Towards 0
Start from a proven method and improve it if needed.
Work preference
Exploration
Exploration measures your preference, when several paths lead to the objective, between starting from a tried-and-tested method and improving it, or trying a new approach while accepting more uncertainty.
The engine question
When several ways of working could achieve your objective, how do you prefer to proceed?
0—10
Exploration is not a measure of creativity or innovation.
Définition
What Exploration measures
Exploration measures your preference, when several paths lead to the objective, between starting from a tried-and-tested method and improving it, or trying a new approach while accepting more uncertainty. Research on innovation at work shows that both movements are needed: a review of the relationship between leadership and innovation concludes that innovating requires alternating opening phases, in which people explore and take risks, with closing phases, in which they exploit and consolidate [2]. The axis measures which of the two you lean towards spontaneously when the choice is open, not which is right: depending on the situation, it is one or the other.
What Exploration does not say
Exploration is not a measure of creativity or innovation. You can be creative while improving a tried-and-tested method, and the meta-analysis of predictors of individual innovation shows that intrinsic motivation and job characteristics, autonomy and complexity, weigh as much as personal dispositions [1]: your position on the axis is not a creative trait. Towards the low end, it does not mean you refuse change; it means you want a visible gain before leaving what works. Towards the high end, it does not mean you neglect what has been learned; it means the uncertainty of a new approach holds you back little.
0 → 10
Read the scale without ranking it
Between the two
Around the centre, you explore when the potential gain justifies it, but do not change methods simply for the sake of change. You will recognise yourself if you often start with the known method and branch off as soon as it shows its limits, without waiting to be asked.
Towards 10
Try a new approach and adjust as you go, even with more uncertainty.
Contexte
When this axis becomes concrete
The axis is visible in innovation, continuous improvement, tool choices, working methods and open-ended problem solving. It is felt when the framework locks in one approach while you could see another, or conversely when you are asked to reinvent what works. Context weighs as much as preference: the meta-analysis of team innovation shows that explicit support for innovation and a shared vision count more for innovating than the team's composition [3]. Your position therefore matters mostly where exploration is possible; in a framework that does not allow it, it remains a preference without a field to act on. Scientific scope: the cited studies examine workplace behaviours, conditions or outcomes. They do not directly validate this preference scale or an individual PIMPmyBOSS compatibility score.
The score describes a situated preference or a perceived behaviour. It is neither a personality diagnosis, a norm nor a verdict on professional quality.
Active mirror pair
Exploration × Stimulation
In the current engine, Exploration is compared with Stimulation. The relationship score does not judge either level: it measures their gap on this specific pair.
Understand Exploration × StimulationKeep exploring
Define the concept, then connect it.
See the 10 employee preferencesTen preferences describe the conditions in which you prefer to work. They do not rate your competence or value: each axis contrasts two legitimate ways of working.Exploration × StimulationThis pair compares the person's preference for trying a new approach, when several routes are possible, with how often the manager encourages them to question methods that…Understand the methodProfiles, pairs, calculation and limits.
Sources and evidence limits
These publications provide context for the concepts discussed; they do not directly validate this questionnaire, its scores or its compatibility formula. An abstract does not allow every nuance of a paper to be independently checked.
- Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90-105. DOI : 10.1037/a0018556
- Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974. DOI : 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
- Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145. DOI : 10.1037/a0015978