The DISC as­sess­ment: Outdated test or useful tool?

How can you find out more about ap­plic­ants’ soft skills? How do you figure out if they’ll integrate well into the team, if they’ll boost the company’s success, or how they deal with conflict? Often, the com­par­ably short job interview is enough. Combined with a per­son­al­ity test, companies are able to optimally position them­selves and maximize their success. The DISC as­sess­ment is one of the oldest but also one of the most widely used per­son­al­ity tests to this day, although it has also been cri­ti­cized.

The DISC per­son­al­ity test is based on DISC theory, which was developed in the 1920s by the American psy­cho­lo­gist William Moulton Marston. In the 1970s, the American psy­cho­lo­gist John G. Geier developed it into the per­son­al­ity test that is so widely known today.

As the test is not copyright protected, it was con­tinu­ously further developed by other test providers. But to this day, the original 1920s DISC as­sess­ment model remains the most widely used version.

The DISC test cat­egor­izes people based on their own as­sess­ment. In­ter­viewees are asked to choose ad­ject­ives that, in their opinion, best describe them. The exact method differs based on the provider and area of ap­plic­a­tion.

DISC tests can be completed online through various com­mer­cial providers or in written form.

When eval­u­at­ing the test, it’s important to note that results are not graded. Every per­son­al­ity type is regarded as equal. The result also doesn’t mean that the in­ter­viewee does not have any of the other three be­ha­vi­our­al styles, only that one of these is strongest, and that the other three types require more effort to come through.

In addition, results cannot be compared in a quan­ti­fi­able way. This means that person X cannot read from test results that they are more con­scien­tious or more impulsive that person Y. The result only shows one dominant be­ha­vi­our­al style.

The dominant per­son­al­ity type is strong-willed, confident, and firm. They enjoy chal­lenges and like to take the lead. They com­mu­nic­ate directly and act in a con­sequen­tial and goal-oriented manner. Sometimes they are perceived as ag­gress­ive and ruthless.

The in­flu­en­tial per­son­al­ity type is easily enthused by new situ­ations and ideas. They are good com­mu­nic­at­ors, open towards others, and enjoy working in a team. They talk a lot and enjoy it. Others perceive them as open and charming. However, they are not very detail-oriented, and are instead highly creative and outgoing.

The steady per­son­al­ity type is very helpful and likes to work on the sidelines. Harmony and stability are important to them. They enjoy teamwork and are regarded as likable and patient. The steady type is more con­ser­vat­ive. They don’t deal well with change, and they ap­pre­ci­ate a con­sist­ent work process as well as loyalty and long-term re­la­tion­ships.

The compliant per­son­al­ity type is fact-oriented and aspires per­fec­tion. They work in a sys­tem­at­ic way and like to plan ahead in a highly ana­lyt­ic­al way. Next to their hunger for knowledge and quality awareness, they are also defined by their diplomacy. However, they have dif­fi­culty in toning down their ex­pect­a­tions of them­selves and of others.

The DISC test has various areas of ap­plic­a­tion in the workplace, as the results are useful when com­mu­nic­a­tion and col­lab­or­a­tion need to be improved.

Personnel de­part­ments make use of the DISC text for existing employees – for example, to determine the most suitable de­part­ment for them to work in – as well as for job ap­plic­ants, to find out whether a candidate fits into a team. The DISC as­sess­ment is also applied in man­age­ment training schemes, in sales, and in conflict situ­ations.

It’s not only the company that benefits from the test, but also the in­ter­viewees. Employees (including CEOs) that complete this kind of test learn a lot about them­selves and their needs, and can better determine where to spe­cific­ally apply their strengths. At the same time, by being con­fron­ted with the pe­cu­li­ar­it­ies of each type, they are in a better position to un­der­stand customers, col­leagues, and co-workers’ be­ha­vi­our­al styles.

The test eval­u­ation not only explains which char­ac­ter­ist­ics make up a given type, but also provide detailed and practical in­form­a­tion to apply in daily working life. For example, the eval­u­ation explains:

• Under which work con­di­tions a specific type is the most pro­duct­ive
• With which working style the person achieves the best results
• Which com­mu­nic­a­tion style is preferred by a given type
• The strengths and weak­nesses of the DISC type
• How col­leagues should act when working with this type of person
• What kind of conflicts this type is pre­destined for and how these can be avoided

Based on the area of ap­plic­a­tion, some providers have specific DISC per­son­al­ity tests, which tailor results more spe­cific­ally to the workplace context. Managers receive input on how their man­age­ment style can be more effective, and sales rep­res­ent­at­ives learn how DISC can help them gain more customers.

The DISC as­sess­ment is among the most widely used per­son­al­ity tests in the corporate world. But it has been under scrutiny.

Critics say that the as­sess­ment tool is outdated. Sci­entif­ic findings in per­son­al­ity psy­cho­logy post 1920 are not con­sidered. An empirical, science-based found­a­tion does not exist. Quality criteria such as validity (are values that should be measured actually being measured?) and re­li­ab­il­ity (are results the same every time?) are not fulfilled. The fact that DISC per­son­al­ity tests seem to make ap­plic­able state­ments can be traced back to the Barnum Effect. According to this, we like to ascribe to desirable, wide­spread, or vague state­ments, although they are ap­plic­able to many different people.

In the last few decades, new as­sess­ments in per­son­al­ity psy­cho­logy have been designed that speak of five key per­son­al­ity types: openness, con­scien­tious­ness, ex­tra­ver­sion, agree­able­ness, and neur­oticism. Four per­son­al­ity types alone are no longer regarded as true to our time.

In companies, per­son­al­ity tests are very popular, because questions can be easily tailored around them (who is most suited for a ma­na­geri­al position? Which applicant is the best?) and show us ways to be more pro­duct­ive and improve col­lab­or­a­tion.

The DISC test is only one of many per­son­al­ity tests. On a regular basis, new tests are developed that take current research results into con­sid­er­a­tion. Next to the DISC test, some of the most popular tests include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the Reiss Mo­tiv­a­tion Profile, and the Clifton­Strengths as­sess­ment.

All tests however also have their weak­nesses, and none can truly mirror the com­plex­ity of a person’s character. In addition, per­son­al­ity tests promote pi­geon­hol­ing. Once we’ve labelled someone, it’s more likely that a person’s de­vel­op­ment is hindered rather than en­cour­aged, since it’s reduced to type-specific strengths.

Using a per­son­al­ity test like the DISC massively depends on where it’s applied, the quality of the test, a competent eval­u­ation of results, and their re­spons­ible im­ple­ment­a­tion that takes into con­sid­er­a­tion that no test result can deliver absolute truth.

Please note the legal dis­claim­er relating to this article.