CLEARWATER TEST

In essence, although not completely, Macro analysis tracks spikes whereas Micro analysis captures consistency in your predicted leadership behavior.

Consider Thomas Edison, Col. Sanders, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Sachin Tendulkar, Marie Curie, Lionel Messi, or Howard Huges. We know these people were immensely successful in their respective fields, if not multiple.

Now consider Michael Schumacher, Sir Donald Bradman, Albert Einstein, Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Naveen Patnaik, Shakuntala Devi, or Da Vinci. We also know that these people were immensely successful in their respective fields, if not multiple.

Then what is the difference in both these sets of people? In the first case, you would know of the many failures these great people had gone through, but it would take you some time to think of failures that the second set of people went through before they became immensely successful. In other words, it is difficult to know the second set of people beyond the auras of their successful personas; i.e., we only have a macro perspective on them.

In the first case, our macro perspective, biased by their success, would give us the impression that these people were supernaturally gifted and extremely lucky. But if we diver deeper we see that they had significant and consistent failures in life as well, not just successes. This information gives us an understanding of how to work with similar individuals if we could know more about them, their strengths, and their weaknesses. In other words, we need a micro analysis of them. 

Now let’s consider Hellen Keller, SN Bose, Émilie du Châtelet, Narinder Singh Kapany, Leo Szilard, or even John H. Watson. Most of us know very little about them until we dig deeper and see that they were high-performing, resilient, and brilliant stalwarts who shaped the world we live in today. Unless we dig deeper into such Rahul Dravids of the world, we will not see their brilliant facets. That is where a micro analysis helps, especially when certain individuals do not have a dominant persona that automatically strikes us right away, positively or negatively.

It is a Macro measurement chart that indicates how your dominant and recessive leadership characteristics stack against each other. It may not be a measurement of what is good or what is bad, but just an indication of how you appear to someone based on your dominant traits. A judge might score low (recessive) on improvisation because they have to stick to the law and not make them up as they go along, but a lawyer might score high (dominant).

The DART chart does not tell you that you are unethical if you score 38% in ethics and 85% in Loyalty; rather, it indicates that people will usually observe your loyalty way easier/earlier than your ethical standards as that is your dominant trait. To see whether you need to work to understand professional ethics better and improve your score, you must compare and contrast it with microanalysis.

The Observed index indicates how your leadership abilities may appear on the surface to your supervisor. This is something like a first impression.
The Computed index takes into account a multivariate analysis to arrive at a value that indicates the extent of a particular leadership trait measured across different parameters. This is something like in a case where your supervisor observes you over a period of time and considers different aspects which form an impression of you in his/her mind.
Stewardship: It denotes the extent of trust your supervisor will have in you based on how you decide to act on things. Trust can have multiple meanings, but here the measurement takes into 6 different parameters to come up with the value. 

So, let’s say you score a 32% on Macro Scale and 85% on Micro Scale for Improvisation. This would imply that you do improvise quire often and consistently, but the overall outcome of those big and small improvisations doesn’t favor you; it could positively favor other people who were impacted by your decisions though. Also, if we observe that your ‘Grey’ block improvisation score is on a slightly higher side (let’s say 23%), it would imply that in many cases you choose to go with the flow and not really try anything different. Sometimes that could be a good way to go, especially if the situation warrants not doing anything differently is mandated or has the best possible outcome overall.

This analysis takes into account the consistency and validity of your decision-making, not its impact (Sehwag vs Dravid). It indicates what portion of your positive leadership traits (Blue Lagoon) is contaminated or undermined by your weak leadership traits. The bigger the blue area, or smaller the red patch, the better it is from a normally acceptable standpoint.

The Grey area shows where you were indecisive or just preferred to go with the status quo.

The Block Chart indicates how you did individually on each parameter on a Micro Scale. It gives you a postmortem of your Volcanic Lagoon chart.

Meta-Analysis:

Coming shortly. 

(We will be sending out the 'Clearwater Meta Test' free of any charges to 100 people who find this Clearwater Test beneficial to them) 

This is a mapping for recruiters. This gives recruiters a quick view on what to expect from the candidate, and whether it is in line with the organizational requirement at whichever stage of company life cycle it may be in.