric Profile for evidence of a large number of
splits.

142

© 2012 Saville Consulting. All rights reserved. Version 2.0.