Disc: Difference between revisions
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives. | The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives. | ||
=====Orthogonality===== | =====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality | what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> ===== | ||
The dimensions lack orthogonality as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC. | The dimensions lack orthogonality, as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC. | ||
=====Adaptation===== | =====Adaptation<ref>See more about adaptation of social behavior [[Adaptation | in this article here]], and the connection with a flow state, efficacy, and engagement.</ref>===== | ||
The DISC model | The DISC model does not account for behaviors people feel compelled to display to adapt to their environment. Its measurement combines natural and adaptive behaviors into a single metric. In the DISC model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they complete the survey. | ||
How people | How people adjust their behavior and how engaged they are, are key pieces of information that connect individuals to their environment and job demands, yet the DISC model does not include these elements. | ||
=====Work relatedness===== | =====Work relatedness===== | ||
Although the AVA from which the DISC originated was designed for work settings, the DISC itself does not account for how measures relate to job demands, thereby precluding its use in recruitment. There is no method for measuring expectations within jobs, so there is no capability to analyze the potential fit and necessary adjustments between the candidate and the position, or to develop a tailored plan to adjust the fit. Additionally, no studies have demonstrated non-discrimination against protected employee classes, as required by the EEOC, thereby further precluding the use of the DISC in recruitment and promotion. | Although the AVA from which the DISC originated was designed for work settings, the DISC itself does not account for how measures relate to job demands, thereby precluding its use in recruitment. There is no method for measuring expectations within jobs, so there is no capability to analyze the potential fit and necessary adjustments between the candidate and the position, or to develop a tailored plan to adjust the fit. Additionally, no studies have demonstrated non-discrimination against protected employee classes, as required by the EEOC, thereby further precluding the use of the DISC in recruitment and promotion. | ||
=====Representation Model===== | =====Representation Model<ref>The representation model is the most limiting characteristic for use at the leadership and organizational levels. The importance of [[Language and Signs | language and signs is presented in this article here.]] The DISC representation needs to be analyzed [[Language and Signs#Typologies | here in this chapter with other typologies.]]</ref>===== | ||
The three graphs calculated by PPS represent the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation. | The three graphs calculated by PPS represent the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation. | ||
Latest revision as of 06:47, 12 December 2025
Introduction
The acronym “DISC” stands for the four dimensions measured by systems that work with a technique based on groups of four adjectives. There are many versions of the instrument published under different names, including DISC (with an upper case “I”), in different regions of the world, and accessible for free on the Internet.
The main, reference version of DISC was called DiSC Classic 2.0 until the 2020s, and is now called Everything DiSC (with a small “i”) published by Wiley & Sons, based in Hoboken, New Jersey. Other publishers include Performance International (PI), Target Training International (TTI), and Thomas International.
History
The origin of the DiSC is rooted in the successive works of Walter Clark with the AVA in the 1950s, John Cleaver and team in the 1960s with Self Discription, and John Geier in the 1970s with the PPS (Personal Profile System). PPS was enhanced at the end of the 1990s and renamed PPS 2800 Series after its rights were acquired by Inscape Publishing, later sold to Wiley and Sons in 2012. The first reports come from the observations of Geier of 15 profiles.
DISC is a popular system due partially to its simplicity, many versions, and widespread distribution by publishers worldwide. The first DISC version was not IP-protected, and many versions started to flourish early on. The system luckily took advantage of early research from Louis Thurstone on factorial analysis in the 1930s, and others from Clark on dimensions that have proven to be “not so bad after all” after all these years. However, research has greatly progressed since then. The work from Moulton Marston is often cited by DISC publishers, but only came conveniently afterward.
Assessment
DISC is a forced-choice technique. People are asked to select the adjectives that correspond the most and the least to who they think they are. There are either 24 force-choice groups of adjectives, or 28 groups (since the PPS 2800 version latest version in the 1990s).
The DISC survey takes around 15 minutes to complete. The results are a report and three graphs. The first graph reflects the answer to the most likely; the second reflects answers to the least likely. The third graph combines the two others. Only the third one is interpreted. The main DISC publisher abandoned the least and most graphs since the 1990s, although others continue to speculate about them.
