Group Exercise - Case

Studies of Role Playing

#2
 Exercise 1 - Situation Role Play - A manager and an employee
 Exercise 2 - Simulation role play - A customer and a service provider
 Exercise 3 - Factory establishment assignment
 Exercise 4 - Building from Lego

Case studies of role playing:

In order to clearly demonstrate the correct behaviour to have during the group test,
four case studies, featuring different exercises, are detailed here. During the
exercises, notes are taken to highlight the problems in the candidates' behaviour and
the effective manner in which these problems were dealt with. In addition, for
problematic behaviour a more practical and efficient cooping manner is described.
The summery at the end of each case refers to the behaviour of each participant.

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
1
Situation Role Play – A manager and
an employee
Andrew and Justin received a joint assignment in which Andrew is the manager who
notices that Justin's work rate has recently gone down. The purpose of this Situation
Role Play is to see how the manager addresses the problem created by the under-
performance of an employee as well as how the employee handles the criticism. The
role play began with Andrew summoning Justin and asking him how he is doing.
Then he said, "Listen Justin, I am very unhappy with your work this past month.
What's going on with you?"

The manager's remarks are neither specific nor to the point. He should have clearly
pointed out the problem with Justin's work, rather than generally and bluntly saying
"I am dissatisfied with your work". Andrew could have said: "Justin, lately I've seen a
certain decrease compared to your usual output. Can you inform me if there is a
problem?" or "Justin, I received a complaint from a client regarding your behaviour.
What can you tell me about it?"

Justin replied: "I don't understand where this is coming from. What do you want
from me? I've been working exactly the same as a month ago! Why are you picking
on me?"
Justin's reaction betrays him as a vulnerable employee who can't handle criticism. A
better response would have been to calmly say, "I try to do my job as always, but if
there is and area that needs improving, I would love to here about it".

Andrew responded: "Justin, I suggest that you immediately calm down. With all due
respect, I am your manager and don't you forget it. If I say there is a decrease in the
quality of your work, I know what I'm talking about. I expect you to get your act
together".

Andrew keeps presenting himself as stressed, aggressive, and a man with weak
managerial skills. Aggressiveness indicates weakness. A better response would have
been: "I'm not attacking you, you're my employee and it is important to me that you
succeed in your job. I have recently been aware of a problem affecting your
performance, and I want to guide you as to how to overcome it and improve
yourself".

Justin replied by reiterating that he didn't understand why Andrew was on his case,
and that he feels unappreciated for his investment and commitment to the
organisation.

At this point, Andrew turned in a softer tone to Justin and said, "Look, maybe you
misunderstood what I said. I really don't think you're a bad employee. On the
contrary, I think the decrease in your production and quality of work is especially
noticeable because it isn't characteristic of you. This is why I called you in so that you
can get back to being the Justin I know".

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
2
The change in Andrew's behaviour strengthens the perception that he is not an
assertive manager, because as soon as he felt resistance from the employee, he
backed down, thus affirming his weakness. However, it is worthy of mention that
Andrew, realising that an aggressive argument was counter-productive, turned to a
more moderate approach.

Justin responded that he feels better now and is happy that Andrew thinks so, but he
still doesn't understand where Andrew sees the drop in his work quality. Justin
added that he believes the low production is due to the shortage in manpower, and
so the best solution would be to recruit additional manpower.

Trying to plead that the problem is the result of manpower shortages points to
Justin's inability to take responsibility. A better response would have been: "I am
certainly willing to improve myself".
Andrew replied that additional recruitment is not possible and that he needs for
everyone to cope with the additional workload. He asked Justin to review his work
patterns, figure out where and why his production dropped, and how best to resolve
it.

Summary of the candidates' participation

Andrew turned to his employee and immediately started throwing obscure
accusations mixed with criticism and bluntness. This approach could cause an
employee to get defensive instead of cooperative, since he senses the criticism is
personal rather than professional. Justin indeed felt offended and stressed by
Andrew. The attitude of a good manager would be to begin by resolving the source
of the problem and then passing direct and professional criticism. In order to
improve and progress, the manager has to clearly explain the wrongs and rights. It is
possible, for example, to ask Justin how he is doing in general, to see if all is well at
work and at home, and by doing so to try and find a cause for the decline in his
production.

