M4 A1 DISCUSSION

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASSIGNMENT 4

Case Scenario I:

Read what transpires and then identify a strategy to handle the issue:

· Identify and describe the crux of the issue. What elements of an interpersonal conflict are present?

· Using your self-assessment information from Module 2, describe what you would do or attempt to do in this situation. (Your values, personality, conflict style, and emotional intelligence will play a role in this scenario.)

Case Scenario II:

For this case scenario, carefully read the scenario and address the following in the discussion post:

· Identify and describe the crux of the issue. Identify the elements of group-to-group conflict that are present.

· Using your self-assessment information from Module 2, describe what you would do or attempt to do as a strategy toward resolution of this conflict. Address your assumptions, the contingencies, and how your self-assessment information will influence the strategy.

M4:Assignment 1

Case Scenario Analysis

Conflict Management
Page 1 of 4

©Argosy University – Online Division

Case Study 2

A-tech, an electronic manufacturing firm, has been in business 15 years. The
company started with venture capital and soon grew to two hundred million
dollars in annual sales. The average growth in sales the past three years has
been 25%, due mainly to the engineering innovations in its five major product
families.

The CEO and his executive committee have historically viewed the American
electronics industry as one of the best in the world. Criteria for best were directed
by high product quality standards and meeting performance expectations.

Recently a sixth product line was designed and is about to be launched. The
product, a multichip high performance information processor, requires specific
new engineering on a number of the components. Two components would be
designed to manufacturing specifications in-house. However, the third
component, selected by the manufacturing product feasibility team, would require
a high investment by A-tech in engineering and capital equipment.

The component, called an R-stabilizer, is nearly identical to an existing
component having similar specifications and performance, previously designed
by a firm in India. The existing component could be re-engineered to meet A-
tech’s specific requirements. The India firm, RAH, would assume and amortize
the engineering and capital equipment investment. Because of the differentials in
labor costs and inner-country transportation costs, the savings to A-tech would
be about 6% per part.

The manufacturing new product team (MNPT) has requested approval from A-
Tech’s executive committee to sign a five year agreement with the India firm.
This would be the first product outsourcing agreement by the A-tech Corporation.

The CEO asked for a presentation to be given to the executive committee in
order to start the decision process. The MNPT gave a PowerPoint presentation
reviewing the components required for the R-stabilizer, status of the new
components (particularly the problems with building the third component in-
house), cost analysis, and project specifications from startup to new product
ready for marketing and sales.

In attendance at this “focus meeting” is the CEO, VP for finance, VP for research
and development, MNPT members, VP for manufacturing, and VP for marketing.
These participants are identified as:

M4: Assignment 1
Case Scenario Analysis

Conflict Management
Page 2 of 4

©Argosy University – Online Division

CEO–Chet VP for manufacturing–Wally

VP for finance–Richard VP for research and development–Kelly

VP for marketing–Paul MNPT chairperson–Alice

CEO: “Thank you, Wally, for this excellent presentation. I open up this
discussion as a way for everyone to share perceptions and opinions.
I would first say that this proposal is the first such foray into the
outsourcing business, and as such, demands careful analysis.”

Richard: “I agree, Chet. The presentation illustrated the dollar advantage by
going to RAH for this component. How is it that you (looking at Wally)
have been in touch with RAH and this is the first time we are aware
of what is happening?”

Wally: “We thought it would be better to do the preliminary work, get some
numbers, before we took everyone’s time.”

Kelly: “Alice did contact me and explained the idea. Since we are behind
nearly nine months, I encouraged Alice to proceed.”

Richard: “To proceed?! Does that mean you obtain confidentiality agreements
and so forth?” (Slightly emotional)

Alice: “Yes, we did everything according to the book.”

Richard: (interrupts) “Not my book!”

Alice: “Richard, at the time we were doing this, you were in New York
looking at investments for A-tech, and I believe looking at expanding
our credit line.” (Obviously trying to be patient)

Chet: “Okay, guys. We have strayed a little here. By the way, I did approve
the trip for the manufacturing group to visit RAH last autumn.”

Paul: “Do you have an agenda for this meeting Alice or Wally?”

Wally: “An e-mail was sent on the 21st to everyone here. I asked for
confirmation, knowing this would be an uphill climb.”

Richard: “What’s that supposed to mean, Wally?”

Wally: (hesitates) “Actually, we knew there would be some resistance
because this is a new direction.”

M4: Assignment 1
Case Scenario Analysis

Conflict Management
Page 3 of 4

©Argosy University – Online Division

Chet: “We all have tumbled through the ups and downs of change. I don’t
think we are hurting too badly. But!! Let’s get back to it. Alice please
make some additional copies of the agenda. We’ll take a short
break.”

(Meeting resumes)

Chet: “Just a reminder before we start. For a decision meeting such as this,
I appreciate everyone confirming the meeting and agenda. And, just
in case one of us has been out of town, we need copies of the
agenda anyway. Go ahead, Alice”. (tone indicates CEO is losing
patience).

Alice: (by now is becoming more uncomfortable) “This was supposed to be
a two hour meeting; we have only an hour left. I am not sure we can
cover everything in an hour.” (slight hint at the problems in the
communication process; waits for everyone to respond)

Paul: “Looking at the financials again, we show a 24% profit per part, which
includes the RAH component. This looks pretty optimistic. We are not
really sure of a number of things.”

Wally: “And those would be…”

Paul: (interrupts) “Well, let’s rattle off a few. One, we have no “G-2” on our
competition; two, conditions in India are becoming more destabilized
because of potential terrorist threats; three, we don’t know the
problems in communication and ways of doing business on an
outsourcing basis; four, we have no control over their process; five,
there are the legal issues; six, we could have shipping problems, and
then there’s the quality control issue.” (Paul stops, realizing he has
provided many topics for debate—then continues) “It will take a great
deal of time to get information on all these items.”

Alice: (raising her hand, looks at the CEO, but she is not acknowledged)

CEO: (addresses Kelly) “You’ve been through all this at Lintel. What does it
take to gather all this information?”

Kelly: “Actually, I’ll defer back to Alice, but I do want to say my people have
been working closely with Alice’s team and they have already
covered much of that ground.” (Alice starts to respond, but is
interrupted by Richard): “So, Alice, do you have all the answers to
these questions?” (voiced tinged with sarcasm)

Alice: (even more uncomfortable) “Not in the strictest sense. I do have a lot
of information, which is found in the R-stabilizer Feasibility Study. I
wanted to review this today.”

M4: Assignment 1
Case Scenario Analysis

Conflict Management
Page 4 of 4

©Argosy University – Online Division

Richard: (a little loudly): “That’s a 100-page document and it doesn’t have an
executive summary.”

Alice: “It does not contain an executive summary, but is does contain a
specifications cost analysis.”

Paul: But that doesn’t really answer my questions. Like G-2.”

Alice: “I assumed you marketing people would start looking the R-stabilizer
as soon as we informed them of that…”

Paul: “That was a bad assumption, Alice. We don’t or can’t do that until we
have performance specifications and costs for production…”

M4: Assignment 1
Case Scenario Analysis

Conflict Management
Page 1 of 2

©Argosy University – Online Division

Case Study 1
The following is an event between a customer and you (an employee of
ADVANCE, a larger electronics store) regarding a new cell phone purchase prior
to this interaction. The following is what transpired:
The young lady (early 20’s) came into the store shortly after lunch. You were on
duty with one other sales person. During the lunch and dinner hours, when there
is limited staff on hand, the employee with the most longevity is basically in
charge and handles any customer complaints. In this case, that person is you.
Customer (Cust) enters the store, and approaches the sales clerk (SC)

SC: “Yes, may I help you?” (Notes the customer is not smiling)
Cust: “I bought a Blackberry from you people two weeks ago. I bought this

thing so I could e-mail, and I can get it to work only once in awhile.”
SC: “Can you wait a moment; I’ll get the floor manager.” (Customer places

both hands on counter and hangs her head. SC walks to other side of
the store, and finds you, the acting floor manager (FM).

