Foundations

1. Personality (the archetype)

The most visible part of your result. You are a Lion, an Elephant, a Cheetah - one of eight named archetypes drawn from the African savanna.

What it is

Personality archetypes are composite portraits. Each one bundles a recognisable cluster of behaviour, work style, and stress patterns into a single shape that is easy to remember and discuss. The Lion is the decisive leader; the Giraffe is the long-view observer; the Hyena is the adaptive operator.

What it is built on

The shape of each archetype is not arbitrary. Each one is constructed from a defensible combination of:

• A Big Five trait pattern (e.g. Lion: high Extraversion + high Conscientiousness + low Agreeableness)
• A DISC-style behavioural read (Dominance / Influence / Steadiness / Compliance)
• A Belbin-style team-role flavour (the Lion as Shaper, the Meerkat as Teamworker, the Eagle as Plant, etc.)
• A CliftonStrengths-style strengths-and-shadows framing

Honest limit

The eight archetype labels are a framing device, not a validated taxonomy. The traits underneath them are validated. The labels themselves are useful because they are memorable and conversational - not because the eight are empirically the "right" cut of personality space. There is no claim that Lion-vs-Eagle is a meaningful psychometric distinction outside this app.

2. Traits (the dimensions)

Underneath the archetype, every answer moves a small number of underlying trait dimensions.

Big Five (OCEAN)

The dominant empirical model in personality psychology. Five broad trait dimensions that replicate across cultures, languages, self-vs-observer ratings, and decades of factor-analytic work:

• Openness - curiosity, novelty-seeking, willingness to consider unconventional ideas
• Conscientiousness - organisation, persistence, follow-through
• Extraversion - social energy, assertiveness, positive affect
• Agreeableness - warmth, cooperation, willingness to defer
• Neuroticism - tendency to negative affect and emotional volatility

The Big Five is the foundation under the trait pattern reported on each archetype's detail page. The personality and work-ethic items map directly onto Big Five facets.

Cognitive-style spectrum

Modern dimensional research treats ADHD, autism, and trait anxiety as continuous dimensions in the population, not categorical bins. Twin studies and large-N epidemiology converge on this point (Constantino & Todd, 2003; Polderman et al., 2014; Ronald & Hoekstra, 2011).

So Savanna reports three cognitive-style dimensions in parallel with the archetype: ADHD-style, autism-style, and anxiety-style cognition, scored 0-100 on the spectrum from self-reported preferences. The items draw inspiration from validated screeners - the AQ (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001), the ASRS (Kessler et al., 2005), and trait-anxiety inventories (Spielberger, 1983) - but Savanna is not those instruments.

Honest limit

The trait foundation is solid; what's on top is interpretive. Big Five scores are validated; archetype assignment is a heuristic combination on top. Cognitive-style spectrum scores are descriptive only - they detect self-reported preferences correlated with each style. They are not a substitute for clinical assessment of ADHD, autism, or any anxiety condition.

3. Aptitude (applied judgement)

Aptitude testing measures what you can do, not what you are like. Savanna includes a small slice of this: the applied-judgement score on your result page.

Situational judgement tests (SJT)

The 10 scenario items on the assessment are an SJT-style instrument. Each presents a realistic workplace situation and asks you to choose what you would do. Each option carries a 0-3 weight reflecting consensus best-practice from the leadership and coaching literature - most effective response (3), effective (2), less effective (1), counterproductive (0). Your applied-judgement score is the normalised average of your picks.

SJTs are well-evidenced for workplace performance prediction:

• McDaniel et al. (2007) meta-analysis: SJTs predict job performance at validities comparable to structured interviews, with smaller adverse-impact ratios than cognitive-ability-only tests.
• Lievens et al. (2008): SJT validity holds across roles, cultures, and response formats.
• Christian et al. (2010): SJTs measure a constellation of constructs - leadership, interpersonal skill, conscientious judgement - that pure trait inventories miss.

What this is, and is not

The applied-judgement score on Savanna is aptitude in the SJT sense - your alignment with consensus best-practice on management and team scenarios. It is not:

• A measure of general cognitive ability (g). Savanna does not assess abstract reasoning, working memory, or verbal/numerical fluency. For role-relevant cognitive aptitude, use a purpose-built test (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
• A scoring of your judgement against absolute truth. The keys reflect literature consensus, which is well-supported but not infallible. Real-world context can flip "best" and "less effective" answers.
• A high-stakes selection instrument. SJT validity is strong enough for development and discussion contexts, weaker for hiring gates without validation against the specific role.

Honest limit

This is a small SJT, not a validated cognitive battery. Use it as a development conversation starter and as one input into 1:1 coaching. Do not use it as a hiring filter.

How the three layers work together

Every answer you give does up to three things at once:

1. Moves your archetype scores (e.g. Lion +3, Eagle +1) - personality.
2. Moves your trait scores (Big Five facets, plus the three cognitive-style spectra) - traits.
3. For scenario items, moves your applied-judgement score 0-3 - aptitude.

The result page reports all three, side-by-side, so you can read each one for what it is. A high Lion archetype tells you something different than a high applied-judgement score, and both tell you something different than a high autism-style spectrum read.

For the team angle: each member's result is rolled up separately (individual archetype + role fit + stress signals) and together (team cohesion / tension / diversity / functional coverage / suggested structure). Both reads matter; using only the aggregate misses individuals, using only individuals misses team dynamics.

What this is not

The honest summary, again:

• Not a clinical instrument. The cognitive-style spectrum looks like a screener but isn't validated as one. Talk to a clinician for diagnostic assessment.
• Not a hiring tool. Trait inventories carry well-documented adverse-impact risks if used in selection. SJT scores are weaker than g-loaded tests for role-prediction. Use Savanna for development, self-awareness, and team conversations - not gating decisions.
• Not a measure of intelligence. Savanna does not assess general cognitive ability, fluid reasoning, or processing speed.
• Not a verdict. A single result is a snapshot. Take it again in six months when role, stress, or life context has changed.