Team-building with DISC

The use of DISC presents a wide range of possibilities when working with teams. In a general sense, it can help
in many areas, including the initial formation of the team and ongoing assessment of its operating effectiveness.
In more specific terms, it can yield invaluable information on particular aspects of the team development
process. For example, it can look into the ways that members work together, both as a group and at the level of
individual working relationships. DISC also has a useful part to play in understanding the leader's role in a team,
and helping to develop that leader's effectiveness.
In this section of the Axiom Software site, we look at some of the principles of DISC in a team environment, and
also some of the practical ways it can be used to develop and enhance a team's performance.

• Principles: Before going on to examine specific applications of DISC in team-building, this section
introduces some basic ideas and concepts.
• Team Factors and Subfactors: The DISC concepts of Factors and Sub-traits can be applied with little
adaptation to teams rather than individuals. In this section, we see how the team-based equivalent of a
DISC profile can be constructed and interpreted.
• Relationships: Strong working relationships between members are the cornerstone of a successful
team. Here, we introduce the concept of the DISC 'Dynamic', and see how it can be applied in real-world
situations to analyse individual relationships and their place in the team.
• Leadership Styles: The behaviour of a team's leader, as defined by their DISC profile, can have a
significant on the workings of the team. This section looks at a variety of typical leadership styles and their
implications.
• Leadership Needs: A team's leader does not exist in a vacuum - each team will have different
leadership needs that their leader will need to take into account to achieve peak performance. In this
section, we see how DISC can help to identify these needs.

Principles of Team-building with DISC

What exactly constitutes a 'team'? There are many definitions of this term, some broad, some narrow. In fact,
DISC can be used to provide useful information an almost any group of people, regardless of their situation.
Nonetheless, it will be useful at this point to describe exactly what we mean by the term.
Probably the easiest way to approach a definition of the term 'team' is to describe some of the factors that all
working teams have in common:

• A team works to a remit.

This may be self-imposed, or (more commonly) defined from outside the team; nonetheless, a team must
have a clear purpose or purposes.
• Team members interact with one another.
Sometimes the term 'team' is used to describe a group whose members perform similar tasks individually
(as is sometimes found in direct sales), but this is not strictly a 'team' in the sense that we are considering
here.
• A team must produce some result.
This may be tangible (for example, a report or a design for a new wing nut) or less easily defined, but a
team that produces nothing has no real purpose.

These three elements help not only to define a 'team', but also to measure how effective it is. Does the team
work towards its remit? Do the members interact well? Is the team capable of producing the required results? It
is questions of this kind that DISC can help to answer.
Before we move on to look in more detail at the workings of teams in DISC terms, it will be useful to consider
the team in the wider context of the organisation.
No team works in isolation. The team will also need to deal with outside forces, some positive, some negative, if
it is to function with any purpose. Even in an isolated team (for example a very small business), there is a need
to interact with customers, clients, suppliers, accountants, tax professionals and many others.
Most commonly, though, the team is not isolated – it works within the umbrella of an organisation, and that
organisation defines its role and its expected results. This means that a team will normally have to work within
the structure of that organisation, and limits somewhat the activities it can pursue. However, it does grant the
advantage of structuring and formalising the points of interaction between the team and its external contacts
within the greater organisation.
This concept of the 'team within the organisation' is useful in considering the workings of an individual and
specific team. In reality, an organisation rarely functions as a cohesive whole – it can in fact be considered
simply as a collection of interacting teams (some formally defined, others less so). As we apply DISC to teams, it
will often be necessary to refer to factors outside or external to the team, or inherent in the organisation as a
whole. Such references can be read as referring to other teams within the organisation – it is often possible to
formally define and analyse these teams themselves, to gain a greater understanding of their dynamics.
We have already commented on the number and variety of team-building and team assessment tools and
theories available today. The DISC behavioural profiling tool provides an approach that (so far as we can
determine) has not been used, or at least formalised, before. What are its advantages?

• DISC defines behaviour on an individual basis. Rather than speaking of generalised roles within the
team, DISC allows us to consider the specific behaviour of a specific individual within the team (although it is
also possible to work with more general roles when needed).
• Because of its specificity, DISC can provide analyses not only of team functions in general, but also of
specific individual relationships within the team.
• DISC will report on motivations and needs even down to the individual level.

Most of the team theories at work today look at teams in a general way, providing models and ideals – a task
they perform admirably. With DISC, however, we can interpret and analyse interactions within a specific team
composed of specific individual members.

