Extremes

Why it matters

Research shows that performance often drops at the extremes of otherwise useful traits (“too much of a good thing”). Extremes surfaces those overuse tendencies early, so you can tailor interviews, reference checks, and onboarding to balance the behavior.

What you’ll see

Extremes returns up to five dual-label scales, each tied to a Big Five domain. Scores are classified as Low Extreme / Moderate / High Extreme and accompanied by plain-language guidance for interviewing and hiring decisions.

The five Extremes scales (dual labels)

• Extraversion: Withdrawn ↔ Attention Seeking

• Agreeableness: Insensitive ↔ Overcaring

• Conscientiousness: Impulsive ↔ Rigid

• Emotional Stability: Emotional ↔ Unresponsive

• Openness: Conformist ↔ Eccentric

These dual labels reflect that both low and high ends can create risk, depending on context.

How to use it in hiring

• Screen for risk, not fit alone. Treat extremes as signals to probe, not automatic rejection criteria.

• Target your interview. Add scenario questions that test for overuse control (e.g., how a highly Rigid profile adapts to last-minute changes).

• Balance with role demands. Some contexts benefit from more structure (Rigid) or challenge-seeking (Attention Seeking); others don’t. Context matters.

• Hand over to onboarding. If you hire, convert risks into Directional goals → Actions → Checks in the first 90 days.

How it’s different from competency “under/overuse”

• Competency insights (e.g., Driving, Enabling) show behavior against a role or leadership competency and use under/just-right/over language.

• Extremes shows trait-level overuse risks that can show up across roles, independent of a specific competency match. Use both: competencies for role alignment, Extremes for personal risk management.

What the score means (plain English)

• Scores are built from MAP facets using validated facet weightings to predict maladaptive variants (e.g., Withdrawal, Callousness, Disinhibition, Negative Affect, Eccentricity).

• Results are then standardized and classified: typically, 0–29 = Low Extreme, 30–70 = Moderate, 71–100 = High Extreme. Most people show 0–1 extremes.

Quality & fairness (summary)

• Validity & reliability: Evidence of convergent/criterion validity and good internal consistency across scales.

• Norms: Large, recent global norm (high-stakes selection & development).

• Adverse impact: Simulations with typical decision rules show no adverse impact by gender or age when used appropriately.

Practical examples (how extremes may look in work)

• Attention Seeking (EX high): energizing and visible, but may dominate airtime; probe for listening discipline and solo execution.

• Overcaring (AG high): cooperative and trusted, but may avoid tough calls; probe for constructive conflict and prioritization.

• Rigid (CO high): reliable and thorough, but may micromanage; probe for flexibility and “good enough” decisions.

• Emotional (ES low): vigilant to risk, but may over-ruminate; probe for recovery routines and decision under pressure.

• Eccentric (OP high): inventive, but may chase impractical ideas; probe for feasibility filters and decision closure.

Good practice & guardrails

• Combine insights. Review together with role lens, structured interview, and (if used) work sample.

• Document decisions. Note how an extreme was mitigated or balanced (e.g., pairing, coaching, probation goals).

• Avoid “single-metric” decisions. Extremes are decision support, not the decision itself.

FAQs

Is Extremes a clinical tool?
No. It does not diagnose; it identifies work-relevant overuse risks derived from Big Five patterns.

Can candidates “game” this?
Extremes rely on facet patterns; isolated impression-management rarely replicates the composite shape. Use interviews to corroborate.

Will everyone have extremes?
No. Many people have zero or one. Extremes highlight where extra care is needed, not that someone is “unsuitable.”