DataDome Blog

There’s nothing like a summer garage sale to clear the clutter and pocket a little cash before the back to school season is in full swing. What kind of insight can we glean when we look at preparations for this common activity through the lens of DISC behaviors?

It’s no surprise with her high D DISC profile that Dianne has driven her family toward a big goal to accomplish this weekend: empty out the garage and the basement – it’s garage sale time! She’s got the whole family mobilized and she’s already thinking about the new sofa she’s going to buy with all the proceeds.

Her husband Stan, the high S, is a bit conflicted, he agrees it should be a family project, but he likes the comfort of the old sofa. In fact he’s been dragging his feet all week as Dianne has been pushing her agenda. Every item she wants to get rid of he feels nostalgic about, but since his wife and his kids all want to do this he doesn’t want to make waves.

A DISC assessment of Dianne and Stan’s daughter, Catherine, would definitely reveal her high C DISC style. She’s almost as excited about the garage sale as her mom – she always been agitated by her brother’s chaos and clutter and sees the sale as her big chance to restore order. She’s been diligently preparing an inventory list and price tags, and is giving instructions to her brother on how to properly record each sale so there is no confusion about procedure.

Ian, Catherine’s brother, has a high I DISC behavioral style, and he’s also been looking forward to the garage sale. He’s told all of his friends to come over, that it is going to be the best garage sale ever, and he is looking forward to seeing all the neighbors on Saturday – he’s certain it will be just like a big block party.

So how will the big sale go? Will high D Dianne drive the sales or drive her family crazy? Will high S Stan, surrender his favorite sweater to the cause or will he sneak it back off the table and into the drawer where he’s always kept it? Will high C Catherine’s site plan for optimal layout of the driveway be adhered too? Will she arrange the old bicycles by size, color, or number of gears? Will high I Ian’s gregarious nature help keep the buyer’s entertained, or will he disappear when his friends decide to go to the mall? What about rain? Find out more in our next installment of World According to DISC, where the behavior is predictable, but the plot lines are full of surprises….

DISC profiles are incredibly useful tools to aid in the understanding of people’s behaviors, but it is not uncommon for characteristics in some of the DISC categories to be confused. Even those who work frequently with DISC assessments will occasionally confuse High S behavior for High C and vice-versa. S stands for Steadiness and C for Compliance, but it might be helpful to think of these terms in the context of Pace and Procedures: The S indicates how you respond to the pace of the environment, while the C indicates how you respond to rules and procedures set by others. The High S sees rapid change as disruptive and therefore reacts with resistance, the High Chas a high regard for policy and procedure and is dismayed, even outraged at times, by perceived disregard for proper or logical steps in a process.

To illustrate this idea let’s examine the birth of one magazine and the reaction of another. When the Consumers Union Reports first appeared in 1936 with the mission of providing “information and counsel on . . . goods and services” and to “maintain laboratories . . . to supervise and conduct research and tests” they ended up causing a bit of a stir: An article in the Reader’s Digest came out quite strongly against the fledgling organization. In an article entitled “Guinea Pigs, Left March!” by Stanley High, Reader’s Digest attacks Consumer Reports science-based approach to testing and recommending products based on the test results, claiming “They are out to discredit, if not to destroy, the system.” Good Housekeeping went so far as to accuse Consumer Reports of extending the Great Depression. Relations between the magazines were not helped by the fact that Consumer Reports dismissed Good Housekeeping’s Seal of Approval as a “fraud.”

Vindication and acceptance of Consumer Report’s once-heretical approach came through consistent adherence to scientific testing and verifiable data. In 1953, it reported that smokers were exposed to as much nicotine when they puffed a filter-tipped cigarette as they were when they lit up an unfiltered Lucky Strike. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory committee cited the magazine’s research in its landmark report warning of the dangers of smoking in 1964. Consumer Reports’ toy testing helped pave the way for the 1969 Child Protection & Toy Safety Act, which passed a year after the magazine tested a group of electric toys and found a quarter of them hazardous. These and many other examples helped prove the case for the magazine’s data-centric approach.