Team Factors and Subfactors

As its starting point for team analysis, Discus Team defines a 'Team Profile'. This measures four primary factors
within the team's make-up: Direction, Communication, Stability and Productivity. Each of these four factors also
has an inverse, so for example a team showing low Direction is said to be Participatory. In this part of the Team-
building section, we consider each of these four factors in detail, together with their inverted cousins.
If you are familiar with DISC, you will immediately notice a correspondence between these four factors and the
four behavioural elements that DISC interprets for an individual – Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and
Compliance. Indeed, Discus Team uses these individual factors as the ultimate basis for the Team Profile. There
are, however, some distinct differences between a Team Profile and an ordinary DISC Profile.
It is important to remember that low factors on a Team Profile are quite as important as high factors. On a DISC
profile, a low Dominance score would be interpreted simply as a lack of direct, dominating behaviour (that is, a
non-assertive style). On a Team Profile, a comparable low Direction score has a positive meaning of its own – it
does not merely indicate a lack of direction, but also a heightened level of participation within the team.
A difference between DISC and Team Profiles is also seen where all four points lie close to the central line of the
graph. On an individual DISC profile, this condition is referred to as a 'compressed profile', and typically
considered somewhat negative, usually suggesting that the individual concerned is undergoing stressful
conditions. As the foregoing indicates, however, a Team Profile with a similar shape (referred to as 'Balanced')
has no such negative connotations – it merely indicates that the team balances the approaches indicated.
Indeed, such profiles are not uncommon. Especially with larger teams, 'Balanced' Team Profiles regularly
appear, even where members show quite distinct individual DISC profiles.

• Direction indicates a driving, goal-oriented team, usually with strong leadership. Teams with low
Direction are referred to as Participatory.
• Communication, as its name suggests, is found in teams that rely on strong communication and
positive personal relations. Where Communication is low in a Team Profile, it is referred to as Applied.
• Stability describes a reliable and predictable team whose members prefer to avoid change. Teams
without Stability are referred to as Flexible.
• Productivity is the term used to describe teams whose members concentrate on procedure and quality.
Low Productivity results in an inverse factor known as Resourcefulness.

Team 'Subfactors' provide a more detailed analysis tool for teams derived from the main Team Factors. If you're
familiar with DISC, you may have come across the principle of the sub-trait – Subfactors work in just the same
way. By comparing each of the main factors with each of the others, we can define a total of twelve elements of
team behaviour. Each team will show some of these more strongly than others.
As an example, consider the two team factors Direction and Communication. In any given Team, these may be
at the same level, or one may be higher than another. A team with high Direction and low Communication will
naturally present a quite different working environment to one with high Communication and low Direction.
In this section, we name and define each of the twelve possible Team Subfactors, and give a description of the
kind of team environment relating to each. Click on the names of the subfactors shown below for more
information on each:

