Information about Cymeon and our work

Are you a successful workplace maverick?

Are you an ambitious, passionate and brave individual who is not afraid to break rules? Are you tired of following conventional norms and being misunderstood? Do you never quit in pursuing big dreams? Are you more successful on your own than a whole team of people? Guess what? You might be a maverick. If not, perhaps you would like to learn about how you might become a maverick by developing some skills.

The modern workplace is all about teamwork. Teams reduce the risk of getting it wrong and increase the certainty of getting it right. But is this always the case for everyone? This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. has studied mavericks for many years. He argues that some individuals are better at doing tasks than teams and that teamwork just slows them down. He has just launched the beta version of his new questionnaire to gauge a person’s maverickism in the workplace. Take the test, get great feedback and contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. about how you would improve it!  


You can try it for free here with the password:  WhatAboutMe


You can share this link and this article!

What do we know about successful mavericks?

Successful mavericks are enthusiastic, open to new ideas, passionate, willing to take risks, talented, and very result-oriented. However, they can be a “tad difficult to work with” since they work best on their own and have the strength of character to overshadow others with their passion, vision and energy. This results from their unique ability to achieve more when working individually, and through having ideas and seeing things in way that others find unorthodox. They break the myth that the world of work is all about endless teams, committees and meetings!

 The late 20th century brought a lot of changes to the world of work; be it in technology, communication or the work place. To deal with change and to empower the workforce, the idea of team-based work and learning was born. The majority of corporations believe in teamwork and rightfully so! For many people, the formula works as teamwork enables good decision making and progress at a steady speed. However, mavericks disrupt, give birth to new ideas and have a vision of how they can be implemented. Their unorthodoxy may be viewed as farfetched, unfitting, and even heretical by “steady-Eddies” and the established hierarchy. Some less socially skilled mavericks may be a bit like this but the reality is that they still have the character and the wisdom to drive competitive advantage faster and better than others.  More socially gifted mavericks can fit in to corporate culture and work with existing values of colleagues such that their input into the organization will be more positively received.

Willingness To Take Risks

 Willingness to take risks means that successful mavericks are on more of a roller coaster ride than others although their propensity for success suggests more ups than downs. The downs can bring rough times but many successful business stories entail overcoming disaster before finally making a success of it. Mavericks come back fighting. In the modern work of turbulence and the global economy in which disruption can happen at any time, the successful maverick has to be an asset in any business.

And arguably it is mavericks who have changed the world. Think of the likes of Bill Gates, Herb Kelleher,  Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Sara Blakely, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Zuckerberg and many others. Even though each of these successful individuals have other skills, talents and limitations, many people would agree that their unique vision, curiosity and drive for the stars (in the case of Elon Musk take this literally!) have been central features of their success.   These mavericks have changed and are changing the world.

Creativity, Passion and Wisdom

 Creativity is not exclusive to mavericks, but the workplace maverick who creates competitive advantage has tremendous creative ability based on passion, wisdom, motivation and direction that makes them winners in the workplace. For these reasons, mavericks are entrepreneurs and can be good leaders as they are smart, inspiring and do not get discouraged very easily.

Are mavericks outcasts in the workplace?

 Overall, as unique as they are in their way of working and thinking, sometimes they might be labeled as outcasts, while other times they are hailed as heroes who strive towards making the world a better place. The question is how can coworkers, corporations and bosses embrace this unique personal character and use them to benefit a project or a company? Let’s use their dreams to create a better world.

Are you a workplace maverick?

Try the beta version of the maverick questionnaire free here with the password:  WhatAboutMe

 Please send constructive feedback and comments to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. so that he can fine tune his work. Feel free to send the article and the link to others. Have a great day!

Continue reading
  14644 Hits
14644 Hits

Workplace Mavericks

Chris Jackson has just presented a talk on high performance and workplace maverickism to Sydney Water.The new self-report questionnaire on maverickism by generated a lot of conversation about how people work individually and in teams:


Workplace maverickism

Continue reading
  1516 Hits
1516 Hits

Sex Fantasies

The Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire is commonly used to gauge the frequency and type of sexual fantasies.  In conjunction with expert advice, results help determine underlying thinking of people who are seeking therapeutic assistance. For some these are just harmless fantasies but others might or have caused harm to others.

