Posts Tagged ‘Green credibility’

A Green Testing the Test?

February 1st, 2018

About a year ago, an Orange lady organized a seminar for her team and friends. When she introduced me to her very Green husband, his fist words to me (in lieu of hello or nice to meet you) were: Your assessment is pretty accurate. Thank you was my response, but it wasn’t just about the assessment. It turns out he’d spent hours on testing the test and different ways of validating it, in order to see if it was credible (the core value for Greens).

His breakdown and explanation via email started with: Colors assessment by a “Green” to verify efficacy (noun: the ability to produce a desired or intended result…yes…I had to look that up, too…)

When he did the assessment, his scores were: 8 Blue, 20 Gold, 21 Orange and 31 Green

But that wasn’t enough for him. He then broke down each of the words in a score. A point value from 1 to 12 for each of the eight sets for a total score of 614. Does your head hurt yet, or are you thinking that that’s brilliant?

On that basis, his scores were: 52 Blue, 166 Gold, 163 Orange and 233 Green

That translated to a percentage of 8.6% Blue, 27% Gold, 26.5% Orange and 37.9% Green

I’m guessing, but didn’t ask, if THAT was the point where I had enough credibility for him to agree to attend the seminar… I also didn’t ask if he took on this project with an initial mindset of proving I didn’t have a clue and none of this could be/would be accurate…

But my Gold gets the last word in that I fixed the percentages to add up to 100…Ha! Thanks, CB

A Wikipedia & 60 Minutes Omission

April 13th, 2015

Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes ran a feature on Wikipedia. But these days, like everyone else, there wasn’t any mention of the first founding partner (along with Jimmy Wales) of the site! Greens always look for credibility and not the fame. But their contribution should never just be written out of history! Here’s the section on Sanger from the Colorful Personalities book:

Anyone with Internet access is familiar with Wikipedia, the huge on-line, free content encyclopedia. The idea was formed in 2001 by two friends as a site where everyone in the world could contribute articles, features and information in an open and unrestricted forum.

One of the original founders of Wikipedia was Larry Sanger. But within a year, Sanger left the company because he no longer believed in the credibility of Wikipedia when he started to question the accuracy and integrity of many entries and contributions. He walked away after disagreements with his partner as to who should be allowed to contribute to the site, even before it became the giant it is today. It was never about money, fame or success. It is always about credibility and doing it right.

In the words of Sanger himself: “Wikipedia began as a good-natured anarchy, a sort of Rousseauian state of digital nature. I always took Wikipedia’s anarchy to be provisional and purely for purposes of determining what the best rules and the nature of its authority should be. What I, and other Wikipedians, failed to realize is that our initial anarchy would be taken by the next wave of contributors as the very essence of the project – how Wikipedia was “meant” to be.”

What did the Green Sanger do? He developed a better and more credible site and launched This site has firm editorial rules and mandatory disclosure of the real names of its editors, whereas Wikipedia allows anyone with a fictitious user name to contribute untraceable content.

A Green Hiring Trick

September 2nd, 2014

“I wasn’t really looking for a new job right now, but I like to browse job ads once in awhile. I saw this one ad on-line for a Document Proofreader for a large engineering company. I thought it really strange, though, and quite hilarious that they would misspell the word “grammar” in the ad. They had spelled it “grammer.” So I emailed the ad and told them that it made me chuckle that they had misspelled the word, and then I jokingly (well, to myself, because I never thought that they’d respond) asked where I should send my resume.

Well, when I got home from work that evening, I had an email from the HR person telling me that she would like to interview me right away and to please, please send my resume. She said that that was not a mistake and that I was the first person in 18 responses to pick up and say something about the mistake!”

A similar approach came from a Gold executive assistant and her Green boss. After the Colors seminar when we had discussed the need for Green credibility she had to share with me that the first thing her boss asks her to do is to throw out all the resumes with spelling mistakes in them….

Are You Single and Dating On-line?

July 10th, 2014

Since I’m single (but don’t deal with any on-line dating sites) the recent story in Macleans was certainly interesting. All four of our Colors have on-line dating profiles but deal with these sites for very different reasons (right, Gold & Green introverts?)

