How To Effectively Use The ‘DISC’ Personality Model…. The Key Common Flaws And Proven, Practical Solutions! (A Formal & Applied Research-Based Article or ‘White Paper’)

By Dr. Michael O’Connor and David Spader, Potentia, LLC

Overview

Two of the most widely-used personality types models and assessments used worldwide for the past seventy years are MBTI and DISC. Both are directly related to classic psychological, counseling, business, and employment research and use. However, there is also a widespread, continuing misunderstanding as well as misuse of these powerful behavioral concepts. Yet, these can also easily be understood and minimized or eliminated altogether by the type of knowledge provided here in this article for the benefit of providers, end-users in both our personal and work lives for greater SUCCESS and SATISFACTION! Based on our own research and common use for effective business performance at all levels and types of jobs, in this article we will focus on the DISC version of this ‘four-factor’ model of personality types to address the four common, different general types of flaws, 12 specific ones overall, and practical solutions for each.

1) Content Flaws & Solutions

The most crucial, common flaw is the focus ONLY on DISC (or MBTI) as though it covers ‘everything’ that is essential to understand which impacts the performance of people. Unfortunately, this is common in models, resources, and coaching done around the world that continues over the past several decades. It root cause is the fundamental lack of knowledge about what DISC is and what it is not! Specifically, DISC describes one of our two most fundamental types of

personal MOTIVATIONS---namely, our instinctive NEEDS-driven habits, preferences—in other words, our more natural, internally hard-wired “would do”

attitudes and actions which are especially predicts what most people do in unfavorable situations. As such, DISC does not describe our beliefs, those VALUES which describe what we intend, think, or feel we “should do” in a given situation! In others words, any of the four primary DISC personal styles can also described by any of the other different types of values which may be the motivating source predicting a person’s actions. Additionally, DISC, by itself, does not and cannot predict higher performance. The simplest reason for this is because DISC describes what we do or don’t do, NOT how well we perform in task or people situations. Instead, our developed CAPABILITIES predict this, of which the most important both now and in the future is a person’s developed ‘Adaptability’ for dealing with new, different, changing, complex, and difficult situations! It is those individuals who have developed and perform beyond just their own natural “comfort zone” based on their ‘Adaptability’ and other capabilities who become and remain higher performers—whether ‘D-I-S-or C .’ This explains the perspective that “no one personal style is better than another…though each is and also can be effective in different types of situations!”

A second, powerful dimension of our MOTIVATION that is directly related to both higher performance as well as understanding at least one reason why ‘all individuals with the same personal style (whether D-or-I-or S-or C) are not the same, is explained by understanding the concept of behavioral ENERGY. Two specific dimensions are essential for effectively using the ‘DISC’ model. The first, most important is to realize that any of these four natural personality types may be more POSITIVELY or NEGATIVELY-motivated DIRECTION overall. Research and our experience have shown that people vary significantly in this respect in terms of their natural or developed self. People who are more positively motivated tend to follow life paths which are more goal-motivated, more resilient, and likely to develop capabilities which are less natural for them. And, by contrast, those who are NEGATIVELY-motivated tend to actually go down different paths in their lives which are self-limited by their own inner anxieties or fears that become obstacles for both our personal and/or interpersonal success and satisfaction! The

performance models and resources we use are based on decades of practical experience world-wide that help people deal with the natural tendency of individuals to be more positively-motivated in favorable situations when all is going well to being more negatively-motivated, and as a result, less effective in unfavorable situations!

The second dimension of our ENERGY which is important to understand with respect to the differences among people with the same (or different) personal styles is the STRENGTH level (magnitude, volume, force) for each of our personal style tendencies. For example, more intense individuals are characterized by a much higher strength level for that type(s) of tendencies which describe them. And, by contrast, lower energy tendencies just the opposite. Most people are described by one or two higher DISC tendencies and two lower ones. For instance, a person who is naturally more of a ‘’Generalist’ tends to be motivated by ‘D and I’ tendencies, while a person who is more of a ‘Specialist’ is motivated by ‘S and C’ ones. However, comparatively speaking most people, by definition, function at a more moderate, or ‘average’ energy level overall rather than either a high or lower demonstrated energy level for three or all four of these tendencies on an on-going basis. This is related to behavioral research that personal well-being requires time and lifestyle practices that match our most, natural of the four ‘primary, core personal styles’ in at least our non-work life for us to rest, recover from stresses required by different role(s)-related patterns, and re-generating our energy level on a daily to weekly basis so as to prevent or minimize personal burn-out (or rust-out) emotional well-being problems for ourselves!