SC: “I have a lady up front with a new I-44 she claims isn’t working right. Can
you talk to her?”

FM: Approaches customer. “Hello, I’m Marko. How may I help you?”
Cust: “Ya. You can help me by giving me a new phone. One that works! I’ve

gone over the instructions. I’ve done everything right. For $200 it’s a
piece of junk!” (Customer has become louder and her facial tone has
reddened). “I want my money back. Now!” (She plunks the phone on the
counter).

FM: “I need you to give me some information, and may I see your receipt?”
Cust: “I knew it! I knew it! The old run around. I left my receipt in the car”

(Customer is even more agitated).
FM: “I will need to see the receipt before I can be of much help.”
The customer stomps out of the store. She returns a few minutes later with a
receipt in her hand.
Cust: “It’s a good thing I kept this. I probably wouldn’t get any help.”
FM: Picks up the receipt from the counter and looks at it. “I see you bought

this over a month ago.”
Cust: “So? They told me I have a year warranty, so I want a replacement…

today!”
FM: “Let me explain how the warranty works.”
Cust: (interrupting): “You’re not telling me my warranty is no good!”

M4: Assignment 1
Case Scenario Analysis

Conflict Management
Page 2 of 2

©Argosy University – Online Division

FM: “It’s not that. If you had brought it in within the first month we could
have…”

Cust: “What’s with the first month business. I was told it had a year’s warranty.
FM: “It does. But after the first 30 days we need to send it back to the

manufacturer for an examination.”
Cust: “I won’t have a cell phone… how long does it take?”

FM: “We can usually have the phone back in two weeks.”
Cust: “Give me the number of the manufacturer. I want to call them or

somebody about this (very agitated). I can’t believe you can stay in
business. Why don’t you check these out better?.. (pauses). I want a
replacement phone today!” (Very demanding)

FM: “We have no way of doing that. I’m very sorry…”
Cust: “Sorry! Sorry! OK! I want a refund. I’ll buy a different phone… someplace

else!”
FM: “If you will leave your phone I will personally get it sent UPS – that will

hurry it along.”
Cust: “Just forget it!” (stomps out)

Thomas-Kilmann
Conflict Mode

Instrument
P R O F I L E A N D I N T E R P R E T I V E R E P O R T

Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann

Report prepared for

ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ

�

ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�

May 1, 2008

CPP, Inc. | 800-624-1765 | www.cpp.com

The Five Conflict-Handling Modes
The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) assesses an individual’s behavior in conflict
situations—that is, situations in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. In conflict
situations, we can describe a person’s behavior along two basic dimensions*: (1) assertiveness, the
extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns, and (2) cooperativeness,
the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. These two dimensions
of behavior can be used to define five methods of dealing with conflict. These five conflict-handling
modes are shown below:

C O M P E T I N G

C O L L A B O R A T I N G

C O M P R O M I S I N G

A V O I D I N G

A C C O M M O D A T I N G

�
�

U
N

A
S

S
E

R
T

IV
E

A
S
S
E
R
T
IV
E

� �U N C O O P E R A T I V E C O O P E R A T I V E

C O O P E R A T I V E N E S S

A
S
S
E
R
T
IV
E

N
E

S
S

*This two-dimensional model of conflict-handling behavior is adapted from “Conflict and Conflict Management” by Kenneth Thomas in The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, edited by Marvin Dunnette (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976). Another valuable contribution in this field is the work by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in The Managerial Grid

(Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964, 1994).

TKI PROFILE & INTERPRETIVE REPORT ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�ዊ�
MAY 1, 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

C O M P E T I N G

Competing is assertive and uncooperative, a power-oriented mode. When competing, an
individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other person’s expense, using whatever power
seems appropriate to win his or her position. Competing might mean standing up for your rights,
defending a position you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

C O L L A B O R A T I N G

Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative. When collaborating, an individual attempts to
work with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both. It involves
digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an
alternative that meets both sets of concerns. Collaborating between two persons might take the
form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, resolving some condition
that would otherwise have them competing for resources, or confronting and trying to find a
creative solution to an interpersonal problem.

C O M P R O M I S I N G

Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising,
the objective is to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both
parties. Compromising falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, giving
up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more
directly than avoiding but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising
might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground
position.

A V O I D I N G

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately
pursue his or her own concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the
conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an
issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.

A C C O M M O D A T I N G

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the opposite of competing. When
accommodating, an individual neglects his or her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the
other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. Accommodating might take the
form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when you would prefer not
to, or yielding to another’s point of view.

Your TKI Profile
Your profile of TKI scores, shown below, indicates the repertoire of conflict-handling modes you use in
the kinds of conflicts you face. Your scores are arranged in descending order by percentile, with your
highest score indicating your most frequently used conflict mode.

MODE PERCENTILE SCORERAW
SCORE

0% 25% 75% 100%

LOW MEDIUM HIGH

COLLABORATING 11 99%

COMPETING 6 69%

ACCOMMODATING 5 46%

AVOIDING 4 22%

COMPROMISING 4 7%

Your raw score on each conflict-handling mode is simply the number of times you chose a TKI
statement for that mode. More important are your percentile scores. These show how your raw scores
compare to those of a representative sample of 8,000 employed adults who have already taken the
TKI.* Your percentile scores show the percentage of people in the sample who scored the same as or
lower than you on each mode.

Your profile shows that you scored highest on collaborating, where your score of 11 gave you a
percentile score of 99. This means you scored higher than 99 percent of the people in the sample on
collaborating. In contrast, you scored lowest on compromising, where you scored higher than only 7
percent of the sample.

The solid vertical lines at the 25th and 75th percentiles separate the middle 50 percent of the scores on
each mode from the top 25 percent and the bottom 25 percent. Scores that fall in the top 25 percent
are considered high. Similarly, scores that fall in the bottom 25 percent are considered low. Scores that
fall in the middle 50 percent are considered medium. Look at your scores to see where they fall within
this range.

*The norm sample consisted of 4,000 women and 4,000 men, ages 20 through 70, who were employed full time in the United States. Data were drawn from a database of 59,000 cases
collected between 2002 and 2005 and were sampled to ensure representative numbers of people by organizational level and race/ethnicity.

Interpreting Your Scores
When you look at your profile on the TKI, you probably want to know, “What are the correct
answers?” In the case of conflict-handling behavior, there are no right or wrong answers. All five modes
are useful in some situations: each represents a set of useful social skills. Our conventional wisdom
recognizes, for example, that often “Two heads are better than one” (collaborating). But it also says,
“Kill your enemies with kindness” (accommodating), “Split the difference” (compromising), “Leave well
enough alone” (avoiding), and “Might makes right” (competing). The effectiveness of a given
conflict-handling mode depends on the requirements of the specific situation and the skill with which
you use that mode.

You are capable of using all five conflict-handling modes; you cannot be characterized as having a
single, rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, most people use some modes more readily than
others, develop more skills in those modes, and therefore tend to rely on them more heavily. Many have
a clear favorite. The conflict behaviors you use are the result of both your personal predispositions and
the requirements of the situations in which you find yourself.

The following pages provide feedback on your conflict-handling modes as indicated by your TKI scores,
beginning with your most frequently used mode, collaborating.