If Justin would have reported on family or health problems, he would have raised the
reason for the deterioration in his work himself. Andrew worsened the conflict by
using his title and position to restrain Justin. Andrew's insecurity as a manager
allowed him to display aggressive behaviour in an effort to hide his inadequacies.
This resulted in Justin feeling insulted, lowered, and reprimanded. It is highly
recommended not to get carried away with waiving your rank when trying to control
an upset employee. Instead, you should calm him down in a sensible, logical manner:
"Justin, your shouting is unpleasant. Let's talk calmly and try to find the source of the
problem".

Regardless of the reason for Justin's recent poor performance, it is possible to share
with him the effects this has had. Andrew never explained to Justin where the recent
poor performance had occurred. Since Andrew didn't help Justin understand the
nature of the problem, Justin felt helpless and couldn't figure out what he'd done
wrong. It would have been better to explain to Justin what exactly a 'drop in output'
means.

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
3
Having said that, Andrew was right in realising that the argument got carried away to
pointless accusations and that Justin was offended. Therefore, Andrew tried to calm
Justin down, and he explained that the criticism was not of a personal nature.
Andrew generally values Justin's work, and the problems he wants to discuss are not
of a global nature. By doing so, Andrew stopped the argument from deteriorating
any further.

Justin, for his part, responded in a resisting and insulted manner. Andrew may have
approached him in an overly aggressive manner, but Justin took it very personally
and reacted emotionally and impulsively. He created the impression of a person who
doesn't know how to handle criticism or take responsibility for his actions. He made
no effort to understand what was bothering Andrew or to correct the problem.
Instead, he attacked Andrew and made things worse. It is important to realise that
even if we are criticised for our performance, in the end the goal is to make things
better. Justin should have encouraged Andrew to be more explicit in explaining the
problem. He could have said: "I hadn't noticed a drop in my production. Can you
further elaborate where you see this?" If Justin had a sensible and clear reason for
the production decline, the best thing would have been to take responsibility for it.
For example: "Actually, Andrew, in the past month my wife has been spending a lot
of time at the hospital with her father since he is unwell, so I have to pick up the kids
from school. Maybe because I've been leaving early it has affected my work capacity.
You are right, and I should have informed you about it sooner". By responding like
this, Justin explains the situation to Andrew. He takes responsibility and admits his
mistake.

Justin also tried to excuse the problem using external reasons, such as manpower
shortages, rather than admitting a problem in his own work. The attempt to pass
things along indicates an inability to cope with criticism and accept personal
responsibility. Andrew informed Justin that his work quality used to be good until
recently, so regardless of the manpower shortages, this points to a current inability
to cope and overcome current workload difficulties. Instead of abrogating
responsibility and not asking for help, Justin should have come up with suggestions
to resolve the matter himself. For example: "My wife's father is about to be
discharged this weekend. I'll work overtime next week to make it up" or "I can try to
take some work home and that way I can pick the kids up and carry some of the
extra load". Suggesting solutions demonstrates cooperation and maturity in handling
criticism.

Back to Top

Simulation role play – A customer

and service provider
Paul is a customer who bought a keyboard at a computer store about six weeks ago.
He has just discovered that one of the keys isn't working. He goes to the store,

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
4
where Nil works, to remedy the problem, knowing that the warranty on the
keyboard is valid for 30 days only.

Nil: "Hi, how may I help you?"

Paul: "About a month ago, I bought this keyboard in this store. Here is the receipt. It
isn't working and I want a new keyboard now!"
Nil: "According to the receipt, you bought the keyboard over a month ago, and, as
you can see, it says here that the warranty is good for 30 days. Since there is no
warranty, there is nothing I can do to help you."
Although the facts are correct, this response is not very courteous. A better response
would be: "I understand. Although the warranty is up, I'll see what I can do".
Paul: "This answer is ridiculous. Who is your manager? I want to talk to him now!"
This is not a good response. It arouses a counter objection and points to the
insecurity of the buyer. A better response would be: "You are right, the warranty is
valid for 30 days. However, I know that you are a serious place of business that
provides good service, and I would appreciate if you could try to assist me".
Nil: "Sir, with all due respect, please keep your voice down. In any case, there is no
point in getting the manager since his answer will be the same."
Nil began the discussion with the wrong attitude and continued to make it worse
with an inconsiderate, discourteous manner.
Paul: "If this is your attitude, I'll make sure to advise a lawyer and go the press! I'm
not through with you!"

