Professional Styles (Expert Report)
The Expert Report is the same Professional Styles questionnaire data read at far greater depth - competency potential, culture fit, three 'deep dive' profiles - built for an accredited practitioner to interpret, not a second, independent view of the person.
The same responses run through four steps and come out the other side as competency and culture-fit detail too dense for anyone without accreditation to read cold.
Reach for this when…
- You're making a hiring, promotion or other high-stakes call and the simplified reports don't give you enough to work with.
- You're accredited to interpret Wave data and need the full competency and culture-fit picture, not the candidate-facing summary.
- A decision needs more rigour than a five-minute read of the Line Manager or Candidate report can provide.
How to run it
- Have the person complete the Wave Professional Styles questionnaire once - every report is generated from that same set of responses.
- Generate the Expert Report, which is only available for accredited or trained users, not the candidate or an untrained manager.
- Read the competency potential and culture/environment fit profiles alongside the three 'deep dive' summaries.
- Use the deeper read to inform the decision, then share findings with untrained stakeholders via the plain-language Line Manager Report.
A worked example
Situation. Chen Wei-Ting led HR at a mid-size manufacturer in Taichung, Taiwan, and needed more than the standard summary before recommending a well-liked manager for promotion.
Applied. As an accredited user, she read his Expert Report's competency and culture-fit profiles alongside his Candidate Report; the deeper detail showed a directive pattern sitting under his self-described 'collaborative' style that the simplified summary hadn't made clear.
Result. She raised the directive-versus-collaborative gap with him before the promotion went through and used it to shape his onboarding into a larger team, rather than as a reason to block the move.
The catch
It's the same self-report data as the Candidate Report, only read in more depth - it doesn't add an independent observer's view, so the same self-report biases (flattering answers, an unrepresentative week) carry straight through. It also requires accreditation to interpret properly; read without training, the extra detail is as likely to mislead as to help.
It's a deeper read of the same self-report, not a second, independent opinion on the person.
Origin: Saville Assessment