Disc
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), Insight, 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
The ipsative and forced-choice format of the DISC prevents an accurate assessment of the factors' intensity, similar to comparing preferences between salty and sweet foods. Forcing a person to choose whether they prefer one over the other does not reveal how strongly they like or dislike salty or sweet foods. It only measures which one they prefer, even if the person dislikes or loves both of them.
The purpose of the original forced-choice technique, which involved selecting the most and the least, was to reduce social desirability biases and eliminate variability caused by participants’ response styles. However, choosing one dimension over three others means the model cannot, by design, capture the intensity of each dimension or how the four dimensions accurately relate to one another.
The model only measures the preference of 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.
Orthogonality
The dimensions lack orthogonality as the comparison with the adaptive 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
The DISC model doesn’t consider the behaviors people feel they need to act out in order to adapt to their environment. Consequently, the DISC measurement combines natural and adapted behaviors into a single metric. In the DISC model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which actually only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they answered the survey.
How people adapt their behavior and how they are engaged are crucial information that link the individual to their environment and job demands, and these are not accounted for by the DISC model.
Although the AVA from which the DISC originated was designed for work applications, the DISC itself does not consider how measures relate to job demand, limiting its usefulness in recruitment. There is no method to measure expectations within jobs, so there are no capabilities to analyze the potential fit and necessary adjustments between the candidate and the position, or for developing a tailored plan. Additionally, no studies can prove non-discrimination against protected classes of employees as required by the EEOC, which further restricts the use of the DISC in recruitment and promotion.
Representation Model
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 agree with the information from reports and feedback sessions. Like looking in a mirror, this isn't surprising because the survey responses reflect what people know about themselves.
However, looking at the reports and comparing the narratives with the adaptive profiles, GRI narratives are either neutral (35%), imprecise and misleading (45%), or valid (20%), the three types of narrative being mixed together. Additionally, 60% of the propositions were repetitive.
Learning
The learning of DISC usually focuses on the four dimensions being measured and the applications of the measures for personal and team development. Since the DISC scales cannot capture a person’s behavior intensity, adaptation, engagement, and other important characteristics that connect a person to their environment and affect their motivation and relationships with others, the learning cannot realistically include a modus operandi for personal, leadership, and organizational development based on the results.