Summary of the candidates' participation

The conversation between the parties deteriorated and ended negatively. Both sides
were offended, and it's important to understand what they could have done
differently to better resolve the situation.

Nil, as a service provider, was initially very passive, and despite his statement of
wanting to help, he never tried to thoroughly figure out the problem with the
keyboard. Instead, he immediately clung to company procedures. He was not
attentive and showed no empathy towards the customer, who indeed came in after
the warranty had expired, but who had bought the product in good faith and was
frustrated with its fault. His role is to be patient and helpful, even when the
customer is not courteous or calm.

For instance, Nil could have said, "I understand there is a defect in the keyboard.
Please show me where the problem is and I'll see what I can do". This response
demonstrates a willingness to assist and points to a positive and efficient attitude. If
Nil would have taken this approach, he most likely would have realised that the
problem is only with one key, and so maybe there would be no need to replace the
entire keyboard, only to fix the defect key — perhaps even on the spot rather than in
the lab. This solution presents flexibility and creativity by the employee and a proper
approach towards the customer.

Instead, Nil was drawn into Paul's aggressive behaviour when he refused to allow
him to speak with the manager and dismissed his wish to express his complaint. Even

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
5
when the customer is angry and acting aggressively and impulsively, getting drawn
into counter aggressiveness won't help. Rather, it will make things worse. Nil should
have told Paul he would try to reach the manger for him. At the same time, he
should have done what he could to help within his authority.

Paul, for his part, acted aggressively and bluntly, probably since he was concerned he
wouldn't be taken seriously. Additionally, he was perhaps concerned that since the
warranty had already expired, he wouldn't have sufficient cause to justify his
complaint. Thus, he turned to threats and rudeness. It is important to realise that a
customer is measured by the way he reacts in a conflict situation, as this indicates
how he would treat others in general. There is no need to worsen a conflict in order
to get attention. If Paul would have remained calm and polite, it would have
encouraged Nil to be more cooperative, and he could have explained why and how
he wants to be assisted. For example: "I understand the warranty is expired.
However, I paid good money for the keyboard and didn't expect it to fail so quickly
and for no obvious reason. Being a regular customer, I'm sure you can make an
exception and fix a single key". This demonstrates assertiveness as well as a more
polite and practical attitude.

Back to Top

Factory establishment assignment

In this assignment, each of the group members was asked to come up with an idea
for a factory costing two million pounds. Afterwards, the participants needed to
agree, as a group, on the type of factory they would establish.

The time given to complete the assignment was 15 minutes.

Right at the beginning, a number of the candidates started talking at the same time,
and it was difficult to hear and understand the different arguments. Danny's voice,
spoken with the most presence, was heard the most.

This initial behaviour points to a stressed group, where all participants want to talk
and are concerned about not being heard.

One of the participants, Elena, a tall and impressive woman, suggested that each
group member present their idea to the group so that all the suggestions could be
heard by everyone.

The motivation of the group should revolve around reaching a solution and not just
around being able to hear each other. Thus, her remark shows an emotional, rather
than practical attitude. She could have said: "I suggest we hear the participants'
ideas so we can figure out what is the best way to go forward".

The group gladly agreed, and Henry, an enthusiastic young man, volunteered to
start: "I love chocolate so I suggest we establish a chocolate factory".

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
6
Henry's opening is quite immature; his personal taste is irrelevant. Henry should
have said: "Chocolates are a profitable field, and I know it's an area worth investing
in".

Next spoke Alan, a silver-haired man with a deep voice. Alan suggested starting a
waste recycling factory since this is the field of the future. According to him, such a
factory is much in demand, and it would contribute to the protection of the
environment. While Henry's argument was childish and superficial, Alan's is seen as
serious and of merit.

Ray, a gentle and shy man, started speaking, only to be interrupted by Danny,
speaking out of turn, who said: "I have another idea…". Ray should have indicated to
Danny that he had not finished speaking. Instead, his silence indicates an inability to
stand up for himself. He should have said: "Excuse me, Danny, I'm not finished
presenting my idea. I want to propose a factory of…"

Elena then said in a pleasant tone, "Hold on, let's continue the rotation". Ray looked
down and said, "It doesn't matter, I don't really have an idea anyway. I favour Alan's
idea".

