Organisations in their over eagerness to showcase objectivity in the assessment often overdo the act, using more than one tool simultaneously to assess their employees. A classic case that I had come across recently was where a more recent and cheaper DISC based tool was used along with DiSC Classic. This is a mistake since both the tools may appear similar to a casual user, creating confusions and contradicting each other when used in tandem. Let’s just examine how.
Though these assessments claim that their DISC model has taken the best out of both Carl G. Jung and William Moulton Marston , most of them are not validated. They opine that Jung’s typing is the basis for their definition of their two behavioral axes; sensation- intuition and thinking- feeling, which have been coupled with the four main behavioral traits that they have determined.They also believe that the MBTI was further developed by William Moulton Marston who used it as a reference for constructing a four dimensional behavioral map. However this is debatable.
The circular representation of the DISC model, is read clockwise is D, I, S, C. The DiSC Classic uses a 90 degree rotation clockwise of the DISC model. However there are cheaper versions which use a “Diamond” which they claim includes as many as 160 behaviors (40 in each quadrant), which is represented as a combination of Graphs I and II. This when used together with DiSC Classic can contradict. The other aspect to be considered here is how reliable these claims are against a highly validated instrument like DiSC which have been used by over 42 million users.
Though these tools claims to be measuring 160 meaningful behavioral styles there is no scientific evidence supporting that the same can be measured within the DISC framework and hence the claim is questionable. Furthermore, there is no proof to support that a questionnaire based on 96 items can facilitate an in-depth interpretation of 160 different behaviors.
The recent DISC v=based assessment believes that the number of invalid assessments depends on a variety of factors. The other assumption which it propounds is the possibility of a person having control over the outcome when being subject to this type of assessment. However Marston’s own research strongly indicates that no one behavioural style is superior to another, which is inherent to DiSC Classic assessments. DiSC Classic also follows the widely accepted premise that the primary focus for any behavioural tool should be the individual’s own success in personal development which will give a deeper understanding of his/her own behavior and that of others.
When interpreting assessments (graphs) I and II, it is suggested that the “most” responses that an individual states refers to the individual’s conscious behavior, and the “least” responses to the unconscious behavior. These interpretations are not stated anywhere outside the purview of DISC nor have they been substantiated scientifically.
The unconscious and conscious methodology was included in Inscape Publishing’s early assessments; however, Inscape Publishing discontinued teaching this methodology because no research could be found to substantiate it. This is in stark contrast with what the poorly validated tool claims.
Hence it is always advisable to never use two competing tools in tandem with each other. What requires to be done is to understand the applications that you require for your business and use the tool that best meets those.