To help you judge how appropriate your use of the five modes is for your situation, this section lists a
number of uses for each mode. The uses are based on lists generated by company presidents. In
addition, because your predispositions may lead you to rely on some conflict behaviors more or less than
necessary, this section also lists some diagnostic questions concerning warning signs for the overuse or
underuse of each mode.

Collaborating

Percentile: 99%
Range: High

Uses
You may be using this mode most frequently because of the circumstances you face. A group of
company presidents identified the following situations as times when collaborating is especially useful
and effective:

� When you need to find an integrative solution and the concerns of both parties are too important to
be compromised

� When your objective is to learn and you wish to test your assumptions and understand others’ views

� When you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem

� When you want to gain commitment by incorporating others’ concerns into a consensual decision

� When you need to work through hard feelings that have been interfering with a relationship

Collaborating as a Style

Your frequent use of collaborating may also be part of a collaborating style you have developed to deal
with conflict. Styles are rooted in personal beliefs, values, and motives that “push” one’s conflict
behavior in a consistent direction.

Collaborators tend to see conflicts as problems to be solved, wanting quality decisions that truly resolve
the issues. They believe in the power of consensus and in sharing information and understandings. They
regard teammates as allies and tend to see people outside the team as potential allies. They build on
others’ ideas and listen well. Collaborators value innovation, open-mindedness, learning, and consensus.
They look for the value in what others say and combine that with their own insights to find win-win
solutions.*

*This style description is adapted with permission from Introduction to Conflict and Teams by Kenneth W. Thomas and Gail Fann Thomas (Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc., 2004).

Contributions of a Collaborating Style

Collaborators are helpful in reaching win-win solutions that provide a long-term resolution to a conflict
issue. They ask questions, listen to other points of view, and try to incorporate those viewpoints into a
richer, shared understanding. In the process, they aid open communication and learning. Often,
collaborators are able to find superior, high-quality solutions to important issues. They may be sources of
creativity and innovation. They help people air diverse views without putting anyone on the defensive.

Questions to Ask

The danger in any style is that you may use your preferred mode out of habit—even when it is not the
most appropriate mode. Because you scored in the high range on collaborating, there is a good chance
that you are overusing this conflict mode and underusing others. To help you determine if you are
overusing collaborating, consider the following questions:

Signs of overuse

� Do you sometimes spend time discussing issues in depth that don’t seem to warrant it?
Collaboration takes time and energy—perhaps the scarcest organizational resources. Trivial problems
don’t require optimal solutions, and not all personal differences need to be hashed out. The overuse
of collaboration and consensual decision making sometimes represents a desire to minimize risk—by
diffusing responsibility for a decision or by postponing action.

� Does your collaborative behavior fail to elicit collaborative responses from others?
The exploratory and tentative nature of some collaborative behavior may make it easy for others to
disregard your overtures or take advantage of the trust and openness you display. You may be
missing some cues that would indicate the presence of defensiveness, strong feelings, impatience,
competitiveness, or conflicting interests.

In contrast, the fact that you scored high on collaborating makes it unlikely that you are underusing this
mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of underuse in others:

Signs of underuse

� Having difficulty seeing differences as opportunities for joint gain, learning, or problem solving.
Although conflict situations often involve threatening or unproductive aspects, approaching all
conflicts with pessimism can prevent people from seeing collaborative possibilities and thus deprive
them of the mutual gains and satisfactions that accompany successful collaboration.

� Finding that others are uncommitted to one’s decisions or policies.
Perhaps their concerns are not being incorporated into those decisions or policies.

Competing

Percentile: 69%
Range: Medium

Uses
� When quick, decisive action is vital—for example, in an emergency

� On important issues when unpopular courses of action need implementing—for example, cost
cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline

� On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right

� When you need to protect yourself from people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior

Questions to Ask

Because you scored in the medium range on competing, there is little reason to suspect that you overuse
or underuse this mode in general. However, the questions below can help you determine if you are
overusing or underusing competing in specific situations.

Signs of overuse

� Are you surrounded by “yes” people?
If so, perhaps it’s because they have learned that it’s unwise to disagree with you or have given up
trying to influence you. This closes you off from information.

� Are others afraid to admit ignorance and uncertainties to you?
In a competitive climate, one must fight for influence and respect, acting more certain and confident
than one feels. This means that people are less able to ask for information and opinions—they are
less likely to learn.

Signs of underuse

� Do you often feel powerless in situations?
You may be unaware of the power you have, unskilled in its use, or uncomfortable with the idea of
using it. This may hinder your effectiveness by restricting your influence.

� Do you sometimes have trouble taking a firm stand, even when you see the need?
Sometimes concerns for others’ feelings or anxieties about the use of power cause people to
vacillate, which may result in postponing the decision and adding to the suffering and/or resentment
of others.

Accommodating

Percentile: 46%
Range: Medium

Uses
� When you realize that you are wrong—to allow a better solution to be considered, to learn from

others, and to show that you are reasonable

� When the issue is much more important to the other person than it is to you—to satisfy the needs of
others and as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship

� When you want to build up social credits for later issues that are important to you

� When you are outmatched and losing and more competition would only damage your cause

� When preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important

� When you want to help your employees develop by allowing them to learn from their mistakes

Questions to Ask

Because you scored in the medium range on accommodating, there is little reason to suspect that you
overuse or underuse this mode in general. However, the questions below can help you determine if you
are overusing or underusing accommodating in specific situations.

Signs of overuse

� Do you feel that your ideas and concerns sometimes don’t get the attention they deserve?
Deferring too much to the concerns of others can deprive you of influence, respect, and recognition.
It can also deprive the organization of your potential contributions.

� Is discipline lax?
Although discipline for its own sake may be of little value, some rules and procedures are crucial and
need to be enforced. Accommodating on these issues may harm you, others, or the organization.

Signs of underuse

� Do you sometimes have trouble building goodwill with others?
Accommodation on minor issues that are important to others is a gesture of goodwill.

� Do others sometimes seem to regard you as unreasonable?

� Do you occasionally have trouble admitting when you are wrong?

� Do you recognize legitimate exceptions to the rules?

� Do you know when to give up?

Avoiding

Percentile: 22%
Range: Low

Uses
� When an issue is unimportant or when other, more important issues are pressing

� When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns—for example, when you have low power
or you are frustrated by something that would be very difficult to change

� When the potential costs of confronting a conflict outweigh the benefits of its resolution

� When you need to let people cool down—to reduce tensions to a productive level and to regain
perspective and composure

� When gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an immediate decision

� When others can resolve the issue more effectively

� When the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another, more basic issue

Questions to Ask

Because you scored low on avoiding, there is a good chance that you are underusing this mode. To help
you determine whether that is the case, consider the following questions:

Signs of underuse

� Do you sometimes find yourself hurting people’s feelings or stirring up hostilities?
You may need to exercise more discretion and tact, framing issues in nonthreatening ways.

� Do you sometimes feel harried or overwhelmed by a number of issues?
You may need to devote more time to setting priorities—that is, deciding which issues are relatively
unimportant and perhaps delegating them to others.

In contrast, the fact that you scored low on avoiding makes it unlikely that you are overusing this mode.
However, you may be interested in these signs of overuse in others:

Signs of overuse

� Causing coordination to suffer because people have trouble getting one’s input on issues.

� Creating an atmosphere of “walking on eggshells.”
Sometimes a dysfunctional amount of energy is devoted to caution and avoiding issues, indicating
that those issues need to be faced and resolved.

� Decisions on important issues getting made by default.