Ray's response establishes a base in which he easily waives his opinion; this will
make things more difficult for him later in the discussion.

Alan enthusiastically entered the discussion and suggested building a website for the
factory. He spoke fluently and loudly and said this was an excellent project with low
costs and high profits. He spoke at length, specifying and promoting ideas for the
website. This created discomfort in the group as the others became concerned they
wouldn't have enough time to talk. This sort of behaviour could be interpreted as
controlling, and it demonstrates an inability to be inclusive within a group.

Henry commented that were only six minutes left. At this point, Elena stepped in and
said, "Let's move on. My idea also concerns the recycling industry; it is contemporary
and of value. I suggest we turn to the manufacturing of plastic bags so as to focus on
a new business opportunity and to gain an advantage in the market". Elena's move is
a positive one – she tries to reinforce arguments in the direction she feels is right.

Danny was quick to reply: "It seems that most of the group is for the recycling idea,
and we have to make a decision soon. So I'm willing to waive my idea". Danny's
remark points to a fear of conflict. He is unable to stand the stress the debate is
evoking within him, so he's looking for a quick solution. It appears he is unable to
handle pressure.

Alan then took the opportunity to say, "Then the waste recycling idea is settled".
Elena pleasantly said again, "I suggest we focus on the plastic bags idea since it
hasn't been done". The ability to speak peacefully and calmly in a group situation is a
very important characteristic for success. Elena's conduct and manner puts her in a
strong position in the group test.

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
7
Alan said that especially since this is a new idea, the financial developing costs may
be above budget. It would be better to stick with existing and know technologies, as
they, in any case, have a lot of demand in the marketplace. This is a logical and
practical argument.

Elena said, "O.K. I'm convinced". Throughout the discussion, Ray did not participate.
It seemed he was offended by the earlier rebuff and since then had became
withdrawn. Danny pressured: "Come on, there is no time, we have to decide". Danny
again proves he is very stressed. Elena looked around at the participants and asked,
"So we're all for the waste recycling factory?" The other group members nodded.

At the end of the assignment, Alan was asked by the host to point out the participant
who had contributed the most to the group. Alan picked Danny, noting that he was
the most dominant and persuasive.

Summary of the candidates' participation

Ray avoided taking part in the discussion, thus presenting himself as an insecure and
passive employee who made no contribution. By easily dismissing his idea and his
place in the group, Ray revealed his lack of confidence. In debating assignments, it is
important to present your case, even when you are interrupted. It is highly
recommended to keep on going. Even if the group eventually decides on a different
idea, you should believe that your ideas and opinions are worthy and that your
thoughts, as well as others', are respected by all. Ray could have asked for more time
to get his thoughts together and then speak at the end of the round. Not
contributing to the debate is not an option.

On the contrary, Danny was dominant during the discussion and participated quite a
lot. However, it seems he was preoccupied with showing he was there, rather than
actually contributing to the group. Despite presenting his stand with great
enthusiasm, he did not stand behind it, and he gave it up very quickly. Stressed out
by the time limitation of the assignment, it was more important for him to meet the
deadline than to produce an acceptable outcome. This makes Danny appear as a
candidate who's trying to appeal to the examiners. He is conceived as a person who
cares about making an impression and pleasing the audience, and not as a person
with a stand and the true ability to lead a group. Remember: this is a 'work in
process', not a popularity competition. It is important to contribute and participate.
However, you are not measured by the amount of 'air time', rather by the quality of
contribution you make to the group. You should mind the time limit and try to meet
it, but not at the cost of superficial work and cutting corners (majority rules…).

Elena and Alan were both serious participants who contributed to the group effort.
They're conceived as articulate, well-versed, and both possessing the ability to
influence and persuade. In addition to that, Elena took responsibility over the whole
group process by pleasantly managing and paying attention to the conduct of the
discussion. Alan, on the other hand, seemed to be more focused on his own agenda.
Although Elena was not able to fully convince the others of her idea, she stood

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
8
behind it, explained herself, and was flexible enough to listen to other arguments. It
appears she really was convinced by the other opinions and so she changed her
mind. Furthermore, Alan was impressed by Danny's dominance and did not pay
attention to the fact that, from a managerial point, Danny did not really contribute.

