DISC

You will see the DISC model often represented as DiSC®, which reflects the ownership of this particular logoform by the US Inscape Publishing company. Inscape has extensively researched and developed its own DISC systems, which according to the company's publicity have been used by over 40 million people since the early 1970s, which are used with the intention of enabling people to "...gain the insight they need to be more successful, productive, and fulfilled at work..." Inscape also say, "... DiSC® instruments are based on a simple idea - that the foundation of personal and professional success lies in knowing yourself, understanding others, and realizing the impact of your actions and attitudes on other people..."

The DISC model is attributed to Dr William Moulton Marston, whose book Emotions Of Normal People (1928) first explained the model using the DISC terminology, and which also provided the descriptive words on which the commonly used DISC personality assessment systems were built. Marston didn't create an assessment tool. This was done initially by researchers at the University of Minnesota, in 1972 according to Inscape. Inscape, and others, have continued to develop, test and validate DISC assessment systems, which are marketed with gusto to the corporate and organisational development communities.

The dimensions of Behaviour and Situation feature strongly in Marston's ideas.

There are several slightly varying interpretations of this model. Here's a general outline.

DISC basic personality types model

There are different interpretations of this model, based on the same underpinning structure. This presentation of the DISC model borrows from various interpretations. The colours mainly emphasise the columns - they are not part of the original DISC theory - but they also reflect the logical correlations to two of the Four Temperaments and Keirsey main types (D = Phlegmatic/Rational; I = Choleric/Idealist) and the Jungian Extravert-Introvert 'attitudes'. Other than this there is no attempt here to overlay the DISC model or personality traits directly onto any other personality model. There are overlaps and correlations between DISC and other personality systems but not a direct overlay. Logical comparisons and correlations between DISC types and the types contained in the theories of Jung, Benziger, etc, are shown lower in the grid below.

N.B. The closest equivalent types shown above from the models of Jung, Myers Briggs® and Keirsey are just a guide, and have been arrived at by factoring in the typical DISC dimensions of extraversion-introversion and proactive-passive, which imply the obvious Extraverted or Introverted Jungian equivalents, and Judging (proactive) or Perceiving (reactive) Jungian equivalents. As we've seen, none of this is a perfect science, and the correlations are formed by logical extension rather than clear admissions of statements from the originating theorists. Benziger's correlations however are those stated by Katherine Benziger herself.

Unlike testing systems such as Myers Briggs® and Keirsey which typically match people to defined 'types', The DISC model instead presents a series of four main 'type' descriptions (titled above as Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance). The DISC testing instruments tend to identify people's dominant or preferred type and one or two supporting types from the four available, and this mixture is then represented by a graph or personality description based on the mixture of the types.

In this respect no person is exclusively just one of the four DISC types. Most people have a dominant or preferred main type, plus one or two supporting types in different degrees depending on the person and the situation. DISC systems commonly not only assess the person but also the person's mix of dominant types from different perspectives.

It is important to note again that the DISC system of personality assessment, like all personality models, provides a guide and a perspective of personality; it is not a 100% reliable or definitive measurement.

Under certain circumstances DISC and related terminology are protected or trademarked intellectual property, so if you have ideas to use any DISC theory or tools in connection with the commercial delivery of personality assessment or testing services it's wise to check whether you can do so freely or whether such use is governed by licensing conditions.

DiSC® is a trademark of the US Inscape Publishing company.

belbin® team roles

Dr Meredith Belbin, UK academic and consultant developed the Belbin team roles model in the late 1970s. Belbin's work at Henley Management College demonstrated that balanced teams comprising people with different capabilities performed better than teams that are less well balanced. Belbin's key book 'Management Teams - Why They Succeed or Fail', was first published in 1981. According to Belbin publicity (Belbin founded Belbin Associates, who produce and provide psychometrics (personality and behavioural testing) instruments and other related services based on Belbin's theories) the Belbin Team Roles model is used by over 40% of the UK's top 100 companies, and thousands more internationally.

N.B. The Belbin Team Role model and certain related teminology is © Belbin Associates - if in doubt about usage check with Belbin. The use of Belbin tests and training materials is subject to licence from Belbin.