Compromising

Percentile: 7%
Range: Low

Uses
� When goals are moderately important but not worth the effort or the potential disruption involved in

using more assertive modes

� When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals—as in
labor–management bargaining

� When you want to achieve a temporary settlement of a complex issue

� When you need to arrive at an expedient solution under time pressure

� As a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails

Questions to Ask

Because you scored low on compromising, there is a good chance that you are underusing this mode. To
help you determine whether that is the case, consider the following questions:

Signs of underuse

� Do you sometimes find yourself too sensitive or embarrassed to engage in the give-and-take of
bargaining?
This reticence can keep you from getting a fair share in negotiations—for yourself, your team, or
your organization.

� Do you sometimes find it difficult to make concessions?
Without this safety valve, you may have trouble gracefully getting out of mutually destructive
arguments, power struggles, and so on.

In contrast, the fact that you scored low on compromising makes it unlikely that you are overusing this
mode. However, you may be interested in these signs of overuse in others:

Signs of overuse

� Concentrating so heavily on the practicalities and tactics of compromise that one loses sight of larger
issues.
Neglected issues may include principles, values, long-term objectives, or company welfare.

� Creating a cynical climate of gamesmanship.
An emphasis on bargaining and trading may create a climate that undermines interpersonal trust
and deflects attention from the merits of the issues.

Change language: English Deutsch Español Nederlands

Your Results
Closed-Minded Open to New Experiences

Disorganized Conscientious
Introverted Extraverted

Disagreeable Agreeable
Calm / Relaxed Nervous / High-Strung

What aspects of personality does this tell me about?

There has been much research on how people describe others, and five major
dimensions of human personality have been found. They are often referred to
as the OCEAN model of personality, because of the acronym from the names
of the five dimensions. Here are your results:

Open-Mindedness

High scorers tend to be original, creative, curious, complex; Low scorers tend to beconventional, down to earth, narrow interests, uncreative.

You typically don’t seek out newexperiences.

(Your percentile: 43)

Conscientiousness

High scorers tend to be reliable, well-organized, self-disciplined, careful; Lowscorers tend to be disorganized, undependable, negligent.

You are very well-organized, and can berelied upon.

(Your percentile: 89)

Extraversion

High scorers tend to be sociable, friendly, fun loving, talkative; Low scorers tend tobe introverted, reserved, inhibited, quiet.

You are relatively social and enjoy thecompany of others.

(Your percentile: 65)

Agreeableness

High scorers tend to be good natured, sympathetic, forgiving, courteous; Lowscorers tend to be critical, rude, harsh, callous.

https://www.outofservice.com/

http://de.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?o=69,63,56&c=75,88,88&e=69,63,63&a=88,94,88&n=6,13,25&y=1950&g=f&srclang=en

http://es.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?o=69,63,56&c=75,88,88&e=69,63,63&a=88,94,88&n=6,13,25&y=1950&g=f&srclang=en

http://nl.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?o=69,63,56&c=75,88,88&e=69,63,63&a=88,94,88&n=6,13,25&y=1950&g=f&srclang=en

https://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/

You are good-natured, courteous, and
supportive.

(Your percentile: 92)

Negative Emotionality

High scorers tend to be nervous, high-strung, insecure, worrying; Low scorers tendto be calm, relaxed, secure, hardy.

You probably remain calm, even in tensesituations.

(Your percentile: 4)

Results Feedback

How useful did you find your results?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very Useful

What is the “Big Five”?

Personality psychologists are interested in what differentiates one person
from another and why we behave the way that we do. Personality research,
like any science, relies on quantifiable concrete data which can be used to
examine what people are like. This is where the Big Five plays an important
role.

The Big Five was originally derived in the 1970’s by two independent
research teams — Paul Costa and Robert McCrae (at the National Institutes of
Health), and Warren Norman (at the University of Michigan)/Lewis Goldberg
(at the University of Oregon) — who took slightly different routes at arriving
at the same results: most human personality traits can be boiled down to five
broad dimensions of personality, regardless of language or culture. These five
dimensions were derived by asking thousands of people hundreds of
questions and then analyzing the data with a statistical procedure known as
factor analysis. It is important to realize that the researchers did not set out to
find five dimensions, but that five dimensions emerged from their analyses of
the data. In scientific circles, the Big Five is now the most widely accepted
and used model of personality (though of course many other systems are used
in pop psychology and work contexts; e.g., the MBTI).

What do the scores tell me?

In order to provide you with a meaningful comparison, the scores you
received have been converted to “percentile scores.” This means that your
personality score can be directly compared to another group of people who
have also taken this personality test. The percentile scores show you where
you score on each personality dimension relative to other people, taking into
account normal differences in gender and age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysis

For example, your Extraversion percentile score is 65, which means that
about 65 percent of the people in the comparison sample are less extraverted
than you. In other words, you are rather extroverted as compared to them.
Keep in mind that these percentile scores are relative to our particular sample
of people. Thus, your percentile scores may differ if you were compared to
another sample (e.g., elderly British people).

Where can I learn more?

If you’d like to learn more about personality psychology, take a look at these
links to other personality sites on the web. Take a look at our homepage for
more tests!

How do I save my results? How can I share them?

You can bookmark or share the link to this page. The URL for this page
contains only the data needed to show your results and none of your private
responses. Save this URL now, as you won’t be able to get back to this
page after closing it: https://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?
o=69,63,56&c=75,88,88&e=69,63,63&a=88,94,88&n=6,13,25&y=1950&g=f

For classroom activities: sometimes educators ask students to use this site
for classroom projects and need the “raw” scores. Your raw scores,
normalized 0 to 1: o: 0.63, c: 0.84, e: 0.65, a: 0.90, n: 0.15

https://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/info/

https://www.outofservice.com/

https://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?o=69,63,56&c=75,88,88&e=69,63,63&a=88,94,88&n=6,13,25&y=1950&g=f

AmericanJournal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 459

Comparing Correlations Between

Four-Quadrant And Five-Factor

Personality Assessments
Cathleen S. Jones, Robert Morris University, USA

Nell T. Hartley, Robert Morris University, USA

ABSTRACT

For decades, some of the most popular devices used in educating students and employees to the

values of diversity are those that are based on a four-grid identification of behavior style. The

results from the scoring of the instruments provide individual profiles in terms of a person’s

assertiveness, responsiveness, and preferred tone of interacting with his environment. In the past

decade, a five-factor framework has gained in popularity as an assessment instrument. The scope

of the current paper is a comparison of a four-factor instrument (questionnaire) to a five-factor

instrument (questionnaire) to establish correlations between the two. If the information can be

seen as being complimentary rather than disconnected, then users will benefit from synergy as

they encounter different instruments throughout their careers. Also, duplication of effort in terms

of using multiple instruments may be reduced.

Keywords: Personality Assessment; DISC; Five-Factor Model; Education; Organizational Behavior

INTRODUCTIO

eople have always tried, through anecdotal evidence, to make assumptions and develop myths and

superstitions that impact their lives (example: money can buy happiness . . . as long as you spend it

on other people). The importance of individuality in understanding behavior is best expressed by

Kurt Lewin, a neo-gestalt, in his formula: B=f(e x p). The behavior of any one person is due to who he is and the

environment in which he finds himself. While it is human nature to observe and pass judgment (categorize) the

people with whom we interact, based on anecdotal evidence, science offers a more reliable way of assessing others

and ourselves. Lewin was at the forefront of scholars who believed that a basic purpose of any science is to develop

theory. Theories are carefully worded statements specifying relations among variables that explain and predict what

will happen. In this paper, we seek to relate theory to practice. The purpose of one is to generate knowledge; the

purpose of the other is to be able to put the knowledge into practice (Sanderlands n.d.). Our understanding of the

transfer of knowledge encourages us to explore ways in which commonalities of theories lead to comprehension and

practice of knowledge.