2) Process Flaws & Solutions

Those using the ‘DISC’ (or MBTI) model are likely to be at risk of minimizing its effectiveness depending on either the type of resources used and/or their own personal application of these. Here are three of the most common, key process flaws and solutions.

First, before a person responds to an assessment or dialogue seeking to understand what they more naturally, instinctively do or don’t do, it is vital to clarify their response RESPONSE FOCUS. For example, if a person is responding to ‘DISC’ (or MBTI) assessment, make sure they are clear about their response focus—whether it is for their current job, a desired job, them outside of work, in favorable situations, or unfavorable situations, etc. The reason, as described earlier, is that our behavior tends to be situational. In fact, research over the past 50 plus years has consistently shown that for most people, their attitudes and actions are shaped by forces outside of themselves (like job requirements, others expectations, perceived view of others about your responses). In other words, be clear about what you are seeking to understand about this person with respect to essentially them for specific ROLE, type of SITUATIONS, or perhaps their natural PERSONALITY. Whether using DISC or MBTI, our own and others experience is that very different patterns are commonly reported when this response FOCUS is changed. And, worse yet, the output is likely to be highly unpredictable of a person’s actual self-perceived (or observers) view when this response FOCUS is not clear before responding!

A second, key flaw is the RESPONSE TIME. This is important for both DISC (or MBTI) assessments as well as ‘behavioral interviews’ and ‘performance coaching.’ Since the behavior involved is intended to focus on what a person actually DOES, a quicker response which is more instinctive without ‘thinking’ is most likely to match with a person’s actions. In other words, our natural personal styles are emotions or affective-based, not thinking or cognitive. We are seeking to understand and help this person further understand what they

actually ‘do’, not what they ‘think’ they do or, even worse, ‘should do’ (their values motivation when we are simply seeking to understand their natural, more instinctive habits, temperament)! In this respect, DISC self or observer assessments are most reliable and valid when completed in less than 10 minutes (assuming average reading level completion time). Some assessments, instead, ask the respondent to ‘think before responding’ and, by doing so, turn this into a ‘cognitive’ type assessment which, in turn, is less accurate for describing what a person actually ‘does’ versus what they think they ‘should or would do’ or ‘others’ are looking for to impress, get a job, etc. –in other words, when providing a socially desirable/acceptable response determines how a person responds.

A third key, though somewhat less common flaw is when evaluative RATING (vs. FREQUENCY) is involved. For instance, this occurs when questions or conversations ask about the ‘what is good vs. bad’. An example would be asking someone to rate themself for ‘how good they are dealing with people’; and/or, “how good they are at dealing with people in difficult situations”. And, of course, the same applies for other dimensions such as ‘good dealing with tasks.’ Instead, once again, the best questions and dialogue simply focuses on describing what a person ‘typically most often does’ , ‘typically least often does,’ ‘typically varies,’ ‘typically does mostly in favorable situations’, ‘typically does least in unfavorable situations’, etc. Once again, the key is understanding by others and ourselves about what we DO and how we DO this….or DON’T to gain clarity about how our demonstrated ‘DISC’ behavior practices and patterns are producing and/or limiting our own, others, our group/team, our customers/ clients, and/or our organization’s SUCCESS AND SATISFACTION!

3) Interpretation Flaws & Solutions

We have also discovered over our 50 years studying and applying DISC with individuals, teams, and organizations, three common, key interpretation flaws which, too, are also easily prevented! Here they are.

First, as amazing at it seems to us, people tend to have difficulty both identifying as well as understanding our NATURAL STYLE, or essence that explains ‘who’ are are with respect to the needs-driven instincts, habits, and preferences which characterize our emotions-driven actions, reactions. And, this applies whether a person is functioning at a more negative, coping state level or a more transactional state level focused on belonging (for ‘I and S’ types) or achieving interests (for ‘D and C’ styles). This can easily be understood, as described further in resources we have authored about ‘DISC’ (books, tools, software, and workshops), by simply understanding two different dimensions that function along a continuum.