Dr. Glenn Wilson, the creator of the Wilson Sex Questionnaire, was one of the most important pioneers of studying human sexuality and mating behavior research in the 1970s. Subsequently, Wilson designed this assessment tool for the purpose of providing evidence-based measures of peoples’ sexual fantasies.

The Wilson Sex Questionnaire contains 40 categories of fantasy divided into four subscales:

  •            Exploratory
  •            Intimate
  •             Impersonal
  •             Sadomasochistic


The Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire can be of great use for personal, couples, perpetrator and victim therapy. It is widely used across the world by professionals in this area including sex therapists, social workers, probation officers, victim therapists and psychologists. Much research on sex fantasies by academics is also focused on the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire.

The Questionnaire is available online or as a hard copy in pdf format. The online version provides graphical analysis of scores, comparison with others such as a partner, and expert system assessment.  Training assistance is offered here.

If you have data on the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire please share with the publisher to help us improve the test.


Important note: You can order this test only if you have professional qualifications and you may only use the test by following its terms and conditions.

Continue reading
  3166 Hits


© (C) Cymeon, 2017

3166 Hits

How Our Customers and Clients Achieve Competitive Advantage

Over the last few weeks we have been thinking about how our customers and clients can achieve competitive advantage through working with Cymeon. What differentiates us from the competition? How do we look after the people who trust us to provide support? As we sought to answer this question, we also thought about how we could communicate the answer efficiently and easily.


Please share the results of our work with your colleagues and help us to tell the world about the work that we do in designing and marketing psychological tests that are useful in the real world.


We had some fun making this video ...


Have a good day,



Continue reading
  3281 Hits


© (c) Cymeon

3281 Hits

Understanding the Learning Styles Profiler (LSP)

We thought it would be a good idea to start presenting some of the extensive peer reviewed evidence in favour of our psychological tests. We begin with an article by Professor Chris Jackson on the basis of the learning styles profiler (LSP) which measures the hybrid model of learning in personality (HMLP).  This is a really interesting paper which draws an analogy between the profiler and shooting an arrow from a bow.  Read the article below for more information which is mildly updated from a conference presentation in 2009. Here Professor Jackson uses this  analogy to show how the LSP can predict high performance as well as poor performance in the workplace. More academic articles will follow which will show how the LSP predicts educational, community and clinical outcomes.  




Using the hybrid model of learning in personality to predict performance in the workplace


Chris J. Jackson (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

School of Management

University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052 Australia






The hybrid model of learning in personality (Jackson, 2005; 2008) argues that Sensation Seeking (a biologically based scale of high approach and low avoidance) provides an exploratory drive which is mediated by mastery goal orientation in the prediction of functionally learnt behaviour such as work performance. It is argued that other socio-cognitive mechanisms will also re-express Sensation Seeking towards functional learning.  Failure to re-express the exploratory drive leads to dysfunctional learning and delinquency. Using published data from several studies, I contrast the hybrid model of learning in personality with the Big Five model of personality in terms of its theory, predictive capacity and application.  Results generally suggest that practitioners may gain better insights into personality in the workplace using the hybrid model compared to the Big Five.


A simple analogy provides an easy way to understand the hybrid model of learning in personality. Think of an arrow shooting through the air.  An arrow will fly true to its target if:

·       It has sufficient momentum (Sensation Seeking drive)

·       The angle of flight is correct (Mastery)

·       The flight of the arrow has been well planned  (Conscientiousness)

·       The arrow is flying towards a target that has been well chosen (Rationality)

·       The arrow has been launched by someone who has put sufficient thought into the process and who understands the process such that they can plan for and react to changing circumstances (Deep Learning)

The hybrid model of learning in personality is a theory based model of personality which provides a way of understanding the processes which underlie functional learning that lead to successful work performance, and dysfunctional learning which leads to anti-social behaviour in the workplace. The process model of the hybrid model of personality contrasts with the Big Five model of personality (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1992) which is primarily based on exploratory factor analysis and which aims to provide a parsimonious social construction of personality. Problems with the Big Five model are noted in Block (1995) although it should be noted that this model of personality appears to possess considerable validity (e.g. Salgado, 1997).