Consumer Reports approach from the start has been grounded in a deep-set respect for scientific process and adherence to policies designed to avoid the potential taint of unfair influence that might derive from accepting payment from a motivated manufacturer. This is exemplar of the High C behavioral style. On the other hand, the depression-era staff of Reader’s Digest and other magazines such as Good Housekeeping saw this new paradigm as threatening to the status-quo of the advertiser relationship, which funded their magazines, and their own role in that relationship among magazines, advertisers and consumers. The sudden emergence of a new approach and business model that Consumer Reports represented was threatening to the established norm and without adequate time to adjust, the magazine exhibited a similar behavior as a High S individual might when faced with an environment that is changing faster than one can comfortably adjust to.

To summarize:
The High C‘s want the data and will act on it.
The High S‘s want things the way they’ve always been and will defend the status-quo, even sometimes when there is proof available of viable (and sometimes superior) alternative.

The DISC behavior of the High C Consumer Reports is to value the process for it’s analytical rigor and to hold it’s independent procedure as sacrosanct to it’s mission. Reader’s Digest representing the High S DISC style, reacted negatively to the sudden shift in the environment of the magazine industry and the disruption of the relationship norms it was comfortable with. Hopefully this example helps clarify the difference between a High C and a High S – While people aren’t magazines, applying the insights of DISC behavioral profiles can help you and your team avoid the kind of conflicts associated with clashing communication habits expressed by differing DISC behavioral styles.

Last post we discussed how behavioral style analysis is an instinctive part of parenting – at least the observational skill, if not the vocabulary and structure. In the discussion we mentioned that the parent’s own behavior profile can indicate a tendency to “side” with one child over another if that child’s communication preferences are driven by a similar behavior style as the parent’s style. It is important to realize that behaviors are not necessarily inherited. Just because Mom is a High D, doesn’t mean that her kids will share that behavioral emphasis.

A parent’s style might match one child, but not another. On the one hand this similarity might make for a strong bond of empathy with the one child, but on the other hand could lead to behavior-based communication problems with the other. Stress will induce different communication issues among people with differing DISC profiles, regardless of whether the relationship is between parent and child, siblings, or among co-workers.

What if the parent’s DISC behavior differs from all the children? Imagine a High C father with a High D daughter and one son who is a high S and another who is a high I. The father values credibility, procedures and attention to detail, the daughter is bold and authoritative, one son is gregarious and demonstrative, the other is passive, but resistant to change. So what happens when each of these kids breaks their curfew? The father is irate because of the disobedience and disrespect for established rules, He’s perhaps overly critical of the excuses: well not in the daughter’s case because as a High D she offers no excuses – simply states what her objectives in staying out late were and has difficulty understanding why they are an issue. The High I son stayed out late to curry favor with his friends, he’s extremely apologetic and willing to make amends with his father, because that’s who he is in front of right now, but he is likely to bend to the peer pressure again should the occasion arise. The High S son on the other hand probably only stayed out past curfew because of some unusual stress or necessity – it’s not in his nature to break routine – his father’s frustration is only compounding an already distressed state.

Of course this is a hypothetical scenario, but the point is that for all of us, behavioral patterns can lead to very different perspectives on a given situation. Parents that are aware of this can provide guidance that is aligned with the child’s behavior instead of carrying an expectation based on the parent’s own DISC profile. By recognizing the daughter’s competitiveness and boldness, the one son’s political behavior, and the other’s tendency to be non-demonstrative, he will be on the path to attaining the insight to temper his initial over-critical response with one adapted to each child’s individual DISC style.

When you start talking about DISC assessments and DISC behavioral styles it is inevitable that you end up in the land of adjectives: The high D – Active, Direct, Forceful; the high I – Fast-Paced, Emotional, Impulsive; the high S – Agreeable, Cooperative, Friendly; and the high C- Thoughtful, Careful, Thorough. Add a little stress to the mix and some new adjectives from the DISC profile step to the front of the line: D – Impatient; I – Disorganized; S – Possessive; and C – Overly Critical. These words, when included in a DISC profile, are intended to be useful and cautionary – guides, if you will, for gaining insight into your own behaviors and the necessary data to intentionally adapt behavior for improved communication, team building and performance. Yet sometimes these words can be misused as an excuse, a convenient crutch to sidestep taking responsibility for the outcome of behavior. There is a world of difference in the statements “I’m a low C, so I should team with someone who can help me stay organized” and “I’m a low C, so don’t expect me to be organized.” That difference is in the attitude.