Subfactors of Directed Teams

• Autocracy
• Enterprise
• Self-determination
Subfactors of Communicative Teams

• Informality
• Responsiveness
 • Sociability
Subfactors of Stable Teams

• Reliability
• Conformism
• Persistence
Subfactors of Productive Teams

• Democracy
• Structure
• Activity

Relationships and Dynamics

While we can analyse individual behavioural profiles en masse to provide an overall picture of a team’s likely
performance, its everyday functioning is more closely affected by individual relationships within the team. An
understanding of the ways that individual members interact with one another can be crucial to developing a
clear picture of the way the team works, especially on a short- to medium-term basis. We use the term
'relationship' here exclusively to describe bilateral interactions (that is, interactions between two individual team
members). Most interactions within the team will take place in such a bilateral manner, or can be considered in
these terms. There are exceptions, however, especially those situations in which one member (usually the
leader) addresses all the other members of the group. In these situations, the likely actions and reactions of the
team are better considered in more general terms.
When analysing an individual relationship between two members, the key concept is that of the dynamic, a
concept that describes a specific element of the relationship. In the rest of this section, we'll consider how
dynamics work, and how they can be used to build a picture of the ways in which a relationship can be expected
to operate.
Note that an understanding of the way dynamics work is to some extent dependent on a grounding in the basic
principles of DISC theory. If you are new to DISC, you may wish to review, especially, the contents of the DISC
Factors & Sub-traits section of this site.
Introduction to Dynamics
A dynamic is a basic unit of interaction, derived by examining a combination of two DISC profiles. The number of
dynamics within a given relationship is not fixed, but is instead dependent on the complexity of the individual
profiles. Some rare combinations yield no dynamics at all, while the maximum number is twelve, for each profile
being considered.
To derive dynamics from a combination of profiles, we look at the high and low factors that appear in each of the
two individual profiles. For example, if one profile shows a high Dominance score, and the other a low
Steadiness score, then the dynamic 'High Dominance to Low Steadiness' appears in the relationship (usually
written 'D>s' for short).
Because the behaviours associated with each DISC factor are known, it is possible to interpret the ways in which
the two factors (one from each profile) will interact with one another. This analysis gives us a basis for
interpretation of one element of the relationship.
Applying the principle of dynamics to a real relationship within a real team provides some useful insights into the
ways in which the two members concerned will interact with one another. By examining each factor on each
profile individually, we can construct a list of all the dynamics that bear upon that particular relationship and use
this to gain an understanding of the actions and reactions of each of the two individuals.
There are a total of sixty-four possible dynamics, of which up to twenty-four can appear in a given relationship
between two individuals (though this is rare).
Because the calculation of dynamics works through an examination of the high and low factors in two profiles, it
is necessary that both profiles contain at least one high or low factor. Dynamics cannot, then, be generated
where one or both of the profiles under consideration is 'compressed' (that is, all the factors lie near the centre
of the profile, and none can be considered to be high or low). The same situation applies in reality as well as
theory – it is difficult to predict how a member with a 'compressed' profile will react within a relationship, and so
we cannot reliably attempt to produce an analysis in this situation.
It is important to remember that dynamics have a direction associated with them – they describe the
relationship from the point of view of one or other of the members involved. To clarify, consider the High
Dominance to Low Steadiness (D>s) dynamic we have already discussed. This describes an aspect of the
relationship from specifically the point of view of the highly Dominant member. To see how the other member
(with low Steadiness) viewed the relationship we would need to consider the opposite of this dynamic, Low
Steadiness to High Dominance (s>D) which would yield a different perspective.
This is an important point to bear in mind. Often, the two individuals concerned have different (sometimes very
different) subjective views of their relationship with one another. It is necessary to look at dynamics from both
sides to reach an understanding of the way the relationship works.
The exception to this occurs where the factors involved in the dynamic are identical (for example, the dynamic
that occurs between to members with high Compliance scores, C>C). In this specific case, the dynamic is
'symmetrical', and both members view the relationship in essentially the same way.
Before we move on to look at some examples of relationship dynamics in practical use, it is important to point
out the limitation of this approach. Dynamics are a powerful tool in discovering the underlying behavioural
workings of relationship, but they cannot take account of factors outside this area. Working relationships are
necessarily affected by conditions outside behaviour per se. This applies especially with regard to past actions –
members' views of one another will necessarily be coloured by each other's previous activities and decisions,
whether good or bad. While the underlying behavioural factors remain, such external considerations cannot be
interpreted through the concept of the dynamic.
Examples of Dynamics
The easiest way to understand how dynamics work in practice is to consider some practical examples. Here, we
will look at some of the more common dynamics, and see how it is possible to extract useful information from
them regarding the relationship to which they apply.
The standard dynamic notation, incidentally, simply uses capital letters to denote high factors, and lower-case
letters to signify low factors. So, for example, 'S>S' would reflect a dynamic between two highly Steady
individuals, while 'c>c' indicates a dynamic between two individuals who share low Compliance.
Remember that there are a total of sixty-four possible dynamics – the examples shown here demonstrate only a
few of the more common manifestations found in working teams.

D>D (Two Highly Dominant Members)

This is a common relationship dynamic in a team showing high Direction, and is most often seen in teams
related to sales or higher-level management, as Dominance is a factor closely associated with each of these
roles.
Dominant individuals are controlling, demanding and assertive in nature. They rarely refuse a challenge, and
are motivated by their own success. If we consider how two such individuals would relate to one another, we
will have a basic interpretation of the D>D dynamic.
It is clear that the competitive element of the Dominance factor will have a significant effect on the workings
of this relationship. Each member is likely to see the other's demanding approach as in some sense providing
a challenge, and can be expected to rise to this perceived challenge.
There is potential here, then, for conflict and confrontation, especially if the two members see their goals as
incompatible. However, this combination can also be highly productive if the competitive natures of the two
members are focused correctly.
We can see such focussing at work, for example, in a competitive direct sales team (those working in such
conditions very commonly have high Dominance as a significant aspect of their profiles). The competitive
urges and the need for challenge inherent in the members' styles are focused on achieving goals that benefit
the group as a whole (high sales targets, in this example, with their attendant rewards).