Meredith Belbin initially identified a set of eight roles, which, it is argued, are all present in a team provide good balance and increase likelihood of success. The eight roles were later increased to nine, with the addition of the 'Specialist' role. Presumably due to political correctness and changing attitudes in organisations, the names of certain roles have been altered in recent years. Below are the modern role names and brief descriptions, with notes of what they were previously called where appropriate.

There are no 'good' or 'bad' roles. People are as they are, and all roles play important parts in successful teams.

Belbin suggested that certain roles tend to be more extraverted (outgoing, proactive, outward-looking) while other roles tend to be more introverted (inward-looking, reactive). These days less emphasis is placed on whether a role was considered extravert or introvert, but for the record, the roles originally presented as extravert are indicated with an asterisk* within the roles listing and descriptions below:

belbin team roles and descriptions

It is not easy to correlate precisely the Belbin team roles to specific personality types in other personality models, although there are certain common elements, for example Extraverted and Introverted roles, which are colour coded appropriately below. There are also some useful correlations with the Big Five Factors model. This colour-coding does not form part of the original Belbin theory, it simply aims to assist comparisons with other models explained in this section.

* Belbin suggested these roles are more extravert than introvert.

N.B. It does not follow that extraverted roles are always self-motivating. Neither does it follow that introverted roles need 'motivating' or instructing. The proactivity, direction, attitude and motivation of any roles, in a Belbin context (as for any other personality profiling system), depend on a wide variety of factors, including alignment of organisational and personal aims and values, personal circumstances, emotional maturity, life-stage, leadership influences, reward systems, and more. Greater understanding of these issues can be achieved by considering many different behavioural perspectives, theories and models.

The simplest central point relating to motivation is that different people respond to different stimuli. Therefore the more we understand about ourselves and people, then the more we understand about what motivates us.

People are more motivated and happy when they are performing and working in a way that is natural to them. Expecting a person with a particular personality type (be it represented by a Belbin team role, a Jung psychological type, a Myers Briggs® MBTI®, or whatever) to perform well and enthusiastically in a role that is foreign or alien to their natural preferences and strengths is not helpful for anyone.

The UK DTI quality management guidance notes provides further some useful interpretation of the parts that these roles play in teams:

'belbin team roles' within teams

The Co-ordinator clarifies group objectives, sets the agenda, establishes priorities, selects problems, sums up and is decisive, but does not dominate discussions.

The Shaper gives shape to the team effort, looking for pattern in discussions and practical considerations regarding the feasibility of the project. Can steamroller the team, but gets results.

The Plant is the source of original ideas, suggestions and proposals that are usually original and radical.

The Monitor-Evaluator contributes a measured and dispassionate analysis and, through objectivity, stops the team committing itself to a misguided task.

The Implementer turns decisions and strategies into defined and manageable tasks, sorting out objectives and pursuing them logically.

The Resource Investigator goes outside the team to bring in ideas, information and developments to it.

They are the team's sales-person, diplomat, liaison officer and explorer.

The Team Worker operates against division and disruption in the team, like cement, particularly in times of stress and pressure.

The Finisher maintains a permanent sense of urgency with relentless follow-through.

All of these roles have value and are missed when not in a team; there are no stars or extras.

An individual's team role can be determined by the completion of a Belbin questionnaire. It is not essential that teams comprise eight people each fulfilling one of the roles above, but that people who are aware and capable of carrying out these roles should be present.

In small teams, people can, and do, assume more than one role.

In addition, analysing existing teams and their performance or behaviour, using these team role concepts, can lead to improvements, for example:

• Under-achievement demands a good coordinator or finisher
• Conflict requires a team worker or strong coordinator
• Mediocre performance needs a resource investigator, innovator or shaper
• Error prone teams need an evaluator
• Different roles are important in different circumstances, for example:
• New teams need a strong shaper to get started.
• Competitive situations demand an innovator with good ideas.
• In areas of high risk, a good evaluator may be needed.
• Teams should, therefore, be analysed both in terms of what team roles members can play, and also in relation to what team skills are most needed.

Despite having well defined roles within a team, the interaction between the different personalities of individuals can be a frequent source of friction. However, this can largely be avoided by understanding and valuing people's differences.