The first vector is the most easily observed and also the most commonly identified by almost all behavioral research—namely, Extroversion (both ‘D’ and ‘I’ tendencies) versus Introversion (both ‘S’ and ‘C’ tendencies). This is easily identified by individuals who are more direct-acting, like talking, taking the initiative, asserting their desires versus those who typically, naturally are notable for the polar opposite attitudes and actions. However, we have also discovered that people often are mistaken with respect to the second, and most important dimension of the four primary, natural styles—specifically, Relating (the natural, inner need driving the “I” for approval and “S” for inclusion) versus Controlling (directly with people for the “D” and indirectly with processes for the “C”). More specifically, it is the “S” and “C” tendencies that people often reverse by not understanding their very different, though less obvious inner need to Relate (“S”) or Control (“C”). However, once this has been clarified and ‘people-reading clues’ that match provided for people, we have found their accuracy rate increases from a 50% hit or miss level to this lifeskill they correctly use at an 80% or higher level!

For those who may have caught the earlier reference that this second dimension of our personal styles (Control vs. Relate) is the most important, not the more visible Extroversion vs. Introversion that people overly focus on with respect to ‘DISC’ (and MBTI), largely since so easily seen and understood, here is the powerful research behind that statement. In studies of personality, two dimensions are often emphasized that explain the make-up of one’s personality—namely their Goals and Fears. These two factors explain what a person is motivated to gain with respect to Success and/or Satisfaction in their life when Goal-motivated and, by contrast, seek to prevent to avoid the opposite outcome if their Fears or anxieties come true. In this regard, there are two elements of a person’s Goals (and Fears in reverse)—the End-state (sought when Goal-driven and avoided if Fear-driven) and the Means-state by which it is achieved. Of these, by far our sense of well-being is determined by the degree to which our End-state is fulfilled, not the Means state or ways used to do so! In other words, Extroversion-Introversion is about the ‘ways we live’, while ‘Control-Relate’ predicts the end game that is the self-selected needs driver in our life!

The second common, key flaw is OVER-GENERALIZATION! While it is well-known that people tend of over-generalize for a variety of reasons, including the simplicity of such versus the effort to differentiate our understanding and response to different people and situations, this has largely been the most common way that DISC has been explained, taught, and used with people! And, by doing so, the unintended effect (especially when taken in combination with the other previously mentioned 7 (of 12) flaws in this paper, it to actually minimize both a sound understanding of individual behavior as well as how to increase individual, group/team, customer, and organization Success And Satisfaction by effective, consistent application of these key insights from both research and daily experience which is both universal and timeless!

Here is a brief explanation of how these most often occurs. Materials, presenters, and users focus on only the 4 primary personal styles (D-I-S-C). In our experience, until we mention our research, most people do not appear to realize that only 20% at most are one personal style in their various roles, with the remaining 80% being overwhelming described by two personal style and not by one to two others (e.g. higher and lower tendencies above/below the ‘average’ level). While all of us have a most natural, core personal style, just as in our own case as authors of this article, other work and personal life roles often consist of role expectations or requirements that are different from our natural, non-work personal one. As such, this causes stress and is important to point out to people for them to act on with respect to realistic, doable solutions to such situations. For instance, developing personal ‘Adaptability’ for the attitudes or aptitudes by such required role practices, capitalizing on others as naturally-existing resources who are proficient with such complementary talents, making personal time to meet your core style need during the day/evenings/weekends/time off. Our experience is that most people (e.g.,the 80%) have jobs that require two of the four DISC work practices in terms of frequency and exhibited natural or developed strength—in total 16 different patterns consisting of one higher strength, primary style and a second at a somewhat lower strength, frequency level of ‘doing’ (e.g., Primary D with secondary I). Each of these 16 patterns consist of their own research-identified inner, personal driving GOAL, FEAR, more natural or developed strengths, and development opportunities. Some resources have done similar research but most have not. Ours is built upon classic, statistically validated research that includes behavioral research going back to the 1930’s and validated against the widely-known MMPI assessment’s scales of ‘normal behavior.’