D>C (High Dominance to High Compliance)

This dynamic represents another aspect of relationships commonly found within a team. We have already
seen that Dominance relates to competitive, assertive and controlling behaviour. Where Compliance occurs in
a profile, it shows a reluctance to take risk and a need for certainty, together with a concern for quality and
precision.
A further important distinction here is that Dominance is an assertive factor – it relates to a willingness to
take direct action – while Compliance is passive, meaning that the individual concerned tends to be reluctant
to take direct action, and instead prefers to follow the direction of others. This will clearly have an effect on
the relationship between these two individuals.
It is likely, then, that the Dominant member will take the lead in this relationship, and the Compliant
member will adopt a more responsive attitude, following the lead set by their more assertive colleague.
Note that we say 'likely' – the dynamic we are considering here is only one component of the relationship
between the two individuals. We can be sure that the effect of this assertive-passive combination will have
an effect on the relationship, but the precise nature of this effect will depend on other dynamics that may be
present. Our highly Compliant member, for example, may also have a high Dominance score in his profile –
in this case, the same effects that we discussed under the 'D>D' dynamic above would also have a bearing
on the relationship.
The D>C dynamic gives us an opportunity to see how aspects of a relationship can be viewed differently by
each individual concerned. Because a Dominant style confers an interest in control, and the Compliant
individual shows themselves as prepared to accept this, the Dominant member will often assume that they in
some sense 'control' the relationship.
It is true that, should the Dominant member issue an instruction, the more Compliant member would likely
obey it. From the Compliant individual's perspective, though, the instruction is obeyed simply because this is
more convenient and less troublesome than not obeying it. Compliant styles strongly dislike confrontation,
for example, and will normally choose a course of action that will avoid this.
One member, then, sees themselves as dominating this relationship, but the other does not acknowledge
this, and is simply following the most convenient approach. This is not to say that one is wrong and the other
right (such terms do not apply in this context), but simply that each holds beliefs that the other does not
share.
Differences of perspective like this are of more than theoretical interest – they can have a very real effect.
For example, imagine a situation in which our Dominant member issues an instruction with which their
Compliant colleague very strongly disagrees. The Compliant member would see no reason why they should
not simply refuse this instruction. Such a refusal, though, would seem extraordinary and highly unreasonable
to the Dominant member, and would inevitably cause difficulties within the relationship, and the team itself.
An awareness of differing individual perspectives, then, can help to pre-empt and defuse situations of this
kind before they occur.

I>I (Two Highly Influential Members)

Influence describes elements of the personality such as friendliness, expressiveness and openness, in both
social and emotional terms. Individuals showing high Influence in their profiles are normally talkative and
informal, and greatly value the overt approval or attention of those around them.
This desire for attention is the key to an understanding of a relationship involving the 'I>I' dynamic. Each of
the two members will be looking for the other to listen to their ideas and to provide positive feedback. Where
the two members concerned are able to balance each other's need for attention (for example, where they
share common aims or interests), then this aspect of their relationship is likely to friendly and motivating for
each of them.
What may not be obvious in this situation, though, is that there is still a kind of competition in operation – a
competition for attention. If this is to be a positive working relationship of the kind described above, it is
imperative that each of the individuals involved feels that they are receiving appropriate levels of attention
from the other.
Team Leadership Styles

The member who fulfils the leadership role will have both a direct and an indirect effect on the team as a whole.
The direct effect is usually clear and easy to identify – it consists of the instructions the leader issues or policies
they put in place.
Quite as important, but less simple to distinguish, however, are the leader's indirect effects on their team. These
stem not from the leader’s actions themselves, but from the ways in which they perform these actions – in other
words, from their individual behavioural style.
For example, a common (though by no means universal) trait of leaders is the presence of a measure of
Dominance in their individual profiles. In cases where this trait is strongly represented, the leader will tend to
take an authoritarian and direct approach to leadership, expecting others to follow their direction on the grounds
of their designated role, and their dominating, assertive behavioural style. This necessarily makes the team
more Directed (in specific terms of Discus Team's subfactor of Direction), though its other effects will depend on
the precise make-up of the team and other factors of the leader's style.
Because Dominant leaders are common, so is this effect. Other less common leadership styles will also make
their impression on the team, though, often in less predictable ways. Consider the DISC factor of Compliance,
for example. While by no means as common as Dominance in a leadership role, it does often occur in more
technical environments, or in situations where quality is of paramount importance. Compliant leaders will depend
on certainty of their position, concentrate on quality and productivity, and prefer a well structured environment.
Such a leader will rarely take an authoritative stance, but will prefer to control their team through organisation
and planning – we can expect to see them install a procedural and structured regime in order to maintain their
authority within the team. Hence, the team as a whole will tend to move towards the more Productive end of the
Team Profile spectrum, as they adapt to their leader’s approach.
The Discus profiling software is capable of analysing how individuals will react when placed in a management
situation, and Discus Team adapts this technology to examine how a member can be expected to act (in
specifically behavioural terms) when appointed as the leader of a team.
The DISC profiling technique gives us a range of tools for analysing an individual's approach to leadership, and
Discus Team takes full advantage of these to describe the team leader's particular approach. There are as many
particular leadership styles as there are individual behavioural profiles, and Discus Team will provide a report for
each of these. To illustrate the process, though, we will examine four basic leadership approaches based on the
four DISC factors of Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance.