Understanding behavioral style via a DISC assessment is tremendously valuable, yet it is still an incomplete predictor of an individual’s impact on a team or success in a position. Going beyond the DISC profile by gauging awareness and attitudes provides vital insight into that individual’s effectiveness and willingness to change – especially when confronted with a behavior that is causing (or caused by) a negative issue. It can make the difference between a team full of “My way, or the highway” dysfunction or a team that embraces the platinum rule: behave unto others in the style that suits them, even if it isn’t the style that naturally comes to you. DISC assessments make you aware of your own behavioral tendencies so when you recognize the styles of others you can behave with intention: more productively and harmoniously.

Art Schoeck was recently asked the following question via our Ask the Expert form:

** Is there a resource or tool that highlights jobs that match my disc profile? How can I learn at which jobs I would excel? **

Art’s answer:

The Career Planning Insights instrument is a wonderful user-friendly tool for identifying those jobs most compatible with one’s behavioral preferences (DISC). It consists of three online questionnaires – the first questionnaire is about you, the second is about your current (or most recent) job, and the third focuses on the job you’d like to have. The purpose is to match the behaviors you naturally exhibit with a job that utilizes those behaviors to optimize top performance.

A sample report can be viewed at: http://www.datadome.com/pdf/profiles/careerplanning.pdf

Also useful for career direction is the Workplace Motivators profile, describing your current motivational preferences (this is not a DISC tool). The purpose is to address your current real needs (passions and priorities) with the rewards (compensaion/benefits, work environment, ‘other’ benefits) offered by a job. For example, a person with a high score for “Utilitarian” (the need for money for its own sake, high priority of return on investment) should not consider most teaching positions as the low salaries all too common in that profession would make it unlikely for the Utilitarian needs to be met. On the other hand, someone with a high score in the area of “Social / Altruistic” might find that teaching satisfies the need to influence others.

View a sample report available at: http://www.datadome.com/pdf/profiles/WorkplaceMotivators.pdf

For more information and links to purchase these reports visit: http://www.datadome.com/productscart_careerinsights.php

What’s your question?

Data Dome’s resident expert is our founder, Art Schoeck. A member of TTI’s prestigious International Faculty, Art often receives questions through our Ask the Expert form. We try to answer questions here on this blog that are representative of common questions regarding DISC and other assessment tools.

Do you have a question about DISC? If so please submit it via the Ask the Expert form. Although it may not be possible to answer every question individually, we use the “Ask the Expert” category of this blog to answer the DISC-related questions most important to our readers.

Art Schoeck was recently asked the following question via our Ask the Expert form:

** I have a client with significant differences between his natural and adapted styles. I asked him to discuss the stress this was causing him and he was surprised. He said he didn’t feel particularly stressed. He said that he accepts as a given that there are behaviors for work and behaviors for home and that he puts on the façade just as easily as he might put on different style clothing for different situations. Given the large gap between his natural and adapted behaviors, what is your opinion? Is he in denial? **

Art’s answer:

Sounds like he’s being strategic. If he picks up the right signals and is adjusting behavior only when he has to, it might not be for a sustained portion of the day, only bits and pieces. For an example, consider that many successful salespeople encounter clients and prospects with differing styles. They learn to fluidly adapt all day long to an array of different styles knowing that this is beneficial to improved communication, and therefore beneficial to reaching their sales goals. If they know how and when, they are only adapting for small periods. Since this adaptive behavior is intentional and not forced to be maintained for excessively lengthy periods it is not nearly as stressful as one might surmise from an initial comparison of the Natural and Adapted DISC graphs. The best assessment tools have evolved to be highly effective diagnostic aids however they cannot replace the important role a Certified Professional Behavioral Strategist plays in interpreting the results by first discussing and investigating the nuances of an individual’s situation.

What’s your question?

Data Dome’s resident expert is our founder, Art Schoeck. A member of TTI’s prestigious International Faculty, Art often receives questions through our Ask the Expert form. We try to answer questions here on this blog that are representative of common questions regarding DISC and other assessment tools.

Do you have a question about DISC? If so please submit it via the Ask the Expert form. Although it may not be possible to answer every question individually, we use the “Ask the Expert” category of this blog to answer the DISC-related questions most important to our readers.