Thus, Elena appears to be well suited for a managerial role, while Alan is better fit for
a sales position.

Back to Top

Building from Lego

A group of candidates were assigned to build a bridge using Lego bricks. This
assignment examines cooperation, planning and organisation, attention to detail,
and following instructions. The group was informed that the bridge had to be stable,
symmetrical, made of four different colours, and be 10 centimetres high and 5
centimetres long. In addition, joining green and blue bricks together was not
allowed. They were given 10 minutes to complete the assignment.

Max, an elderly man with a clear voice, was assigned the role of instruction manager.
Max quickly suggested that they sort out the bricks by colour and by height.
However, he did not explain or identify the major assignments, rather letting the
group get on with the task without direction.

Max indeed paid attention to the details but missed the main issue. As the person in
charge of the assignment, he should have organised the building process and the
assembly of the main points. The stress, and his lack of ability to plan and organise,
made him concentrate on the minor details and not on the actual building. Jackie, an
energetic young woman, suggested that the work be divided – some could build the
bridge poles and others could build the top path. The suggestion to divide the work
is a good idea that can help ensure the bridge be built in a coordinated and orderly
fashion.

Adam, who was sitting next to her, quickly gathered the blue bricks and started
putting them together. Jackie asked him what part he was building and Adam said he
thought it was a pole and laughed. The desire to impress the host by seeming active
and involved caused Adam to work impulsively and with little thought. This indicates
low confidence as well as a focus on pleasing the host rather than on completing the
assignment correctly. A better reaction from Adam would be to focus on the
assignment, figure out what part he's taking on, and building in a calm and accurate
manner. Jackie announced she would build the top part and gathered up bricks of a
different colour. Connor, who sat beside Max, took on building the second pole and
tried to work in tandem with Adam so that the poles would be identical. This
coordination indicates serious involvement in the assignment: Conner took on the
task to build a part of the bridge, and, at the same time, he remembered that this is

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
9
a group assignment and the product has to be symmetrical. Thus, he was aware and
attentive to others.

Max repeatedly said the bridge couldn't be over 10 centimetres long. Max probably
felt insecure with his lack of control over the assignment. He tried to superficially
demonstrate his authority by repeating remarks that he had already made and that
were not to the point. Had he recognised an organisational problem, he could have
made constructive comments. However, his empty remarks, which were made to
show interest, only indicate pressure.

Adam found a ruler on the table and grabbed it for himself. While building the pole,
he occasionally measured it. Unnecessarily possessing the ruler indicates Adam's
stress that his contribution and involvement would not be noticed. He is trying to
impress the examiners by showing he's accurate and able to follow instructions.
However, here is no justification for simply holding the ruler when others may need
it.

When the bridge was put together, it turned out that Connor hadn't paid attention
and accidentally joined blue and green bricks in the pole he had built. Max got upset
and said, "It's so basic, we won't complete the assignment making mistakes like
this". He then pulled the bridge over in an attempt to take out the excess bricks from
Connor's pole. But the bridge broke down.

Max's reaction indicates he is stressed and that he has trouble dealing

with malfunctions and unforeseen mishaps. Since he was having trouble managing
the group as it was, he tried to aggressively take over and only made things worse.
Jackie said: "No worries, lets try to put it back together" and started trying. Jackie's
response indicates the ability to stay calm under pressure and an attempt to cheer
up and focus back on the assignment rather than on the mishap.

Adam asked if they had any time left. His occupation with the time, rather than with
the assignment, indicates that Adam is stressed and in a hurry to give up when
confronted with a mishap. This suggests his main target is to make an impression
and not to properly complete the assignment.

When Jackie completed putting the bridge together, Connor measured it, and it
turned out that the poles were now not symmetrical and that the bridge was too
short. He tried to extend the poles but the host said the time was up. The host
inquired of the participants about the assignment. Adam said, "It turned out alright,
like you asked". Adam's response indicates he fears the host's reaction and can't
handle failure. Because of this he is ignoring the problems with the bridge hoping
they will go unnoticed. This is an immature and irresponsible reaction.