In this paper, the micro unit of behavioral study is that of individual personality. Personality instruments

provide individual profiles in terms of a person’s assertiveness, approach to decision-making, responsiveness, and

preferred style of interacting with his environment. The two instruments being compared are the four-quadrant

Jungian-based DiSC and the Five-factor Model of Personality.

PURPOSE

Around 80 percent of the Fortune 500 companies use personality tests, such as the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator, to assess their employees for the purpose of coaching, development, and team building (Dattner, 2008). A

review of the literature supports the need for understanding and validating this popular practice.

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/personality

http://www.cpp.com/products/mbti/index.asp

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/coaching

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/teamwork

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

460 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute

The underlying assumed value of using personal assessments in class is that an understanding of the

knowledge provided will enable the person to become closer to reaching his full potential. Jung predicted

“…modern man can only know himself insofar as he can become conscious of himself” (Jung, 1957, 79). Having

an objective – if not always a 100% accurate descriptive theory of one’s self and the impact that one has on others –

may influence our interpersonal skill acquisition. Personality research supports the theory that recognition of one’s

preferred behavior and preferred environment influences the challenges one accepts and the decisions one is most

likely to make. “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” (Lewin, 1951, 100). The caveat here is that the

knowledge in no way determines what we are able to do.

An increased synergy is anticipated through the generalizations that apply to the results of this study.

Perspectives on learning, leadership, conflict resolution, and communication are natural extensions of personality

awareness. The instruments are based on theories. The reader is reminded that the point of this paper is not to

question the theories, but rather to show the similarities in them and their root derivation. Scholars have shown that

positive transfer occurs when learning in one context improves performance in another context (Perkins, 1992, 3);

i.e., a student who learns in one class that his style tends toward that of a “High I, High S” can build on that

information in a subsequent corporate training session where the trainer prefers to use the Five-factor vocabulary of

“Extravert, Agreeable.” Furthermore, the knowledge of “type/style” will help him further in understanding and/or

communicating with a difficult co-worker who defiantly says, “You just don’t understand me; I’m an ISTJ.”

The

work by Allesandre – the discussion of a “Platinum Rule” – is an additional logical extension of the use of the

theories.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Writings which span popular and scholarly work exhort the importance of self-knowledge. Three such

scholars are Peter Senge, Daniel Goleman, and Peter Drucker. Peter Senge, in his well-received materials on

“learning organizations”, writes on the importance of the personal mastery which is defined as “learning to expand

our personal capacity to create the results we most desire, and creating an organizational environment which

encourages all its members” (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, pg. 6). It is his belief that people with a

high level of personal mastery achieve results that matter most to them personally. “People who excel in these skills

(personal awareness) do well at anything that relies on interacting smoothly with others; they are social stars”

(Goleman, 1995, 43-44). “And yet, a person can perform only from strength. One cannot build performance on

weaknesses, let alone on something one cannot do (or be) at all.” (Drucker 2005, 100)

Conventional wisdom is that each of us is unique because no environmental experiences of the genetic pool

are the same for any two people. Our personalities are an important determinant of our behavior. “Because

personality is an important determinant of how a person thinks, feels, and behaves, it is helpful to distinguish

between different types of personalities.” (Staw, 2004, p. 7) This idiographic research seeks to correlate data from

two differently constructed assessment tools – the four-quadrant DiSC and the Five-factor Personality Assessment.

As early as 400 BC, Hippocrates was trying to categorize personality types in an effort to understand individual

differences. It was a more recent scholar – Carl Jung – who discovered that one’s psychological make-up,

“temperament”, “style”, or “type” influences and limits one’s judgment and establishes one’s relationship to the

world. Over 1,400 dissertations, theses, books, and journal and newspaper articles have been published on these

personal inventories. The fundamental assumption behind identifying core responses and needs is that what may

seem like a random variation in behavior (i.e., clean car vs. dirty car people) occurs not by accident but by

observable differences in mental functioning – the way in which people prefer to gather, process, and disseminate

information.

Despite the variety of names used in the four-quadrant instruments to connote a person’s place in the grids

(Otter, INTF, Compliant, Color Yellow) and the proliferation of instruments, there is no appreciable difference in

concept and/or information (Motley & Hartley, 2005). There is alignment in information provided. The four-

quadrant instrument used in this research is the DiSC which takes its name from four basic types of behavior –

dominance, influencing, steadiness, and compliance. The current version is based on the works of Swiss

Psychologist Carl Jung and, later, by Americans William Marston, Walter Clark, Jack Mohler, and Tom Ritt (Ritt,

1980). The Personal DiSC Concept derives its underpinnings from William Marston, a physiological psychologist

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 461

writing in the 1920s and 1930s. The DiSC instrument measures surface traits and is intended to explain how they

lead to behavioral differences among individuals (Inscape Publishing, 1996).

In building on Jung’s theory of personality, Marston was concerned primarily with improving human

relationships. “Dr. Marston intended to explain how normal human emotions lead to behavioral differences among

people as well as to changes in a person’s behavior from time to time. His work focused on finding practical

explanations that would help people understand and manage their experiences in the world.” (Inscape Publishing,

1996, Pg. 2) “Marston sought to explain how people adjust to tensions within the environment by looking at their

emotional response to it and then relating this response to behavior.

Described on the discinsights.com website as the most universally accepted test for determining human

behavior, the four quadrants for the DISC personality test are:

 Drive/Dominance (D) – task-oriented, fast-mover, bottom-line-oriented

 Influence (I) – people-oriented, energetic, desire popularity and praise

 Steadiness (S) – very people and family-oriented, motivated by loyalty and security, slower-moving

 Compliance/Conscientiousness (C) – task and detail-oriented, wants all information, slower-moving

The DISC personality test has been taken by more than 50 million people and published in books that

appear in 35 languages (Harlow, T., 2009, October 9). “Studies have revealed that more than 81% of a participant’s

colleagues see DISC Assessment as a very accurate picture of a person’s habitual behavior patterns. Among those

who are primarily “D” in their style, accuracy is rated at 91%; for “I” types, it is 94%. Primarily, “S” type

individuals perceive 85% accuracy, while for “C” types, it is 82%. This gives us an 88.49% perceived accuracy,

with a standard deviation of 6.43%. In other words, the DISC Profile generated by this process is perceived as

highly accurate, in most situations, by most participants” (Personality Insights).

The Five-factor Theory, also known as the Five-factor Model (FFM) or the OCEAN, is based on research

into the concept of grouping of personality descriptors that began as early as 1917 (Goldberg, 1992). Years of

scrutinizing and testing the evolving theory provided a platform for the current model based primarily on the work

of Costa and McCrae. Their work in 1992 benefitted from the work of many independent researchers who had

begun to study known personality traits in order to find the underlying factors of personality (Digman, 1990). The

five factors are in a hierarchy and on a continuum. The theory addresses the relative presence of the following five

traits:

• Openness – open-minded, an interest in art, emotional, adventurous, new ideas, and curiosity
• Conscientiousness – typically self-disciplined, results-oriented and structured, traditional, and dutiful
• Extraversion – high energy level, people person, extrovert, and gets stimulated by being around others
• Agreeableness – compassionate, cooperative, ability to forgive and being pragmatic; let’s get the thing

done

• Neuroticism – sensible, vulnerable, in extreme – emotionally unstable and neurotic

Tables 1 and 2 contain a summary of a literature review presenting the advantages of the DISC personality

assessment and the Five-factor Model.