(The above notes about Belbin team roles within teams are UK DTI quality management guidance notes and are Crown Copyright.)

the 'big five' factors personality model - OCEAN

'The Big Five' is the commonly used term for the model of personality which describes the five fundamental factors of our personality. For reasons explained below the model is commonly referred to as OCEAN, being an acronym for names often used for the five traits. The alternative acronym CANOE is less commonly used.

This summary and explanation has been provided by psychologist and psychometrics expert Paul Sinclair (see Paul's biography below), which is greatly appreciated. 

The Big Five 'super traits' have been researched and validated by many different psychologists (WT Norman 1963, McCrae & Costa 1987, Brand & Egan 1989, LR Goldman 1990 and P Sinclair 1992) and are at the core of many other personality questionnaires.

While Raymond Cattell 'uncovered' 16 traits from his factor analysis (a statistical way of reducing a variety of things down to a smaller number of related clusters) in the development of the 16PF; no one else was able to replicate his work.

On the other hand, the Big Five Factors have been replicated in studies across the world and give us a confident summary of our mental building blocks, according to trait theory.

This had led to a number of slightly different 'translations' of the Big Five model, although each version essentially deals with the same theory and content. The words describing the characteristics change, but the basic characteristics do not. The 'translations' between the different interpretations are explained later.

Trait theory, on which many of our occupational questionnaires are based (for example, Cattell's 16PF and Saville & Holdsworth's 'OPQ' Occupational Personality Questionnaire), states that by the time we are in our early 20s and start work, our personality traits become more stable and reliable.  This does not necessarily mean we become more stable or reliable, but that our individual personality traits become more fixed and are thus capable of being reliably measured. 

For example, loud, confident, creative people tend to remain loud, confident and creative people throughout their careers. Quiet, unassuming, dependable people tend to remain so also.

When the first Big Five questionnaire was launched the UK in 1990, people were surprised and a little sceptical about the speed of the personality profiler; it took under 10 minutes to complete. 

This was because it was only measuring five factors and not sixteen or thirty-two personality factors.

Suffice it to say, validation studies were published and presented to the British Psychology Society by the end of the 1990s the Big Five was established as a significant and fundamental personality testing model.

N.B. The pink colour in the tables is used for the Big Five terminology recommended by Paul Sinclair. Aside from this, colour is used (hopefully) to improve presentation only, and does not relate to other personality models on this webpage.

the big five model - five 'bipolar' scales

The bold names in the left column are the recommended names (by Paul Sinclair) for these factors. Other names are used for each of the factors, which might equate to names in the left or right columns. See the OCEAN names below.

These scales are commonly alternatively represented by the OCEAN acronym and descriptions:

• Openness to experience (equates to Creative, opposite Conforming above)
• Conscientiousness (equates to Detail-conscious above)
• Extraversion/Introversion (same as above)
• Agreeableness (equates to Agreeable, opposite Tough-minded above)
• Neuroticism (equates to Sensitive, opposite Confidence above)

While some psychologists refer to the OCEAN terminology it's not particularly recommended for use where people are likely to be sensitive to the words, notably 'neuroticism'. Other words in the OCEAN scale can also be perceived as judgmental or stigmatised. And while 'Conscientiousness' is technically accurate, using this word tends to influence decision-makers (notably users of psychometric testing systems) towards the characteristic and those displaying it, not least because the other end of the scale would logically be called 'Unconscientious'; better instead to refer to the scale of 'Detail-conscious - Unstructured', which carries no sense of good or bad.

It is generally more helpful to use the Big Five terms as detailed in the grid, which tend to present the scales as 'one or the other' rather than 'good or bad'.

For the sake of reference however, here is the correlation between the OCEAN Big Five factor names and the more user-friendly names. See above for the precise description correlations.

You will find other variations of how people refer to the Big Five Factors.

For example The Big Five according to McCrae & Costa (1987) is typically shown as:

• Neuroticism (vs Emotional Stability)
• Extraversion (vs Introversion)
• Openness to experience (vs Closedness to experiences)
• Agreeableness (vs Disagreeableness)
• Conscientiousness (vs Lack of conscientiousness)

The following tables show the typical behaviours within this model.

Psychologists and psychometrics practitioners use the term 'Factor' to describe each of these five 'large traits' or scales.

In turn, each of the Big Five Factors contains several behaviours, which are clustered under the five main Factor headings. 