The sport of college basketball recently noted the passing of a legendary coach and highly esteemed teacher: John Wooden – a man who not only succeeded as a respected and winning coach, but one who also exhibited a different behavioral style than that which is stereotypically associated with college basketball coaches.

When one thinks of a big-time basketball coach many assume this will be a fiery and dominating personality, highly goal-oriented like a Mike Krzyzewski or the at times volatile Bobby Knight. Wooden, by contast, was described as “self-controlled” and “detail-oriented”. In the NBC Sports obituary Michael Ventre wrote that “Wooden’s attention to detail was almost as legendary as the Wizard of Westwood himself. He instructed his players how to put on their socks and shoes in order to cut down on the incidence of blisters.” Sounds like the adjectives associated with a High C, doesn’t it? In the same article he is described as being “humble, practical and unpretentious” – not the first adjectives that come to mind if one is assuming the stereotype of the High D coach.

While the sports world is saddened to say good bye to John Wooden we would like to thank this role-model for demonstrating that there are many paths to success and leadership and that the dominance of the high D isn’t the only behavioral style capable of achieving great results.

It’s festival season in Atlanta and over the weekend I indulged in one of my favorite treats of the outdoor food court: kettle corn. There is just something about fresh kettle corn that is magically addictive. The sweet and the salty playing off of each other in that perfect crunch. It’s not just one flavor, it is the balance of two strong notes that make the kettle corn such a sweet and savory symphony. It sort of reminds me of DISC.

DISC? What does DISC have to do with kettle corn? When we talk about DISC it is often our habit to explain things in the simplest term. We isolate each of the behavioral categories, the D, the I, the S and the C, and discuss each as if they existed in a vacuum as a shorthand for revealing the attributes and adjectives associated with each behavioral measure. It is often a necessary conceit as time and available space seldom allow for an article or chart to go into an analysis of every possible permutation and gradation in the DISC spectrum. Even when we’ve discussed the low-end of DISC scores (The Low Side of Stress Styles) we’ve simplified the discussion by treating each of the four categories as if they were the only one reflecting the behavior of an individual. However, just like kettle corn, real people are seldom just one flavor.

In the past we’ve discussed the importance of understanding your low scores as well as your highs (DISC: Get to know your low). It is also important to not just focus on your most dominant score (the one furthest from “the line” whether that is above or below), but also pay attention to what’s revealed in all four categories. It is not unusual for an assessment to reveal that not just one, but two or more areas are significant in understanding a complete behavioral profile.

What’s the salty to your sweet? Are you a high I with an almost as high S or high D + low I? If you want to get the full crunch out of your assessment it pays to understand the interplay of all the behavioral flavors. Now pass the kettle corn – I’m hungry for more!

It is hard to miss all the news lately about Facebook and the privacy concerns that juggernaut of the social media world has raised. From the BBC’s report of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s admission that he “missed the mark”, to reports in BusinessWeek, PC World and many other news outlets, not to mention countless blogs, it is clear that Facebook has stumbled and the whole issue of online privacy is now front and center in many users’ minds.

Here at Data Dome we like to look at these kind of topical issues from the perspective of the classic DISC behavioral styles as a means of helping you understand how your employees, or friends and family, might be interacting with social media from a privacy perspective:

Meet Darlene, a high D. She used to consider Facebook a time-waster, but she joined when enough of her clients were there that she felt it would be productive. She got angry when she read accusations that Facebook is being cavalier with user’s private information: If there is one thing she can’t stand it is feeling that she has been taken advantage of. She went right to her profile to lock down her private information, but found the process too cumbersome (patience is not one of her virtues) and gave up, next she tried to delete her account, but that was too cumbersome too, so she simply stopped logging into her account. She has now flagged all social media friend requests as spam.

And then there is Ira the high I. He joined Facebook the very first time a friend invited him. He also tends to skip the details so he didn’t pay much attention to privacy settings when he made his account. He’s been having so much fun playing social games on Facebook and reconnecting with past friends, alumni, and co-workers that he has essentially built his life story online. He’s not happy about the privacy issues in the news, but doesn’t want to abandon all his friends. He won’t move his profile until most of his friends move theirs.