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

462 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute

Table 1: Advantages of DISC Personality Assessment

Advantages Citation(s)

Frequently used by business organizations Reynierse, J. H., Ackerman, D., Fink, A. A., & Harker, J. B.

(2000). The effects of personality and management role on

perceived values in business settings. International Journal of

Value – Based Management, 13(1), 1-13.

Easy to administer and interpret -Slowikowski, M. (2005). Using the DISC behavioral

instrument to guide leadership and communication. AORN

Journal, 82(5), 835. doi:10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60276-7

-The benefits of using Disc (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/benefits.htm

-Spies, R. A., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2005). The sixteenth

mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute

of Mental Measurements

Has been shown to be a predictor of success in areas such as

employee retention, job success, sales management, and

persuading patients to accept treatment plans that are essential

for their health and well-being

Deviney, D., Mills, L. H., & Gerlich, R. (2010). Environmental

impacts on GPA for accelerated schools: A values and

behavioral approach. Journal Of Instructional Pedagogies, 31-

15.

Proven to be reliable and consistent (2005). Disc validation research report. Inscape Publishing, 1-

22. Retrieved from http://www.discprofile.com/cart/includes/

templates/ppsi/pdfs/1.0/ResearchDiSC_ValidationResearchRe

port

Provides three perspectives: personal, private, and public

which presents a more rounded view of personality

Motley, 2005

Table 2: Advantages of Five-factor Model

Advantages Citation(s)

Able to better understand people who score in the middle range

(in comparison to MBTI (Myer Briggs Type Indicator))

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The

relationship between the myers-briggs type indicator (mbti)

and neo-pi five-factor model of personality. Pergamon, 21(2),

303-307.

The FFM has been the most widely accepted working

hypothesis of personality structure (1997)

(McCrae & Costa, 1997)

Evidence exists for the criterion-related validity of scores on

FFM measures

Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Ehrhart, M. G., & Kilian, B.

(2008). A test of the factor structure equivalence of the 50-

item ipip five-factor model measure across gender and ethnic

groups. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 507-516.

Equivalent translations exist in half a dozen languages which

permits wider cross-cultural universality

Thalmayer, A., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011).

Comparative validity of Brief to Medium-Length Big Five

and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological

Assessment, 23(4), 995-1009. doi:10.1037/a0024165

Faculty Survey

To confirm the use of personality tests as assessment instruments in courses, a short survey of university

faculty was conducted. An email with a link to the survey was sent and 67 completed responses were received

during the data collection period of September 8-13, 2011.

The sample consisted of 38 women (57.6%) and 28 men (42.4%). Of the sample, 93.8% (61respondents)

listed their highest degree completed as a doctoral. The highest level degree was in Business (68.2%, 45

respondents) and the remaining 31.8% was evenly split between Education, Psychology, and Other. Responses to

the question about years teaching at the college/university level were fairly evenly split among the categories as

shown in Table 3. The survey respondents make up a good representation of university faculty, primarily in the

Business area.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/benefits.htm

http://www.discprofile.com/cart/includes/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 463

Table 3: Years Teaching
Frequency Percent

Valid

0-9 18 26.9

10-19 18 26.9

20-29 13 19.4

30+ 17 25.4

Total 66 98.5

Missing System 1 1.5

Total 67 100.0

Fifty-six respondents (83.6%) indicated that they administered personality tests in their courses. Those

who did not stated a variety of reasons, ranging from a lack of understanding of the test instruments to doubt about

the validity to concern about the impact on the students or the course, to an objection to the cost which would not be

reimbursed.

As shown in Table 4, Organizational Behavior was the most frequent response for the question about

courses in which the personality tests were administered, which is not surprising since the prospective respondents

were recruited from an Organizational Behavior-related email list.

Table 4: Course in Which Tests were Administered

# %

Organizational Behavior 44 65.7%

Principles of Management 12 17.9%

Freshman Experience 5 7.5%

Other 16 23.9%

A variety of personality tests was administered by the faculty responding to the survey. As seen in Table 5,

of the two personality instruments discussed in this article, the Big 5 was used much more widely than the DISC

personality test. Results were much more evenly split in terms of how many textbooks included personality tests.

According to the respondents, 59.1% (39) of their textbooks included personality tests.

Table 5: Type of Personality Test/Social Inventory Administered

# %

Myers-Briggs 35 52.2%

Big 5 27 40.3%

DISC 4 6%

Other 20 29.9%

Examining the results of the question of which personality tests are included in textbooks (Figure 1) helps

to explain the results for which personality tests are administered in courses. Of the textbooks that included

personality tests, the majority were Myers-Briggs and/or Big 5. From this brief survey, evidence exists that

personality tests are used in numerous courses.

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

464 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute

Figure 1: Name of Personality Tests/Social Inventories Included in Textbooks

Although the DISC personality assessment received a low number of responses for personality instruments

used in class and personality tests included in the textbook, it is used extensively in industry. Apparently, university

faculties are administering the Big 5 more often in class, but the DISC personality assessment is being used more by

industry. The question then presents itself as to whether knowledge of the Big 5 (Five-factory Theory Model) has

any transferability if students are presented with the DISC personality test at their jobs. The focus of the remaining

analysis will address this question and seek to determine if there is enough of a correlation between these two

personality instruments that knowledge of one instrument will inform people about the other personality test.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

During a semester-long undergraduate course in Organizational Behavior at a small Northeastern

university, students completed multiple personal assessments. Two of the assessment instruments used were the

“Personal Concept” – also known as DISC by Jack Mohler – and the Five-factor Theory taken from a standard

textbook in Organizational Behavior. Students used unidentifiable code names and recorded the scores for both

instruments. Scores were plotted anonymously. Gender and major were self-reported.

Subjects

People involved in filling out the instruments were participants in an undergraduate class in which the use

of instruments is a central part of the learning experience. All students in the class filled out both personality

instruments. Eighty-nine out of the 110 students reported the results of both personality instruments (approximately

81% of the class). Recording the scores of the instruments is voluntary.

Sample Description

As shown in Table 6, the sample is weighted more heavily toward men than women – almost a 60/40 split;

however, the composition of the class was more male than female. Thus, the sample is a good representation of the

class and both genders were adequately represented. The majority of respondents were management and marketing

students, making up 61.8% of the sample. The breakdown of the majors in the student sample is shown in Table 7.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 465

Table 6: Gender of Respondents
Frequency Percent

Male 55 61.8

Female 32 36.0

Missing 2 2.2

Total 89 100.0

Table 7: Student Major

Number of Respondents Percent of Sample

Accounting 14 15.7

Finance 5 5.6

Hospitality and Tourism Management 3 3.4

Management 34 38.2

Marketing 21 23.6

Sports Management 6 6.7

Other (non-business) 4 4.4

Missing 2 2.2

Total 89 100.0

HYPOTHESES

Overall Hypothesis

There is a strong similarity in the characteristics represented in the four quads theories as represented by

DISC and in the Five-factor theory.

Hypothesis Formation

Hypotheses were formed by comparing the adjectives used to assess each respondent’s personality style,

(Hunter Wells International, 2005; Andre, R., 2008). Synonyms were compared and grouped together as shown in

Tables 8 and 9.