With respect to jobs, we define simpler jobs as more singular, similar work practices focus as well as easier to perform—and, thusmay only require one style or two at a moderate, average demonstrated frequency, strength level. And, by contrast, more complex, demanding jobs may require two work style tendencies at a higher frequency/strength level as well as ‘adapting’ to one or two others for the broader range of situations related to that role.

The third common interpretation flaw occurs when using OUTDATED information about a person or performer. Since roles and situations often change, the effect of this is that people in turn also change even if they aren’t motivated to do so. In other words, most people would rather keep their job than be unemployed and, especially for the two RELATING ends-motivated DISC styles (“I & S”), work out issues in their relationships rather than have these fail! These examples provide frequently-occurring evidence that people can and do change. In other words, when people say “IT is what IT is” as a way of tolerating a less favorable situation, this does NOT mean that “She/He is who She/He Is” means that this person has not, can not, and will not change. While this is a personal ‘choice,’ we TYPICALLY see very different DISC patterns reported for people when they change work roles, work relationships, work environments, organizations—and also in their personal lives too.

It is important in this regard to realize that ‘WHO’ are, as pointed out earlier, is MORE than just our Personal Style (DISC). Our other key MOTIVATIONS—such as our Values and Personal Interests (Work and Non-Work Passions) and our CAPABILITIES—Adaptability, Transferable Capabilities shape our dynamic life journey involving different jobs, aspirations, relationships, and lifestyles.

4) Useage Flaws & Solutions

We also often see three different types of key flaws and solutions which focus on Useage. These typically are related to personal or company reasons for using ‘DISC’ in the first place. The bottom line is that each of the three uses listed below, taken together, result in a more powerful, effective use of DISC resulting in higher SUCCESS and SATISFACTION for individuals, groups/teams, customers, and organizations! Let’s take a quick, final look at these now.

The first flaw has already been mentioned, though not the complete solution which requires understanding the TOTAL PERSON. While DISC is very important, both with respect to our emotional well-being and our performance pattens, it is still just one-sixth (15%) of what we refer to as the ‘Big 6’ dimensions that explain why people do what they do. It is consistent with what recent popular psychological meta-research refers to as the ‘Big 5’ though broader (our 6 are 3 of that ‘Big 5’) and deeper in some respects. Essentially, our research and experience indicates as mentioned earlier that people can easily, practically be understood, engaged, and influenced by knowing their MOTIVATIONS (which identifies what a person will or won’t do) and CAPABILITIES (which describe what a person can or can’t do). While these may change as we develop and in different situations, there are three key types of MOTIVATIONS (Needs/DISC, Values, and Interests) and three types of CAPABILITIES (Role/Job-Specific, Transferable, and Adaptability). Our position is that by having a basic understanding that we’ve boiled down to one sheet of paper as a resource tool for people to have an use, we are better equipped to correctly understand and respond to others as well as manager ourselves and our lives!

The second flaw is based on either non-use or more often misuse of DISC with respect to COMPATIBILITY. For instance, common misunderstandings include “Birds of the same feather fly together” adage thinking which, translated to DISC means that ‘likes attract’ and ‘those who are different’ do not. In fact, this is partially true—especially in social situations since like temperaments tend to have similar interests and even lifestyles. However, in work situations they tend to compete—while those who are different are actually more compatible since they complement by being both motivated and doing what a person with a different style does not! In essence, in this regard, teamwork consists of accepting and capitalizing on different talents, not all having the same approach when it is not needed by everyone to each the intended objectives! Additionally, remembering NOW (after reading the prior paragraph) that there are actually ‘6 Big’ dimensions to our hard and softer personal wiring, both these other motivators and capabilities can have a dramatic impact on personal and group/team compatibility. Here are two examples. In the first, a ‘High D' individual is negatively-motivated, characterized by “Me only” values, and also not highly Adaptable (low willingness and ability to adjust). In the second, another ‘High D’ individual is positively-motivated, characterized by “We” focused values, and also highly Adaptable. As mentioned, all individuals, regardless of their personal style are NOT the same—including these two ‘High D’ ones. And, in these two cases, their level of Compatibility with other people is likely to also be significant more favorable in a work group/team for one and much less for the other!