• The Director is a leadership style that tends to appear where the leader has a highly Dominant
personality. Such a leader has a demanding and impatient leadership style. They rarely tolerate dissension,
and act quickly to quell any possible threats (as they will see them) to their leadership position.
• The Persuader (a style related to profiles showing high Influence) prefers to foster a friendly, open
atmosphere, and to build strong relationships with the members of their team. This approach often hides the
fact, though, that this style is still an assertive and active one, and will react badly where they believe other
members of the team are in some sense taking advantage of their informal style.
• The Supporter (a style based on high Steadiness) tends to see themselves as providing a service for
the team's members, rather than a source of direction. While they understand their responsibilities as a
leader, they will typically seek to establish rapport with the members of their team, providing support where
circumstances require it, and looking for similar support from their members.
• The Thinker (which applies to styles showing high Compliance) represents a leader who works through
planning and structure. We have already seen how highly Compliant types will attempt to impose authority
through procedure and organisation. This is due largely to their desire for certainty – they will wish to know
as much as possible about the operations of the team on a day-by-day level.

These four basic styles represent common approaches to the role of leader, and can be viewed as 'building
blocks' for the more complex styles that arise with more involved DISC profiles. For example, a profile showing
both high Dominance and high Influence will typically display aspects of the Director and the Persuader, often
switching between these two styles according to the demands of a situation.
Team Leadership Needs

An understanding of a leader's approach to their team is vital to an understanding of the team as a whole, as
discussed in the Leadership Styles section. As important as the leader's demands on their team are, though,
equally important to the workings of the team are the team's demands on their leader. Each type of team will
react differently to, and have different expectations from, a leader. From this, we can draw two important
conclusions:
1. There is no such thing as a perfect leader. As the demands of team members on their leader differ, so
the ideal leadership style for the team differs also. Leaders who may be entirely unsuitable for one team
may prosper when leading another, and vice versa.
2. If a team's leader can come to an understanding of their team's expectations and demands, either as a
group or as individuals, and adapt to these, the effectiveness of their leadership can be expected to
improve.
Leadership demands can be interpreted by examining a team's Team Profile. Each of the four main factors of
Direction, Communication, Stability and Productivity relate to a different basic leadership need.

• Responsibility & Respect are demands usually associated with Directed teams. Where this appears as
an important element of the team's leadership needs, the members are looking for a means of expressing
their assertive styles and their desire for responsibility. A leader who can delegate effectively, and be
prepared to allow members to take individual responsibility for their own projects, will do well in such a
team.
• Praise & Appreciation are seen where Communication is an important factor in the team's make-up.
In such a team, the leader will reap rewards by expressly showing gratitude and appreciation for individual
members' efforts. Members of such teams tend to enjoy informal relations with one another and with their
leader – if the leader can foster such relations, while maintaining their position of authority, then the team
should work positively.
• Patience & Consistency are elements of a Stable team's leadership demands. Such teams will look for
a consistent and predictable working environment. Sudden changes of direction or policy, however necessary
or justified, are difficult for such teams to adapt to successfully. The members here will also be looking for
support from their leader, and will hope to be able to bring specific problems directly to the leader for
resolution.
• Detail & Explanation relate to Productive teams. The members of such teams work poorly when they
do not have a clear idea of their situation (whether in terms of their role within the team, the leader's
expectations of them, or the circumstances of their current work). To gain the greatest motivation from such
teams, careful explanation, and a willingness to provide detailed information, should enhance the team's
performance.