Of course each main Factor can be further broken down into 'sub traits' or 'facets', for example, Extraversion could have sub-traits such as Sociable, Competitive, Energetic and Seeking Recognition.

Each factor is named according to the 'high scoring' end of each scale.

Low scores logically indicate behaviours at the opposite side of the scale.

High scores are not good or bad.

Low scores are not good or bad.

The majority of us actually tend to score close to the middle (the 'norm').

The higher a person scores for the behavioural elements shown within each of the five factors, the more (logically) they will exhibit these behaviours, and be less able to sustain the tendencies of the low scorer. And vice versa.

Again, there is no good or bad. It's simply a measure of what we are.

the big five factors including behavioural elements

Other commonly used factor names (notably OCEAN) for the Big Five Factors are shown in Green.

the combinations of factors define the personality - not single scales

When using this model, as with many other personality concepts, it is the combination of scores from all of the scales that shows us how people operate and identifies their underlying preferences.

Looking at a single scale in isolation tells us hardly anything, and can be very misleading.

For example:

Although a creative (non-conformist) has the intellectual ability to be creative, if their non-conformity is combined with introversion and low confidence, they may not express their creative thoughts and ideas. 

A creative (non-conformist) who is also extravert, confident and unstructured (low detail-conscious), will not only express their ideas but may also propose quite impractical suggestions.

usage of the big five factor model

The Big Five is a very useful model for assessing non-managerial staff, but it lacks some of the rigour required for assessing people in or destined for managerial and executive roles. The Big Five model gives us an accurate and fast way of assessing the main drivers of someone's personality. But the model by itself is not able to drill down into complex management capabilities or competencies. For this we must refer more to work-related behaviours rather than 'pure' personality.

Management performance depends more on the subtle use of discretionary elements of the job, which the Big Five will not measure. The Big Five is a 'broad brush' personality methodology. A different approach is required for management assessment, to gauge the 'components' of people's behaviour and the detailed combinations of working style.

Each of the Big Five factors consists of 'sub-traits', for example, 'Agreeable' (at the opposite end of the 'Tough-minded' scale) consists of sub-traits (behavioural elements) such as 'Tactful', 'Diplomatic', 'Team-centred', 'Submissive', 'Warm', 'Friendly','Tolerant' and 'Democratic'. In typical use of the Big Five model and tests, a person's score on the 'Agreeable' scale will be an average of how they match the sub-traits. Showing the detail and variance of the sub-traits scores would entail a vastly more complex and time-consuming analysis.

The strengths of the Big Five Factor model lie in its speed and ease of use and this makes it a very useful tool for gaining a rapid overview of a person's key drivers.

The Big Five Factor model has been very well validated, and while it has shown correlations with performance in jobs, studies indicate that the correlation with particular jobs does not exceed 0.30, which accounts for no more than 15% of the variables. There is a big difference between measuring job suitability, style, etc., and measuring personality per se.

The Big Five model is a modern, widely replicated and validated methodology for understanding, explaining and measuring personality.

Various Big Five tests have been developed. The first to be launched in the UK, and one of the most popular, is the RPQ (Rapid Personality Questionnaire), which is available from various suppliers.

Here is a free Big Five mini-test (5 mins max) on the excellent website of Professor George Boeree (pronounced boo-RAY). This test gives a very quick Big Five profile and is more for understanding the model thank for serious personality assessment, although as a quick simple guide it works well.

Bear in mind that the Big Five factor headings Professor Boeree's mini-test vary slightly compared to factor names mentioned above, and correlate as follows (precise correlations in bold). Aside from 'Stability' Boeree uses the OCEAN headings:

the big five - some notable combinations

The 'personality-based sub-types' in column one are broad generic profiles and do not relate to any particular model's definitions. Be careful not to read too much into these single-word descriptions - they provide a rough guide, not a detailed scientific correlation.

'the big five' correlations with other personality models

Here are correlations between the Big Five factors and respectively the models of 16PF, OPQ and the Belbin 'team role' types.

Below first are the Big Five correlations with Cattell's 16PF model. Understanding these correlations is aided by knowing the 16PF scale definitions. As ever, single word descriptions are open to different interpretations, hence inclusion of the 16PF letter codes. An explanation of the 16PF model will appear on this page in due course.