Table 8: DISC Adjectives

D I S C

forceful expressive restrained compliant

Strong-minded emotional satisfied careful

pioneering influential Easy mark correct

domineering attractive willing precise

determined stimulating Even-tempered fussy

demanding captivating patient timid

Self-reliant companionable kind Open-minded

persistent playful Self-controlled agreeable

High-spirited talkative Good-natured Soft-spoken

impatient convincing contented resigned

aggressive Good mixer gentle respectful

nervy poised accommodating conventional

argumentative confident relaxed cooperative

restless inspiring considerate Well-disciplined

courageous optimistic sympathetic diplomatic

positive eager lenient exacting

adventurous enthusiastic loyal adaptable

Will power entertaining Good listener humble

competitive Life-of-the-party obedient tolerant

vigorous persuasive neighborly cautious

outspoken eloquent reserved strict

dogged animated obliging devout

assertive gregarious nonchalant docile

bold outgoing moderate perfectionist

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

466 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute

Table 9: Five-factor Model Adjectives
Introversion/Passivity Extraversion/Energy Conscientious Undirected

Retiring Sociable Well organized Disorganized

Sober Fun-loving Careful Careless

Reserved Affectionate Reliable Undependable

Aloof Friendly Punctual Late

Inhibited Spontaneous Self-reliant Dependent

Quiet Talkative Businesslike Playful

Passive Active Persevering Quitting

Loner Joiner Hardworking Lazy

Task-oriented Person-oriented Practical Impractical

Follower Leader Conscientious Negligent

Traditional (closed) Adventurous (open) Stable Emotional

Conventional Original Calm Worrying

Down-to-earth Imaginative Relaxed High-strung

Uncreative Creative Even-tempered Temperamental

Narrow interests Broad interests Secure Insecure

Not curious Curious Patient Impatient

Unadventurous Daring Not envious Envious, jealous

Conforming Independent Adaptable Vulnerable

Prefer routine Prefer variety Objective Subjective

Traditional Untraditional Comfortable Self-conscious

Inartistic Artistic Self-satisfied Self-pitying

Tough-minded Agreeable

Critical Lenient

Serious Cheerful

Competitive Cooperative

Skeptical Trusting

Argumentative Agreeable

Stubborn Flexible

Egocentric Selfless

Cynical Gullible

Manipulative Straightforward

Proud Humble

Adjectives were compared to each other. Some of the adjectives were exact matches and some were found

using http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com to find synonyms. Remaining synonyms not found on the website, but

determined to be logical matches, were also included. Symbols for the Hypothesis tables are:

 Synonyms were checked with http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com.

 *synonyms found in http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com

 +not found on synonym website, but considered to be a logical match

From the comparison of adjectives for both personality assessment instruments, the hypotheses shown in

Table 10 emerged.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 467

Table 10: Hypothesis Formation

Five-Factor Adjectives DISC Adjectives Hypotheses

Adventurous D Hypothesis #1: The ranking of D is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Adventurous.
Adventurous Adventurous

Original Pioneering

Daring Courageous*, Adventurous+, Bold*

Independent Self-reliant

Tough-minded D Hypothesis #2: The ranking of D is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Tough-minded.
Tough-minded Willpower+

Competitive Aggressive+

Argumentative Competitive+

Stubborn Forceful

Egocentric Argumentative

Proud Determined

Extraversion I Hypothesis #3: The ranking of I is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Extraversion.
Extraversion Outgoing

Sociable Companionable, Good mixer+, Gregarious,

Neighborly*

Fun-loving Entertaining+, Life-of-the-party+

Friendly Outgoing*

Talkative Talkative

Leader Influential+

Persuasive+

Agreeable S Hypothesis #4: The ranking of S is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Agreeable.
Lenient Lenient

Cooperative Accommodating*, Obliging+

Agreeable Kind, Good-natured, Considerate+

Gullible Easy mark+

Stable S Hypothesis #5: The ranking of S is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Stable.
Even-tempered Even-tempered

Patient Patient, Gentle

Not envious Contented+

Comfortable Relaxed

Self-satisfied Contented+

Introversion/Passivity C Hypothesis #6: The ranking of C is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Introversion.
Retiring Timid*

Quiet Soft-spoken+

Follower Compliant+

Conscientious C Hypothesis #7: The ranking of C is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Conscientious.
Careful Careful

Cautious*

Conscientious Precise+, Fussy+

Stable C Hypothesis #8: The ranking of C is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Stable.
Calm Resigned*

Even-tempered Docile+

Adaptable Adaptable

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Data consisted of the actual scores for the Five-factor Model and a ranking of the DISC factors. Because

one of the variables (DISC) was ordinal in nature, a Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to test the

hypotheses (Tables 11 and 12). For the correlations, only the left factors were included for the Five-factor Model

(FFM). The FFM left factors are the opposite of the right factors, so it was not considered necessary to test both

sides.

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

468 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute

Table 11: Correlation Matrix (Big Five With DISC)
Ranking for

D I S C

Big 5

Factor One LEFT

Introversion/Passivity

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

.023

.846

-.383**

.001

.063

.583

.300**

.008

76
Big 5

Factor Two LEFT

Traditional (closed)

Correlation coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

-.126

.275

-.251*

.029

.234*

.040

.175

.131

76
Big 5

Factor Three LEFT

Tough-minded

Correlation coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.278*

.014

-.114

.327

-.308**

.006

.157

.175
76
Big 5

Factor Four LEFT

Conscientious

Correlation coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

-.039

.737

-.196

.090

.054

.639

.185

.110

76
Big 5

Factor Five LEFT

Stable

Correlation coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

-.297**

.009

-.032

.781

.275*

.016

77
.008

.946

Total N 86 85 86 85

*Correlations are significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

**Correlations are significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

Note: The results were also examined using Kendall’s Tau-b and yielded the same results, so only the Spearman rank correlation

coefficient results are presented here.

Table 12: Results Of Hypothesis Testing: Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient

Hypothesis #1: The ranking of D is positively

correlated with the ranking of Adventurous.

Not supported: No significant correlation was found.

Hypothesis #2: The ranking of D is positively

correlated with the ranking of Tough-minded.

Supported: A significant positive correlation existed between the

ranking of Tough-minded and D was .278* which was significant at

the .05 level.

Hypothesis #3: The ranking of I is positively correlated

with the ranking of Extraversion.

Supported: I was negatively correlated with Introversion (the opposite

of Extraversion) at the .01 level. The correlation was -.383**.

Hypothesis #4: The ranking of S is positively correlated

with the ranking of Agreeable.

Supported: S was significantly negatively correlated with Tough-

minded at the level of .01 (correlation = -.308). This hypothesis was

supported since Tough-minded is the opposite of Agreeable.

Hypothesis #5: The ranking of S is positively correlated

with the ranking of Stable.

Supported: S was positively correlated with the ranking of Stable

(correlation = .275*; significant at the .05 level).

Hypothesis #6: The ranking of C is positively

correlated with the ranking of Introversion.

Supported: The correlation = .300**; significant at the .01 level.

Hypothesis #7: The ranking of C is positively

correlated with the ranking of Conscientious.

Not supported: no significant correlation found

Hypothesis #8: The ranking of C is positively

correlated with the ranking of Stable.

Not supported: No significant correlation was found.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

 D was significantly negatively correlated at the .01 level with the ranking of Stable (correlation = -.297**).

 I was significantly negatively correlated at the .05 level with the ranking of Traditional (correlation = –
.251*).

 S was significantly positively correlated at the .05 level with the ranking of Traditional (correlation =
.234*).

CONCLUSIONS

Eight significant correlations between the Five-factor Model and the DISC personality assessment were

uncovered. Each correlation was consistent with both theories, including the additional correlations which were

found to be significant. No significant correlations contradicted any of the hypotheses. Therefore, a significant

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

2013 The Clute Institute Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 469

correlation exists between the Five-factor Model and the DISC personality assessment. The logical conclusion is

that knowledge of one of these personality assessments does provide information about the other. An understanding

of the Five-factor Theory Model used more widely in the classroom (according to the survey of university

professors) is likely to help the student understand the DISC personality assessment used more widely in industry.