As with Leadership Styles, these four aspects represent the fundamental elements of the leadership needs.
True Team Profiles tend to highlight more than one factor, however, and have correspondingly more intricate
combinations of leadership needs. The Discus Team will provide a specific interpretation of these needs
depending on the precise configuration of the Team Profile.
TEAM FACTORS

Direction and Participation

Direction
Direction corresponds to high Dominance, and will usually be seen in teams whose members display this factor.
In team terms, it describes a team where members are 'driven' by these Dominant individuals. Because
Dominant individuals have a clear idea of their goals and aims, they will imbue the team itself with these values,
and ensure that the other members maintain their concentration on the requirements of the team as a whole.
Direction also relates to the issue of the team remit. Highly directed teams will tend to hold to their remit more
effectively, because the more dominant and authoritative members will tend to ensure that this is the case.
On the negative side (and all factors in a Team Profile have both a positive and a negative side), Directed teams
tend to provide a very challenging and demanding working environment, because this is the preferred style of
the Dominant type. This will, inevitably, sometimes cause difficulties for the less assertive styles within the
team, who find such circumstances difficult at best and stressful at worst.

Participation (inverse Direction)

A team that lacks Direction is said to be Participatory, a factor that corresponds to low Dominance on a
traditional DISC profile. A lack of assertiveness and dynamism means that the members will typically be
reluctant to take individual responsibility for their actions, and will instead prefer to determine a course of action
in a collaborative fashion.
The sense of collective responsibility that such an approach breeds can help to develop a sense of mutual
reliance within the team, which in turn helps to build trust and positive relations between the team's members.
However, the need to refer significant decisions to the group as a whole can tend to distract the team from its
specified aims, and even where these aims are maintained, decisions will tend to be made in a less timely
fashion than in a highly Directed team.

Communication and Application

Communication
Communication, a factor that corresponds to DISC's Influence, is a factor seen in teams where there is a strong
representation of open, socially expressive styles. Where Communication is shown in a Team Profile, the
members of the team can be expected to interact in a positive and usually somewhat informal manner. The
development of personal relationships within the team structure is as important to people of this kind as the
more formal aspects of the team's operation. Teams showing high Communication can be expected to cohesive
and well integrated, with members coming to rely on one another and to develop mutual trust.
The emphasis on social interaction that the Communication factor brings with it, however, can impact on the
effectiveness of the team. Because members place so much importance on developing and maintaining
relationships with one another, this can lead to their being distracted from more practical issues.

Application (inverse Communication)

A team with low Communication is defined as 'Applied'. In such a team, members focus and concentrate on the
practicalities of their work, and apply themselves to the achievement of these tasks. They will typically seek to
avoid distraction or interruption, preferring to concentrate on their own work.
Because most members of an Applied team will be, by definition, rather uncommunicative, this can lead to
difficulties when it comes to the integration of team members into a working unit. The ability of such a team's
members to concentrate hard on specific tasks is a useful one, but such work will tend to take place in a
vacuum; the members concerned will often work without reference to other members. This means that an
Applied team, while it has its advantages, can be expected to take a great deal more detailed management than
many other types

Stability and Flexibility

Stability
Steadiness is the DISC factor associated, among other things, with a reluctant attitude to change. This aspect is
brought out in the Team Profile factor of Stability, which appears when a team contains many Steady
individuals. Because the team's members will wish to avoid alterations in their working environment, the culture
of their team, once established, will tend to be adhered to by the members.
Steady people take time to consider and adapt to situations, and so Stable teams will take longer to develop
than other types; the members will need to develop working relationships with one another, and evolve a
structure for the team, before they can work comfortably within that group situation.
Once the team has developed in this way, however, it can be expected to operate reliably and cohesively. A
Stable team, though, can be expected to inherit its members' rather deliberate, thoughtful style, and so tasks,
while they will be completed, will tend to take such a team longer to achieve than other types of group.

Flexibility (inverse Stability)

Low Stability equates, in DISC terms, with Flexibility. As one would expect, this is the direct opposite of the
Steady approach seen in Stable teams; members look for change and variety, and seek to achieve tasks as
quickly as possible – they will typically exhibit low concentration thresholds which mean that they can become
bored easily.
This is, therefore, a very strong team in some circumstances, and quite a weak one in others. For example,
Flexible teams are well suited to many sales roles (especially direct sales), but far less suitable for longer term
or predictable work, especially where this involves following defined plans.