The word 'negatively' below means that the correlation is with the opposite end of the Big Five scale concerned, for example, below, the 16PF description 'Shrewd' correlates to the opposite of the Big Five 'Extraversion', ie., 'Introversion'

big five and 16pf

the big five and opq (occupational personality questionnaire)

Below are the Big Five correlations with the OPQ model (Occupational Personality Questionnaire). Understanding these correlations is aided by knowing the OPQ scale definitions. As ever, single word descriptions are open to different interpretations, hence inclusion of the OPQ letter codes. Again, an explanation of the OPQ model will appear on this page in due course.

And again, the word 'negatively' signifies that the correlation is to the opposite end of the Big Five factor concerned, eg., OPQ description 'Modest' correlates to the opposite of the Big Five 'Extraversion', ie., 'Introversion'.

the big five and belbin 'team role' types

Below are the Big Five correlations with the Belbin team role types. Given the overlap of Big Five factors across the Belbin team role types, the correlations are shown between the Belbin types and the corresponding dominant Big Five factors. See the Belbin section above.

paul sinclair biography

Paul Sinclair is the founder and managing partner of Sinclair Associates and has spent fifteen years at the leading edge of psychological profiling and performance development.  He works with companies to assess individual and team potential and develops plans to improve personal competencies.

Paul co-launched the UK's first 'Big Five' personality profiler in 1990 and published a paper on 'Personality and Performance' in the British Psychological Society's journal - Selection and Development Review, and also presented a validation of the Big Five against the OPQ and the 16PF, at the BPS conference in 1992. 

Paul has been interviewed on BBC Radio 4 and consulted on the BBC2 TV series, 'Mind of the Millionaire'.

Paul now focuses on business coaching and team building. A member of the European Mentoring & Coaching Council, Paul is based near Bath and works across the UK & Europe.

Paul's website is: www.cloudtalent.com and his email is [email protected].

Paul's contribution of this explanation of the Big Five Factor model is gratefully acknowledged.  

firo-b®

FIRO-B® stands for Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behaviour.

Developed by William Schutz in 1958, Schutz first used the FIRO-B® tool to assess how teams performed in the US Navy.

The FIRO-B® is an assessment tool used to help individuals and teams better understand their preferences in satisfying three basic social needs:

• Inclusion (the degree to which one belongs to a group, team or community)
• Control (the extent to which one prefers to have structure, hierarchy and influence)
• Affection (one's preference for warmth, disclosure and intimacy).

For each of these factors, FIRO-B® assesses individuals as to:

• how much they express the needs and
• how much they want to have the needs expressed to them from others.

In this respect, FIRO-B® is measuring the three aspects of Inclusion, Control and Affection, from two 'needs perspectives' of expressing (outwardly directed behaviour towards others) and wanting (behaviour from others directed towards oneself).

The overall 'scores' from the assessment also reveal the degree to which people attain satisfaction from their interactions with others versus time spent alone.

The FIRO-B® assessment data is particularly rich in enabling understanding individual and team behaviour.

As with many other personality assessments, there are no 'right or wrong', nor 'good or bad' profiles.

By reviewing the assessment information, an individual can gain insight into what kind of teams they prefer to work in, what kind of environment they'd like to work in, and what roles they prefer in the workplace.

The FIRO-B® model and assessment tool can also provide information regarding leadership styles and areas of potential conflict.

If teams take the assessment together, they can compare the extent to which each person's preferences complement or conflict with colleagues. For example, a team member wanting a high degree of inclusion would appreciate and respond well to a manager who invites him/her to various meetings. A team member with a high degree of expressed affection is likely to work well with a colleague who seeks affection and attention.

The FIRO-B® system is a simple and elegant model that particularly assists understanding of team dynamics, greater self-awareness, mutual awareness among team-members (which relates helpfully to the Johari Window model), and team leadership development.

My acknowledgements to Barbara Heyn for these introductory notes about the FIRO-B® assessment. Barbara runs Atticus Consulting LLC in Blue Ash, Ohio, and specialises in developing teams, leadership and organisations. See also Barbara Heyn's article in the love and spirituality section - about bringing compassion and humanity to work, which is obviously closely connected with understanding and respecting personality.

FIRO-B® is a trademark of the CPP, Inc (Consulting Psychologists Press).