Max said he thinks the bridge doesn't meet the requirements; he added that this
was a result of the group members ignoring his instructions. Max's behaviour points
to frustration and an inability to take responsibility. Max felt insecurity during the
assignment, and he is disappointed with his inability to manage it, preferring instead
to blame the others. A better reaction would have been to learn from the mistakes

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
10
that were made. He could have said, "As a group, we could have planned the bridge
in a better way," or he could've taken responsibility for not running and organising
the group in advance.

When asked about his conduct, Connor said he believed he contributed to the
building, but he added that he should have paid more attention when he mixed the
blue and green bricks.

Summary of the candidates' participation

Max did not perform the assignment well. He sorted the bricks and guided the
participants with regard to the important detail of the bridge's height. But other than
the required height, he ignored the rest of the details. He did not make a plan, nor
did he let the participants build without first coordinating their actions. It appears he
was too stressed to perform the assignment and was unsuccessful at organising.
When he felt things were getting out of hand, he lost his patience and, out of
frustration and impulsiveness, tried to solve the problem himself. Additionally, he
preferred to blame others rather than try to understand what could have been done
differently.

Max should have planned the structure of the bridge and discussed the plan of
action with the group members. Moreover, he should have paid attention to more
than one detail. Wise planning can include drawing a model of the bridge, so it's
clear to the entire group how the bridge is suppose to look, or simply explaining the
form of the bridge to the members (it will have three poles and a path over them).
Afterward, he could have assigned tasks to the participants — who should build the
first pole, the second pole, and so on — and then made sure they minded the bridge
height and the rest of the conditions. One should also be aware of the time in order
to evaluate the work pace. During the performance of the task, it is important to be
patient and give clear instructions. ("Connor, please build the blue pole and when
you're done measure it to see if the height is right. Please make sure you're building
a pole like Adam's".) Even when the assignment seems to be stuck, it is suggested to
try and improve whatever can be done. (For instance, if the bridge falls apart and
there is time left, you should encourage the members to put it back up.)

Additionally, if the assignment does not succeed, it is not recommended to blame

others, but rather learn what went wrong. Max preferred blaming other members
for the failure rather than finding where the group — himself included — could have
done things differently.

Adam took on an active part in building the bridge, but he was much too occupied
with the impression he was leaving with the host. Since he wanted to be seen as
"alright," he participated and was involved, but this was only the result of wanting to
appear to be working. Because of this, he started building without actually
understanding what he was building and with no coordination with the other
members. Also, he took the ruler to show he was following the instructions, but he
didn't really measure as needed, rather simply held on to it for the most amount of
time.

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
11
Due to the pressure to meet the requirements, and to look O.K. before the assessors,
Adam was quite stressed about the time left to complete the assignment ("Do we
even have any time left??") and tried to cover up the failure of the assignment by
claiming it had succeeded.

It is important to understand that when we trouble ourselves with what the

examiners think of us, we further stress ourselves out and we lose focus on the
assignment. It is recommended to work in a calm manner, to be motivated to
contribute, and to efficiently assist the performance of the assignment rather than to
be consumed with "what will the examiner think of me?" Furthermore, it's important
to deal with failure, take responsibility, and to learn from the mistakes that were
made. Covering up the facts and avoiding responsibility indicates low confidence and
difficulty in handing failure.

On the contrary, Jackie and Connor demonstrated good, efficient, and practical
work. Jackie considered how to improve the work process, and when she recognised
that participants were not coordinated, she built a significant part of the bridge and
cooperated with the other members. Additionally, when the bridge fell apart, she
did not give up and she tried to put it back together. She demonstrated confidence,
involvement, and a practical attitude in the building of the bridge. Focusing on
contributing to the assignment and trying to promote it indicates a serious, involved,
and committed attitude.

Connor also presented involvement, tried to build the pole in coordination with
Adam, in order for the bridge to be symmetric, and was practical and active
throughout the assignment. In addition, towards the end he did not compromise on
the quality of the bridge and made an effort to correct the malfunction despite the
short amount of time left. As apposed to Max, Connor took responsibility for his
mistake with the bricks and presented objective feedback regarding his conduct. The
accurate feedback indicates Connor is able to take responsibility for his actions and is
confident enough to admit his mistakes while also acknowledging the contribution
he made. Having said that, this mistake could have been prevented had Connor been
more alert to the instructions.

Copyright: www.JobTestPrep.co.uk
12