There are actually more than 1,500 different sites and almost 40 million people in North America use them. They range from free to more than $60 a month and it’s a $1.5 billion industry. But are people looking for love in all the wrong places? It’s the second most popular way to find a mate, but through a method where over 80% of people misrepresent their age, height, or weight… and who knows what else?

Is on-line dating kind of like the failure rate of diet plans of more than 90 percent, or a great way to meet people? Who knows – but the author of a recent book suggests a problem: Since there are lots of people on these sites, most people won’t put in the effort to build a relationship. After all, they can just contact the next person the next day.

So called second-generation dating sites claim to use all kinds of personality tests to predict compatibility. But are they looking to match people with like-minded personality types, or focusing on the old saying (that makes two-thirds of relationships) that opposites attract?

If you’re single, how to do you get from here to married – or at least a longer-term relationship? Have you done one of the on-line personality tests? If you’re Blue and on one of these sites, how on earth can it work when your biggest asset is your intuition about someone? That only works face to face! Do Oranges make the time for endless scrolling through profiles and a bunch of back and forth messages? Can Greens tell credibility or someone’s intellect on these sites? Can Greens get any sense of credibility from someone on a dating site? And how can Golds get any clue about someone’s trustworthiness, reliability, or traditional values? Click the comment button and care enough to share. Your name and e-mail will never show up. But do include your first Color!

…And Resolutions For Greens and Golds?

January 6th, 2013

Not to leave out our Gold and Green friends on this subject: Would either Color actually tell anyone their New Year’s resolutions?

For Golds, their word is their bond. If they ever kept 10% of the promises they make to themselves, they would be unstoppable. But promises only count if they are verbalized and other are watching, holding them accountable, or relying on them. If they do make them, would they share? If they do, would they just lowball them to the point where it’s almost guaranteed they can achieve them? Has any Gold in your office shared any?

Green believe that credibility is at the core of who they are. Of course, they’ll think about resolutions and ways to do better or different. That generally has nothing to do with any New Year’s pressure, but just the willingness to course correct. It’s a process and not an occasion or a special day! Is there any Green in your office who has answered the question about any New Year’s resolution? Didn’t think so…

And an “I told you so:” It only took a few days after Christmas to see two Facebook posts from a couple Gold people. Here’s one: “After all the shopping and baking, etc., so glad Christmas is over. The stress is now gone and we can relax…time to get ready for New Year.” Hmmm… “ready” for New Year left exactly how much time to relax after Christmas and before the two-day New Year’s prep? But then, this lady doesn’t get the newsletter with last month’s heads up for Golds…

Memo to The Media: They’re Green – Deal With It

November 1st, 2009

A few weeks ago Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended a performance at the National Arts Centre with Yo-Yo Ma. During the performance, he actually went up on stage, sat down at the piano, and performed the Beatle’s song – With a Little Help From My Friends.

The media went nuts. For a Prime Minister who has been accused of not showing his “human side,” whatever that means, it was certainly unexpected. In fact, Maclean’s magazine did a six page story on “the story”, and a few more columns over the following weeks.

The Prime Minister is a high Green. He is an economist, has a Green face (he’s not mad), he doesn’t have a so-called “hidden agenda,” and is probably a whole lot more comfortable behind the scenes, than in front of the cameras. The performance was not some “human breakthrough,” or staged in order to make him appear softer.

When Greens choose to do something, they want to do it right – ok, perfect. The bigger the audience, the more pressure Greens tend to experience. After all, credibility is one of their core values.

When Secretary of State Clinton got emotional during the last Presidential election in New Hampshire, it wasn’t phony or staged. When the Prime Minister performed the song, it was a focus on doing it right on the piano much more than doing it right for the media. And when columnist Andrew Coyne suggests that Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Federal Liberal Party, and also a high Green, have a breakthrough and rip up a prepared speech, in order to speak from the heart, it isn’t going to happen.

Could the media please calm down, or at least get a basic understanding of Colors and the values, behaviors, and incredible gifts that Greens bring to politics?