The “arrow in flight analogy” illustrates the hybrid model of learning in personality but behind the analogy lies a process model which aims at uniting biological,  socio-cognitive and experiential theories of personality (Jackson, 2005; 2008).  The biological models of personality are championed by Eysenck (1967) and Gray and McNaughton (2000), but perhaps the most persuasive evidence for a biological basis of personality lies in the Sensation Seeking-Impulsivity cluster of traits such as identified by Zuckerman (1994). To date, biological models of personality have made little impact in organizational psychology (Furnham & Jackson, 2008). Sensation Seeking is argued to have a biological basis associated with dopamine and testosterone which tends to lead to risk taking behaviour. However a small amount of evidence also suggests that Sensation Seeking underlies exploratory behaviour (Ball & Zuckerman, 1992) unassociated with reinforcement (Pickering, 2004). Jackson (2005; 2008) extends this argument to suggest that Sensation Seeking represents a drive for curiousity and exploration which can lead to functional or dysfunctional learning outcomes. It represents therefore the undirected energy of the arrow such that high Sensation Seeking will have a tendency to fly a long way towards its target.

There are several major socio-cognitive theories of personality which are usually seen as separate to the biological. One of the most prominent is that of goal orientation (e.g. Dweck & Leggett, 1998; Vandewalle & Cummings, 1997), in which learning goal or mastery goal orientation provides a mechanism through which cognitive resources are allocated towards problem resolution leading to the development of self-efficacy (e.g. Bandura, 1999). People high in mastery, in Jackson’s (2005; 2008) model, are the people who understand that success comes from learning goals through allocation of cognitive resources towards achieving difficult outcomes (such that the arrow flies at a high trajectory towards a hard and distant target).

O’Connor and Jackson (2008) provided a series of studies examining how Mastery re-expresses Sensation Seeking towards the achievement of functional outcomes (i.e. specifying Mastery as a mediator of the relationship between Sensation Seeking and positive performance outcomes). Results from school children, an experiment looking at maze performance, and in the workplace provided evidence that mastery mediated Sensation Seeking in the prediction of performance. Interestingly, O’Connor and Jackson (2008) also reported that dysfunctional performance resulted from the direct expression of Sensation Seeking once the indirect pathway of Mastery was partialled. The conclusion from this research is that the positive effects of exploration occur when re-expressed through socio-cognitive mechanisms whereas the direct expression of Sensation Seeking results in anti-social behaviour.

Further evidence for this model was also provided by Jackson, Hobman, Jimmieson and Martin (2009) who reported that the hybrid model of learning in personality predicted university self reported performance, leadership, self-reported work performance  and supervisor rated work performance better than the Big Five model of personality and many other models of personality.

Jackson (2005; 2008) argues that other socio-cognitive scales are also necessary for functional work performance. Planning, perseverance and social responsibility  (Conscientiousness) is seen as a further important predictor of work performance and has some similarity to Conscientiousness in the Big Five model of personality which is known to be predictive of work performance (Mount, Barrick & Stewart, 1998). The planned flight path of an arrow towards its target is more likely to be successful than one which is unplanned.

Moreover, an arrow will only hit a desirable target if the target is chosen through being objective and logical (Rationality). People who are easily swayed, dependent upon others and chance may well choose inappropriate targets and get themselves into trouble. Evidence from Jackson (2005, 2008) and Jackson et al. (2008) is that Rationality positively predicts functional performance such as work outcomes and negatively predicts dysfunctional outcomes such as high psychopathy.  Jackson, Baguma and Furnham (submitted) provide evidence from Australian and Ugandan students of indirect pathways from Sensation Seeking through the other socio-cognitive scales to  Rationality and finally to Grade Point Average.