The third flaw is based on the less frequent and/or less impactful use of DISC for EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE. Most DISC resources do not either effectively or fully show people, groups/teams, and organizations how to practically apply DISC know-how for greater SUCCESS And SATISFACTION. Our work for the past 50 years worldwide has focused on applying such resources working with organizations of all sizes across a wide variety of industries. This has typically involved management, sales, service, operations, human resources, and development functions focused on higher performance through training, consulting, coaching, facilitation, and self-development. Our performance management approach directly focuses on assessing and developing the matching different motivations and capabilities required for high performance of specific jobs. In doing so, we use proven resources co-authored by ourselves, affiliated organizations like the Ken Blanchard Company, as well as our own effective leader-manager, PMP, and culture management resources.

Most managers still do not know and effectively use a proven performance-focused management model. And, over the past several decades, employees report their view of effective managers as decreasing from 25% to 10% of all managers despite the much greater availability of proven know-how like ‘DISC’ for better performance—their own and others.

Here is an illustration of how this can be improved immediately. Our performance models integrate with each other across both the ‘Big 6’ individual performance patterns as well as group/team, and organizational levels. At each level, we focus on performance strengths as well as development opportunities that primarily focus on task performance or people performance. With respect to DISC specifically, we start by matching and capitalizing on already existing performance motivations and strengths. For instance, “Tasks-focused” for ‘D&C’ personal styles and “People-focused” for ‘I&S’ ones. Then, we next look at the performer (and group/team’s) pattern with respect to ‘Adaptability’ (the best single predictor of potential performance growth). Again, typically for most people, ‘D&C’ performers can benefit most by developing their ‘People capabilities’ which are captured by the ’Flexibility’ focused coaching guidance from our Adaptability assessment. Of course, for ‘I&S’ performers their opportunity is typically to strengthen their ‘Task performance capabilities’ by the same development direction found in the ‘Versatility’ dimension of Adaptability. In addition, when a client wants to optimize their Capabilities development we focus on related aspects from our Transferable Capabilities assessment. For the ‘D&C’ personal styles this often focuses on ‘People’ performance factors such as Influencing, People Management, and Interpersonal Communications. And, for ‘I&S’ styles, the common development priorities involved Processes Management, Decision-Making/Problem-Solving, and Informational Communications.

In all-cases effective use of assessments typically involves both self-assessments which are known to provide valuable information about a performer’s ‘perception of their actions’ but are typically a low match with actual actions –the exception being high performers (defined by us as both those who are known for and respected for performance which consistently delivers both SUCCESS And SATISFACTION for all)—and supervising manager as well as other key observer groups familiar with a person’s performance (direct reports, peers, co-workers, key customers). In fact, our robust database indicates at least for ‘Adaptability’ managers tend to have the most different view of their direct reports self-viewed performance and also one characterized by lower Adaptability demonstrated by their direct reports than is required for sustained higher job performance!

Summary Conclusions & Actions

Now that you know the 4 general types of flaws and 12 specific ones as well as the proven, practical solutions, you can assess this acquired know-how against you and your organization’s use of misuse of the DISC personal style and related performance resources. Based on these results, you are then ready for effective follow-up actions. If you are interested in our resources for your possible use, you can contact us directly at our website address provided below. We wish you the best!

About The Authors

Dr. Michael O’Connor: As the lead author for this ‘white paper’, he is recognized worldwide as a top expert about ‘DISC’, having authored or co-authored five books on this subject, including PEOPLE SMART, THE PLATINUM RULE, AND THE LEADER WITHIN. He has also developed several other practical tools, workshops, and software on the same subject and others. Dr.O is also a respected international authority in the areas of Leadership & Management, All-Win Cultures, and High Performance.

David Spader: Over the past 25 years, David has both worked closely with Dr.O in developing and applying this same know-how for thousands of people and hundreds of organizations. He has also taken the lead in the continuing development of software solutions (products, services, technology) in these same areas as Dr.O primary designated successor for this broad, deep, and priceless, lasting intellectual property.

For further information about our resources, you can contact us at our website: Potentia.Solutions

©️ Copyright, Life Associates Consulting, LLC and Potentia, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to reproduce and distribute without the prior written permission of the copyright holder is prohibited by law.