Sandra the high S might surprise some of you. Sandra didn’t join Facebook until most of her family insisted that it was the best way to share family pictures. Some might think that despite any negative press she wouldn’t quit because that would mean making a change. Although she has a real aversion to change and will not normally buck the status quo, in this case her behavior is more strongly influenced by her protective attitude toward her close friends and family. She feels that this flip-flopping on privacy practices and Facebook’s alleged “apologize after rather than ask permission before” attitude on the subject threatens the safety of the relationships she most cares about. Her account is now cancelled (and she might not try another social media site for a very long time).

Last but not least is Charles the high C. Charles was also reluctant to join Facebook, but he gave it a try because he is a model train enthusiast and belonged to a club that had setup a Facebook page to share information on historical routes and timetables and to post photos of train setups so members could rate them according to historical accuracy. He was very thorough creating his original profile, read the terms of service letter for letter, and created the precise profile he wanted. Thus when Facebook enacted changes to the privacy status without prior warning, he felt that they had broken protocol. Feeling a need to reassert control, he first went step-by step through the process of reconfirming every privacy detail of his account. Then, once he was satisfied that his account was now secure, he went ahead and eliminated his profile.

Facebook is front and center in the online privacy debate, but every day we are presented more opportunities and innovative ways to connect with each other online. Tools and their repercussions are constantly evolving at a faster pace than our behavioral styles. We often take a look at the lighter-side of DISC behavior in this ongoing World According to DISC series, but we encourage you to not take your online privacy lightly. No matter what your behavioral style it is far easier to share information online than it is to hide it away again once it has been shared.

It seems that the press loves to trot out the “Good Cop, Bad Cop” concept whenever President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are mentioned together. Newsweek, The Telegraph UK, The Atlantic Sentinel, and a host of other publications and blogs have all used the metaphor to compare the styles of these two public figures as they engage in the nation’s foreign policy interests. Why do they do it? It’s an easy idea to remember and the archetype relationship is fairly well understood, but when it comes to describing behavioral styles, DISC provides us with some finer tools.

If we look at a stereotypical politician it would not be surprising to assume that this person scores high in the D column as ambition, authority, ego and drive are all associated with the profession. It would also not surprise you to learn that many politicians score highly in the I column as well. To get elected one must shake a lot of hands, influence a lot of people, have magnetism, charisma, and generally enjoy the company of others. After all, no politician gets elected alone. S and C are tougher to assume when it comes to a politician, one might campaign as an advocate for change (low S), or one might be a strong advocate for maintaining the status quo (high S). Many politicians come from the legal field where meticulous attention to detail is in demand, but few lawyers who go into politics are those high C‘s – the need to occasionally sway with changes in the political breeze can run counter to the urge for uncompromising perfectionism.

If we look at the press on President Obama we often see him characterized as a diplomat, a consensus-builder, and he is certainly charismatic to the point where he was labeled “the celebrity” candidate during the lead-up to his election. Hillary is often described in articles as forceful, driving with a “push for a deal” style – unafraid to “play the heavy” or as Newsweek puts it, “political hardball, Hillary style”. Based on these adjectives one could surmise that the President is a highly charismatic, influential and empathetic high I, who also happens to be the former president of the Harvard Law Review and likes to be thorough and meticulous in his fact gathering before making a decision – it seems unlikely that his C would be low. Yet there are those who say he often gathers his facts from the same sources and that despite the emphasis on change in his campaign he hasn’t actually changed much since taking office – is this evidence that he may really be more of a natural high S? Additionally his D is certainly high, no many persons with the ambition to become president would have a low one, but is it as high as Ms. Clinton’s?

The Secretary of State is forceful and accomplishment-oriented with an ego that seeks center stage. She’s unafraid to drive policy and take action making the most of the power and authority that come with her position. Clearly her D is near the top of the scale. On the other hand is her I perhaps adjusted in the public eye to one that is higher than natural for her? When contrasting the two political figures, Obama’s charisma seems to flow naturally from his always cool-as-cucumber presence, whereas even in celebration Clinton often seems to present a deliberateness in her smile. Is her I naturally low?

Regardless of politics or individual behavior profiles, the measure of any good cop – bad cop pairing is in their effectiveness together. History will tell us if they can channel their natural and adapted styles into policy that builds a stronger nation and safer world.