Productivity and Resourcefulness

Productivity
Productivity, the last of the four main Team Profile factors, relates to Compliance in DISC terms, and indicates
that the members of the team have an interest in the practical matters of efficiency and effectiveness.
Individuals of this kind will prefer to concentrate on assigned tasks. 'Productivity', then, takes its name from the
chief concern of the members of the team.
Productivity has much in common with Application, but there are differences. Productive teams, for example, will
demand a clear definition of their goals, while Applied teams typically will not (although they may well benefit
from such a definition). Members of Productive teams also have a great concern for the quality of their work,
while again this factor is not necessarily present in an Applied team.
Productivity is an ideal factor to look for in teams where quality and efficiency are primary concerns. Productive
teams, though, will often tend to neglect more personal issues such as working relationships, and so if team
cohesiveness or effectiveness over the long term are important, then Productivity becomes a less relevant
factor.

Resourcefulness (inverse Productivity)

Where a team shows low Productivity, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does suggest that the team will
probably need to be managed more closely than other team types. DISC describes teams showing low
Productivity as 'Resourceful'; the members of such teams have an independent and often original nature that
allows them to work outside set parameters and guidelines, helping them to find unusual solutions to problems.
This very independence, however, can lead to difficulties in a team situation. People of this kind typically work
better individually than as a group, and disagreements within the team will not be uncommon. As the lack of
Productivity suggests, such individuals will also tend to focus on matters outside the specified aims of the team,
and again this will call for close and careful management if they are to work together in an effective manner.
TEAM SUBFACTOR

The Activity Subfactor

High Productivity, Low Stability
Relates to teams that are both Productive and Flexible

As with all Productive teams, members of Active groups are focused on the effectiveness of the team and the
quality of its output. In this case, however, they also possess an urgent, active style that is lacking from many
similar groups.
If properly channelled, the Active team can be one of the most efficient styles, especially if the Active element is
combined with high level of Direction. It should be noted, though, that the type of member typified by the Active
subfactor has a low concentration threshold and is easily distracted – elements that are often associated with a
creative approach to problem-solving, but which might impact on the overall effectiveness of the team if not
properly controlled.

The Autocracy Subfactor

High Direction, Low Communication
Relates to teams that are both Directed and Applied

'Autocracy' is descriptive of teams showing high Direction and low Communication (that is, Application).
Autocracy, then, occurs in teams where many members are focused on matters of efficiency, control and
personal responsibility, but where little concern is shown for the development of personal relationships or a
relaxed, informal working environment.
It is clear that in such a team we can expect a more formal approach. The interest of the more dominant
members in developing and expanding their own areas of control means that a hierarchical structure often
develops, with the more assertive team members taking authority over their less demonstrative colleagues.
Because such a team is authority-driven, we use the term ‘Autocratic’ to describe it.
Autocratic teams work best in high-pressure situations (because the dominant members are better able to deal
with such circumstances), or where rapid decision making is needed (because decision-making is undertaken by
a single individual, rather than by committee). Such a team structure tends to be motivating for members in the
upper levels of the hierarchy, but often creates a feeling of pressure for the less dynamic individuals who
operate at the team's lower levels.

The Conformism Subfactor

High Stability, Low Communication

Relates to teams that are both Stable and Applied

Conforming teams are characterised by the members' preference for a positive and friendly working
environment, and their wish to avoid disagreement or confrontation. The amiability of the members, though, is
not accompanied by the more socially expressive and confident factors found in Communicative teams.
For this reason, members of Conforming teams take care not to cause offence. Their rather passive attitude
means that, while they will work steadily and reliably on a task once it has been assigned, they will rarely take
pro-active action.

The Democracy Subfactor

High Productivity, Low Direction
Relates to teams that are both Productive and Participatory

The need for certainty associated with the Team Factor of Productivity will come to the fore in a Democratic
team, because the members lack the Direction that will normally provide them with a point of reference. This
desire to avoid mistakes means that the members will look to each other for confirmation of their actions.
In terms of the team's decision-making process, this need for confirmation and certainty is usually translated
into a democratic forum, whereby management decisions are reached 'by committee' rather than a single
individual. While this can slow the operation of the group, it can be a very positive approach in situations where
errors need to be avoided and quality is paramount.

The Enterprise Subfactor

High Direction, Low Stability
Relates to teams that are both Directed and Flexible

Like Autocracy, Enterprise is found in teams with a significant contingent of dominant and driving behavioural
styles. The other element of this Subfactor is Flexibility, meaning that the membership in general is fast-paced
and impatient. Passive attitudes are uncommon in such a team, and because of the resulting pro-active style,
this team will actively seek out opportunities, and exploits them fully when they arise.
The predominance of individuals with their own sense of direction and personal goals, however, leads to a rather
unstable team (as one would indeed deduce from the low Stability level here). Members of Enterprising teams
often have their own agendas, and it is not uncommon to see disputes, or at least disagreements, develop from
time to time.