Finally, Jackson’s (2005; 2008) model incorporates  Deep Learning which takes inspiration from the experiential model of learning (e.g. Kolb, 1984).  From this perspective, high performance results from proactively searching for depth, background and theory as opposed to just being expedient. Here the arrow flies true in the hands of someone who knows deeply about the bow, the arrow and flight as opposed to someone who has just focused their knowledge on the simple operation of drawing an arrow.

Siadaty and Taghiyareh (2007) offered students training in Conscientious Achievement and Sensation Seeking but reported only success in training for Conscientiousness. This is in accord with the proposed hybrid model of learning in personality since the socio-cognitive scales are meant to be open to change and intervention whereas Sensation Seeking, with its more biological basis, is much less malleable. Cloninger, Syrakic, and Przybeck (1993) have a similar perspective concerning the fixed nature of biological scales (termed temperament in their model) and the changeable nature of socio-cognitive scales (termed character in their model).

        The hybrid model of learning in personality therefore has a basis from several different research foci and the model is summarized in Table 1.


Table 1: Principal relationships between Jackson’s hybrid model and other models of learning and personality


Research Focus

Hybrid model



Sensation Seeker: High approach and low avoidance measuring exploration and curiosity

Sensation Seekers (Zuckerman, 1994)


Mastery: Focus of putting effort into achieving long term  and hard outcomes

Goal orientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1998; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997)


Conscientiousnes: Perseverance, responsibility and understanding  about the complex social world

Conscientiousness (Costa & McRae, 1992)


Rationality: Provides rational and logical thinking

Low Neuroticism (Eysenck, 1967) and high emotional intelligence (Petrides & Furnham, 2000)


Deep Learning: Provides well thought out and well constructed outcomes

Deep knowledge (Kolb’s 1984 model of experiential learning)


Jackson, Baguma and  Furnham (submitted) propose and test a series of indirect pathways from Sensation Seeking to academic performance which provides a way of understanding how Sensation Seeking is re-expressed through complex cognitions which lead to the development of rationality. In the first pathway, Mastery provides the high Sensation Seeker with long term allocation of cognitive resources towards solving problems and the self-efficacy to achieve success. In turn, the ability to master long term plans in functional learners leads to Rationality, which emphasizes objectivity and emotional independence, and this in turn leads to improved optimal performance.

In the second pathway, functional learners are those who re-express Sensation Seeker as deep learning, conscientiousness and rationality. This path argues that functional success can be explained by a process through which Sensation Seeking is re-expressed through a series of higher order experiences and cognitions in which curiosity leads to the rationality through a process of reflecting and sustained hard work. This functional  indirect pathway can be summarized as exploring -> reflecting -> persisting -> rationality -> Functional Learning and high performance. The order of this pathway has some loose resemblance to experiential learning cycles (as proposed by Kolb, 1984, and later researchers) but has content developed from prominent and widely known biological, socio-cognitive and experiential models. This model is shown in Figure 1. It remains to be seen if these pathways predict functional learning in the workplace.

I am currently analyzing data from 400 Australian workers. Initial evidence from this new data set suggests that the hybrid model of learning is superior to Big Five model of personality (measured as the NEO-IPIP) in the prediction of entrepreneurial skills, dysfunctional behaviour and self-reported work performance.


ConclusionsLSP - how it works

The proposed hybrid model of learning in personality provides an interesting way of integrating biological, socio-cognitive and experiential models of personality (see Table 1 and Figure 1).  The hybrid model of learning in personality is a process model of wide applicability and appeal to personality researchers and practitioners. The hybrid model of learning in personality also benefits from near-simultaneous development of a measurement model that corresponds to the theoretical structure. This contrasts with personality models which emphasise measurement at the expense of theory (such as the Big Five model, e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1992), post-hoc theory to match an existing measurement model (e.g., Eysenck’s PEN model; Eysenck, 1967), and post-hoc measurement to match theory (e.g., Gray’s revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) recently operationalised by Jackson (2009).

