Improve Your Web Income

PQ Profiles for two separate companies, Company A (PQ = 110) and Company B (PQ = 83.5), are shown in Figure 5. Note that the companies’ average partnering quotient is 96.75 (180 is highest; 30 is lowest).

Given the significantly higher partnering quotient of Company A over Company B (26.5 points higher), coupled with their shared inability to trust, the two companies will have to take a number of steps to increase the likelihood of their partnering success. Given that both companies have relatively higher scores on Self-Disclosure and Feedback, they may want to hold a facilitated meeting to discuss issues, concerns, and strategies to address the issues indicated by the
disparate scores on the other attributes.

The two widest gaps between their profiles are in Win-Win Orientation and Comfort with Interdependence. The two companies may want to start by discussing what each means by “win-win” and “interdependence” so they can then put a plan into place to demonstrate those behaviors to each other, resulting in an increase in their ability to trust each other. By getting a clearer understanding of exactly how Company B feels that it will “lose” as well as how it will “win” in the partnership, the two companies could significantly improve the overall sense of mutual gain for both parties—not just Company A. The gap between their scores on Comfort with Interdependence also needs to be better understood. Company B tends to be more comfortable operating independently. This could cause some potential issues down the road when agreements are made and broken because the people at Company B chose to do it “their way.”This can cause mistrust and create win-lose outcomes in conflict resolution and problem solving.

A review of the scores for this five-member internal team reveals some potentially serious problems. Notice especially the range of individual scores. Jonah has a score of 108, while Chris’s score is 68. This indicates a significant degree of difference of understanding and using the Six Partnering Attributes.

Chris’s overall low PQ score coupled with her clear inability to trust indicates that she probably has a number of important issues that have not been resolved or have been resolved in a win-lose manner.

Her somewhat higher rating on Self-Disclosure and Feedback may indicate a willingness to discuss the situation and make a determination about whether it makes sense for her to work hard to improve her role in the team or to seek another solution.

The other four members of the team seem to break into two groups of two. Pat and Janice have some clear trust issues, which, given their higher Self-Disclosure and Feedback scores, they would probably be willing to share in the right context. It would be interesting to understand better how Tom and Jonah feel about the team not working as well given their high Win-Win Orientation scores and how they might contribute to improving the team’s overall Partnering Intelligence.

The first of our four typical profiles, Joe Average, the PQ Profile of an individual. Joe’s partnering quotient—his total score from the assessment—is 97, which is about average (180 is highest; 30 is lowest). This indicates a willingness to partner effectively, provided some of the key issues are addressed during the partnering process. The higher rating on Win-Win Orientation indicates a willingness to move toward mutually rewarding outcomes once trust has been achieved. However, based on his Future Orientation score, Mr. Average begins with a less-trusting, past-focused orientation, so considerable effort should go into building trust both within Joe personally and as a key dimension of the partnership relationship.

Given the lower score on Future Orientation, perhaps Joe could start with some self-analysis. An inquiry into his rationale for his inability to trust based on past experiences could reveal ways for him to become more trusting and future-oriented and create the win-win partnerships he would like to experience.

Recently there have been a slew of articles and books proclaiming overconfidence as the major character flaw of investors. However, many investors will not have overconfidence on their list. In fact, the opposite may be the case. A complete lack of confidence may have led you to rely on supposed experts who took you for loads and commissions and put you into terrible investments.

A few years ago, fear and greed were the most talked about character flaws. Yet, you may not suffer from either of these. Do not try to force your part into trendy character flaws. This is your inventory, not a survey. Describe your part in whatever language fits best.