The Informality Subfactor

High Communication, Low Direction
Relates to teams that are both Communicative and Participatory

In Informality we come to the first Subfactor that relates to high Communication. In fact, as Informality is
defined by high Communication and low Direction, it can be viewed the exact opposite of Autocracy. Each of the
twelve Subfactors has a corresponding opposite of this kind.
We can expect to see all the sociability and openness that Communication brings with it in an Informal team, but
the lack of Direction means that these aspects are often unfocused. Team members tend to pay more attention
to developing their working (and social) relationships with one another than on more practical issues.
Informal teams provide relaxed and pleasant working environments (at least to sociable, communicative
individuals), and members often have a strong sense of team loyalty. The lack of a clear sense of direction,
however, means that such teams often need more guidance than other types to ensure a satisfactory work rate
is achieved.

The Persistence Subfactor

High Stability, Low Productivity
Relates to teams that are both Stable and Resourceful

Persistent teams have the steady approach of other highly Stable groups, and the associated resistance to
change. They are specifically characterized, however, by Resourcefulness, which in this case often appears as a
preference among the members to follow their own ideas and conclusions.
Persistent teams, then, can exhibit a determined style, but will tend to work far more effectively in situations
where the members can find their own ways of solving problems and apply them within the team. Teams of this
kind can be especially reluctant to accept decisions imposed from outside the group.

The Reliability Subfactor

High Stability, Low Direction
Relates to teams that are both Stable and Participatory

Reliability reflects a general attitude to change – teams that show this subfactor prefer a predictable and fixed
working environment. They react poorly to changes in the team's working situation or structure, and are
especially unwilling to initiate such changes themselves.
While in many ways this is a negative subfactor, it does nonetheless bring advantages, specifically in terms of
consistency and (as its name suggests) reliability. Once a team of this kind has found a productive working
structure (which can take somewhat longer with such a team than many other types), it can be expected to
maintain this structure with only minimal external management.

The Responsiveness Subfactor

High Communication, Low Stability
Relates to teams that are both Communicative and Flexible

Teams of this kind tend to be adaptable and enthusiastic; this combination suggests positive and powerful
communication abilities, and a team showing Responsiveness in its make-up is often well suited to situations
that require these abilities. Such skills are useful in roles that require liaison, presentation, and many types of
marketing and sales work.
Ironically for a team showing high Communication, however, the internal circulation of information (in specific
terms of facts, dates and so on) is often poor in such a team, whose members are not strongly oriented towards
the administrative elements of team work.

The Self-determination Subfactor

High Direction, Low Productivity
Relates to teams that are both Directed and Resourceful
The third and final Subfactor associated with high Direction is Self-determination. This appears where the
Directed team also shows low levels of the factor of Productivity (in DISC terms, this corresponds to
Resourcefulness). The result is a potentially powerful team, but one that is difficult to manage because of the
independent behaviour of many of the members.
'Self-determination' in this sense has two interpretations. First, members themselves look for a means of
expressing their own authority and independence within the team. Second, the team as a whole will tend to
follow its own path, which does not necessarily correspond to that set out in the team's remit.
These appear to be rather negative aspects, especially in the context of a team, and indeed they can often have
such an effect on the team's performance. They do represent, however, a strong capacity for coping with
pressure, and an element of self-sufficiency that can often be valuable.

The Sociability Subfactor

High Communication, Low Productivity
Relates to teams that are both Communicative and Resourceful

The most notable feature of Sociable teams is the self-confidence and expressiveness of their members. In a
team of this kind, the development and fostering of positive relationships between members is considered
important. Such teams typically possess several members with particularly strong and charismatic
communication styles.
While members of Sociable teams can be expected to display well-developed social skills, and to develop strong
interpersonal bonds with one another, they are not strongly oriented towards the production of tangible results,
or working within a strongly disciplined environment.

The Structure Subfactor

High Productivity, Low Communication
Relates to teams that are both Productive and Applied

Members of a Structured team will be motivated to ensure that the team performs effectively and productively,
but lack the Communication levels necessary to ensure that this is the case. For this reason, such teams often
develop complex internal structures for themselves, with members adhering to these structures voluntarily
because of their interest in the ultimate effectiveness of the team.
The behavioural styles at work here are also more open to external intervention than many other types of
teams. Indeed, so long as the team's members can understand and accept the reasons behind decisions applied
to the team from outside, they will likely embrace such impositions as positive and productive contributions to
the team's operational style.