The proposed model of learning in personality achieves the following outcomes:

·       Development of a process model of learning in personality, such that social and experiential cognitions are seen as proximal mediators of a distal biological construct.  

·       Development of the idea that Sensation Seeking relates to both functional and dysfunctional learning which contrasts with the work of Zuckerman (1994) who argues that Sensation Seeking generally has negative outcomes.

·       A departure from a strict dichotomy of temperament and character envisaged by Cloninger et al. (1993) into more of a continuum flowing from distal biological constructs to proximal socio-cognitive constructs.

·       The development of a model of personality which provides direct advice on how to implement interventions such as by training, CBT, coaching and self-development. The hybrid model learning advocates that intervention is most easily and directly undertaken with socio-cognitive scales as opposed to biological scales.

·       Prediction of functional and dysfunctional learning outcomes. The proposed hybrid model focuses on the process of learning in personality instead of simply describing personality (as the Big Five model for example sets out to do).

·       Development of a model which aims to predict both functional work behaviour and dysfunctional work behaviour better than existing models.




Ball, S. A., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Sensation Seeking and Selective Attention: Focused and Divided Attention on a Dichotic Listening Task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 5, 825-831 .

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality, in A. Pervin and O.P. John (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd edition). pp. 154–96. New York: Guilford Press.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Cloninger, C.R., Syrakic, D.M., & Przybeck. T.R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychology, 50, 975-990. 

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Eysenck, H. (1967). The biological basis of personality.Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Furnham, A., & Jackson, C. J.  (2008). Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory in the work-place. In Corr, P. Theory and application of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gray, J.A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety. Oxford: OUP.

Jackson, C. J. (2005). An applied neuropsychological model of functional and dysfunctional learning: Applications for business, education, training and clinical psychology. Cymeon: Australia.

Jackson, C. J. (2008). Measurement issues concerning a personality model spanning temperament, character, and experience. In Boyle, G.,   Matthews, G. &  Saklofske, D. Handbook of Personality and Testing. Sage Publishers.

Jackson, C. J. (In press). Jackson 5 scales of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) and their application to dysfunctional real world outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality.

Jackson, C. J., Baguma, P., & Furnham, A. F. (submitted). Predicting Grade Point Average from the hybrid model of learning in personality: Consistent findings from Ugandan and Australian Students

Jackson, C. J., Hobman, E., Jimmieson, N., and Martin. R. (2009).Comparing Different Approach and Avoidance Models of Learning and Personality in the Prediction of Work, University and Leadership Outcomes. British Journal of Psychology, 1-30. Preprint. DOI: 10.1348/000712608X322900

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Liao, H., A. Chuang. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41-58.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R. &  Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and Performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.

O’Connor, P. C. & Jackson, C. J. (2008). Learning to be Saints or Sinners: The Indirect Pathway from Sensation Seeking to Behavior through Mastery Orientation. Journal of Personality, 76, 1-20.

Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.

Pickering, A. D. (2004). The neuropsychology of impulsive antisocial sensation seeking personality traits: From dopamine to hippocampal function? In R. M Stelmack (Ed.), On the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honour of Marvin Zuckerman. Elsevier.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43. 

Siadaty, M. & Taghiyareh, F. (2007). PALS2: Pedagogically Adaptive Learning System based on Learning Styles. Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007)

VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L.L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390-400.


Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.


From: Jackson, C. J. (2009). Using the hybrid model of learning in personality to predict performance in the workplace. 8th IOP Conference, Conference Proceedings, Manly, Sydney, Australia, 25-28 June, 2009 pp 75-79. Names of scales updated and occasional sentences updated.



To find out more about the LSP please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. If you want to share our work with colleagues please ask them to subscribe to our newsletter.

Continue reading
  6299 Hits
6299 Hits

Social Media

We would love for you to like our page on Facebook or follow us on Twitter

Continue reading
  3063 Hits
3063 Hits

Welcome to the Cymeon Blog

We are pleased to announce the addition of our brand new Cymeon blog!


The Cymeon Team

Continue reading
  7485 Hits
7485 Hits