Knowledge transferability appears to exist at least at some level for these two instruments. Josh Bersin, president

and CEO of Bersin & Associates, an Oakland, Calif., research firm stated, “Personality tests are ‘growing like

wildfire … the employment assessment market overall is worth about $2 billion, up 15 percent from last year.”

(Tahmincioglu, 2011) Also, as seen in the survey of university faculty, the majority of teachers (83.6%) use

personality assessments as part of their course content. Considering the wide use of personality tests at universities

and in the business world, the results of this analysis provide practical application for students seeking to apply what

they have learned at university to the working world. This study has provided recognition that multiple instruments

provide feedback that is complimentary. It is anticipated that with this new knowledge and synergistic application,

the Extravert/lion may actually lie down with the Intravert/lamb.”

FUTURE RESEARCH

Because the study only examined two personality assessments, a natural subject for further study would be

to analyze correlations between additional personality assessment instruments. Of particular interest would be if the

Five-factor Theory and the DISC personality assessment instrument were correlated with the Myers Briggs test

which was used the most by sample respondents (52.2%). Another direction for further research is to document the

connection between the personality descriptors and those describing conflict, learning, leadership, and

communication.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Cathleen S. Jones is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Robert Morris University specializing in Marketing

Research, Social Media for Marketing, and International Marketing. She holds a Doctor of Science in Information

Systems and Communication from Robert Morris University, an MBA from the Tepper School at Carnegie Mellon

University, and a BA from Westminster College. Her doctoral field project examined the role of health information

and health icons on restaurant menus on restaurant patrons’ food choices. Other areas of interest include working

with Engineering on collaborative interdisciplinary projects and consulting with small businesses and the FDA. E-

mail: jones@rmu.edu (Corresponding author)

Nell Tabor Hartley is University Professor of Management at Robert Morris University. She has taught in the

Graduate School of Education and recently taught in Europe. She holds a B.A. from Agnes Scott College; M.S. from

University of Illinois, and Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University. A focus of her teaching and corporate consulting is

recognition and utilization of individual differences. She has twice received the president’s top teaching award. She

is an elected board member of Organizational Behavior Teaching Society and on the editorial board of Journal of

Management History. E-mail: hartley@rmu.edu

REFERENCES

1. Andre, R. (2008). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Eduction, Inc.
2. Andre, R. (2011). Enhancing the practical application of Five-Factor personality theory. In Int. J.

Management Practice Vol. 4 (pp. 360-375).

3. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Salgado, J. (1997). The Five-factor Model of Personality and Job
Performance in the Eurpoean Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82.

4. Donner, B. (2008) “Why many companies use some personality assessments and not others” Retrieved
from www.psychologytoday.com/…/the-use-and-misuse-personality-tests-

5. Drucker, P. F. (2002). Managing Oneself in Harvard Business Review on Managing Your Carrer. Harvard
Business School (Reprint 99204).

6. Drucker, P. F. (2005). Managing Oneself. Harvard Business Review, 100-109.

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

mailto:jones@rmu.edu

mailto:hartley@rmu.edu

http://www.psychologytoday.com/…/the-use-and-misuse-personality-tests-

American Journal Of Business Education – July/August 2013 Volume 6, Number 4

470 Copyright by author(s) Creative Commons License CC-BY 2013 The Clute Institute

7. Fasihizadeh, N., Oreyzi, H., & Nouri, A. (2012). The Relationship between Dominance, Influence,
Steadiness and Conscientiousness (DISC personality profiler) with Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBIT)

among the Personnel of One Industrial Company. EuroJournals Publishing, Inc, 95-104.

8. Formerly, C. (1996). SiSC Classic and Models of Personality. Inscape Publishing.
9. George, J. (1992). The Role of Personality in Organizational Life; Issues and Evidence. Journal of

Management, 18(2): 185-213.

10. Goleman, D. (1994). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, New York:
Bantam Books.

11. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. In D. Goleman. New York, New York: Bantam Books.
12. Golberg, L. R, (1992) The Development of Markers for the Big Five-factor Structure. Psychological

Assessment, (4): 26-42

13. Hergenhahn, B., & Olson, M. (2007). An Introduction to Theories of Personality . Prentice Hall: Pearson
Education.

14. Hunter Wells International, 1976, revised 2005. 115 5
th

Green Court Atlanta, GA. 30350.

15. Jung, C. (1953). Two essays on analystical psychology. In A. M. Forham, H. Read, & C. Jung. New York:
Pantheon Books.

16. Jung, C. (1957). The Undiscovered Self. New York, New York: First Signet Printing.
17. Jung, C. (n.d.). The Undiscovered Self.
18. Kiersey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please Understand Me. Character & Tempperament Types. Del Mar,

California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

19. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Scince; selected theoretical papers. New York, New York:
Harper & Row.

20. Marston, Moulton, & William. (1928). Emotions of Normal People. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
21. Mohler, J., & Ritt, T. (1980). Personal Concept. Garwood, New Jersey: Self-Published.
22. Montgomery, S. (2002). People Patterns – A Modern Guide to the Four Temperaments . Archer

Publications.

23. Motley, D., & Hartley, N. (2005). The changing role of personality instruments in assessing behavior in the
classroom. Teaching Economics: Instruction and Classroom-Based Research. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:

Society for the Advancement of Management.

24. Munkasey, M. (n.d.). Personality Types, A Commentary on Human Differences. The ISAR International
Society for Astrological Research fil://H:/history.htm

25. Myers-Briggs, I. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
26. Personality Insights. (n.d.). Retrieved February 28, 2013, from What is DiSC Personality Test?:

http://www.lifeandleadership.com/personality-test-disc-profile/

27. Powell, R. R. (n.d.). History of Personality Theory. Retrieved from
http://armchair_armchairacademic.homestead.com/HistoryPER ns4.html

28. Ritt, T (1980) Understanding Yourself and Then Others. Ocean, New Jersey, People Concepts
29. Rotter, J. (n.d.). Social Learning Theory. Retrieved from

http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/APPsych/psychos/rotter.html

30. Sanderlands, L. E. (n.d.). What is So Practical about Theory? Lewin Revisited. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behavior .

31. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New
York, New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

32. Staw, B. M. (2004). Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson Education.

33. Tahmincioglu, E. (2011, August 8). Employers turn to tests to weed out job seekers. Retrieved 2012, from
Careers on NBC News: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44120975/ns/business-

personal_finance/#.USKZa7_6M7A

34. The Benefits of Using DiSC. (n.d.). Retrieved from discprofile: http://www.discprofile.com/what-is-
disc/benefits.htm

35. Thesaurus. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://www.cluteinstitute.com/

http://www.lifeandleadership.com/personality-test-disc-profile/

http://armchair_armchairacademic.homestead.com/HistoryPER%20ns4.html

http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/APPsych/psychos/rotter.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44120975/ns/business-personal_finance/#.USKZa7_6M7A

http://www.discprofile.com/what-is-disc/benefits.htm

http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Conflict Management Style Orientation Scale

To calculate your score, we grouped the questions according to 5 conflict management styles and totaled the numerical values of your answers. Higher scores indicate that you are stronger in that particular style. Within a given style, 15 is the maximum possible score and 3 is the minimum.

Statements Totaled Score

Competing 1, 9, 12 8

Accommodating 2, 7, 11 7

Compromising 3, 6, 15 10

Avoiding 4, 8, 14 4

Collaboration 5, 10, 13 14

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ M4 A1 DISCUSSION ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now