A brief definition of the dimensions with a GRI a priori correspondence is provided in the following table:
| Dimension | Description | GRI a priori |
|---|---|---|
| Dominance (D) | Competitive, action-oriented, strive for success, enjoy challenges, and push for their opinions. | High 1, low 3 |
| Influence (I) | Outgoing, influential, high-spirited, lively, optimistic, warm, and social, and enjoy interactions. | High 2, low 4 |
| Steadiness (S) | Steady, calm, dependable, peaceful, even-tempered, and enjoy collaboration, show concern for others, and are cautious of change. | High 3, low 1, high 2 |
| Conscientiousness (C) | Value structure, rules, accuracy, determined to stick with a problem until it's solved, skeptical, and self-controlled. | High 4, low 2 |
The DISC systems typically produce reports based on the four dimensions D, I, S, and C, which may include one graph or all three graphs, explanations about the four dimensions, and, more recently, a colored wheel with a dot indicating the person’s most representative factors.
The reports provided by the DiSC systems describe different characteristics such as management styles, communication or ales style, motivation, interview questions, emotions, goals, how the person judges or influences others, how the person behaves under pressure, how the person increases effectiveness, what the person overuses, what the person’s fears, what the person’s value to the organization, etc.
Usage
The DISC is proposed for applications in team building, career counseling, conflict resolution, improving communication, management training, sales force training, and organizational development. It is not proposed for recruitment (see critics below). The DISC is essentially used with reports, which, over the years, have been copied and embellished in many other DISC versions. The system is quick to take and simple. The results are produced immediately. The number of dimensions, four, is parsimonious.
Comments
Intensity[1]
The ipsative and forced-choice formats of the DISC preclude accurate assessment of the intensity of the factors, as in comparing preferences between salty and sweet foods. Forcing a person to choose between two options does not reveal how strongly they prefer salty or sweet foods. It only measures which one they prefer, even if the person dislikes or loves both.
The purpose of the original forced-choice technique, which involved selecting the most and the least, was to reduce social desirability bias and eliminate variability attributable to participants’ response styles. However, choosing one dimension over three others means that, by design, the model cannot capture the intensity of each dimension or the accurate relationships among the four dimensions.
The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives.
Orthogonality[2]
The dimensions lack orthogonality, as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.
Adaptation[3]
The DISC model does not account for behaviors people feel compelled to display to adapt to their environment. Its measurement combines natural and adaptive behaviors into a single metric. In the DISC model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they complete the survey.
How people adjust their behavior and how engaged they are, are key pieces of information that connect individuals to their environment and job demands, yet the DISC model does not include these elements.
Although the AVA from which the DISC originated was designed for work settings, the DISC itself does not account for how measures relate to job demands, thereby precluding its use in recruitment. There is no method for measuring expectations within jobs, so there is no capability to analyze the potential fit and necessary adjustments between the candidate and the position, or to develop a tailored plan to adjust the fit. Additionally, no studies have demonstrated non-discrimination against protected employee classes, as required by the EEOC, thereby further precluding the use of the DISC in recruitment and promotion.
Representation Model[4]
The three graphs calculated by PPS represent the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation.
With its calculations and representation, the DISC only values one side of the dimensions being measured. That’s, for instance, measuring “Dominance” rather than “Agreeableness” (as the FFM assesses it). The other lower side of the continuum is eventually only taken into account when it is extreme. As the model cannot account for the four factors’ intensity, their representation in the graph gets distorted as well.
General validity
People generally accept information from reports and feedback sessions. As with looking in a mirror, this is unsurprising because the survey responses reflect what people know about themselves.
However, across the reports, DISC narratives are either neutral (35%), imprecise and misleading (45%), or valid (20%), with the three types of narrative occurring in combination. Additionally, 60% of the propositions were repetitive[5].
Learning
The learning of DISC typically focuses on the four dimensions measured and on the applications of these measures for personal and team development. Since the DISC scales cannot capture a person’s behavior intensity, adaptation, engagement, and other essential characteristics that connect a person to their environment and affect their motivation and relationships with others, the learning cannot realistically include an effective modus operandi for personal, leadership, and organizational development based on the results.
Notes
- ↑ See this article here for more information about the importance of scales and intensity when measuring a personality dimension.
- ↑ See about what orthogonality means in this article, and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.
- ↑ See more about adaptation of social behavior in this article here, and the connection with a flow state, efficacy, and engagement.
- ↑ The representation model is the most limiting characteristic for use at the leadership and organizational levels. The importance of language and signs is presented in this article here. The DISC representation needs to be analyzed here in this chapter with other typologies.
- ↑ The estimate is based on comparisons between DISC reports and adaptive profiles of the same individuals.