Skip to content

The CD Style – An Everything DiSC® Podcast

© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 1The CD Style – An Everything DiSC® PodcastNarrator: The following podcast by Dr. Mark Scullard describes the CD style. It is anEverything DiSC® production brought to you by Wiley.Dr. Mark Scullard: All right, so we’re going to spend some time talking about the C Dstyle, which is a blend of conscientiousness and dominance, and if you have a C D style,I think probably what you’re going to find is that, you know, maybe, you know, roughly70, 80 percent of what we’re going to be talking here will probably fit for you. And, youknow, some of it would be spot on. There’ll be some of it that feels like, yeah, that’s notreally me or maybe even, yeah, well, that sounds like me when I was younger. But Ithink the value here is more about listening for those insights that really help you makesense of your past experience or really help you see your thought processes or yourhabits in a new light. So we’re going to take a look at all of these different characteristicsassociated with this CD style, things like being strong critical thinkers, like being toughminded, you know, being determined, and there’s one underlying theme that really tiesthem all together.It’s probably the most pronounced characteristic that separates people with this stylefrom the average person. And it’s this fundamental sense of skepticism. It’s aperspective that says: the world isn’t necessarily always the most friendly place. Youknow, it’s not always well meaning. There are a lot of people out there who justshouldn’t be trusted, you know, some because they’re not honest, but, you know, somebecause they’re just not capable or because they’re lazy or because they’re selfish. So,generally speaking, the C D style tends to be a little bit more wary of the world. And thisoutlook, which I’ll talk about throughout this podcast, this outlook is the source of someof the C D’s greatest strengths and greatest assets, but it’s also the source of some of itsgreatest challenges.
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 2So using that as a foundation, there are kind of these three central needs that stem fromthis, what I’ll call kind of core psychological needs, and the first one is this: it’s a—astrong need to be competent. If I’m in a world that’s filled with dishonesty or ineptitudeor, you know, poor decision making, I need to be able to rely on myself. And to do that, Ineed to be competent. So I set my standards high for myself and I also set mystandards high for the people around me. If I’m going to trust you and respect you,you’re going to need to measure up to these standards. And that being said, thestandards that I set for myself are usually far higher than those I set for anyone else. Sothat’s the need for competency. A second related need is a need for control.If there’s a lot of sketchiness out there in the world, I need to be able to control thevariables that affect my fate: not everything or everyone, but if something has the powerto shape the course of my life, I want influence over that thing. And when I don’t havethat control, when I don’t have any way to regain it, it’s very unnerving. I’m left in kind ofan uneasy state because who knows what can happen. All right. So that’s the need forcontrol. And then the last, very similar to control, is a need to not be vulnerable. Again, ifwe’ve got an untrustworthy world, it’s not exactly wise to make yourself vulnerable on aregular basis. So when we actually do survey people with the C D style, they’re muchmore likely to identify themselves as being a little bit more guarded or standoffish.And like most psychological characteristics there, there are some positive things thatcome from this, but there are also some negative things that stem from this. All—allright, so that’s competence, control, and what I’ll call non-vulnerability. And as we talkabout this style, you’ll see these three core needs pop up again and again because theyhave a huge number of implications for how this person approaches their relationships,their projects, their career. And that’s what I want to get into here, the implications.So let’s start with competence. From very early on, for people with the C D style, there’soften this inherent, unquestioned belief that “I should have mastery over all of theelements in my life that affect me.” And this serves two functions. First, it helps create
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 3self-sufficiency. This gives me the freedom to pursue my goals without theinconvenience of having to rely on another person. My success is entirely within mycontrol; at least, it feels that way. And then second, it creates a safeguard against acentral fear and that central fear is being incompetent. If competence is central to thevalue of a person, then being incompetent is completely unacceptable. It’s humiliating tobe a failure. It’s humiliating to be helpless.Now, I—I made a pretty bold claim right there. The claim was: competence is central tothe value of a person. And actually, let’s make this more personal and state it like this:I’m valuable if I’m competent. That’s pretty drastic. And this is where I want to introducethis concept of driving assumptions. These are unspoken belief systems that that eachof us has, beliefs that are usually well outside of our awareness. But they’reassumptions that we have about how the world works and because they’re assumptionsand because they’re unconscious, we really don’t have the opportunity to questionthem. We just assume they’re true. So, for instance, for the C D style, a commonassumption is: I should always be self-sufficient.And I call these driving assumptions because this little belief that we probably came upwith when we were seven or eight years old and which is well buried by the time wereach adolescence, it drives a huge amount of our behavior and it drives a lot of how weinterpret the events in our lives. So for the rest of this talk, I want to discuss some ofthese assumptions. And if you have a C D style, you might find yourself torn. You mightfind yourself saying, you know, on the one hand, this assumption is just plain stupid. I’dbe embarrassed to admit that I believe something like that. And at the same time,though, there might also be some part of you that actually kind of does believe that, youknow, you don’t really want to admit it, but you kind of know it’s there.And the thing you should know, though, is this is true for everyone. We all have theseunspoken beliefs about the world that on the surface, they they look ridiculous or evenembarrassing. You know, if you examine them in the light of day, it’s like, this is how a
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 4child sees the world, not an adult. But to the degree that these assumptions arelegitimately there, going on in the backgrounds of our brain, and we go on not owningthem or refusing to acknowledge them, they actually have that much more power toshape our lives and to guide us towards decisions that aren’t necessarily always in ourbest long term interest. All right. So that brings us back to the driving assumption westarted with.And if you have a C D style, try it on—maybe it fits for you, maybe it doesn’t—and askyourself if there’s some part of you that believes this even in a small way. Again, here itis: I’m valuable if I’m competent. It’s a very simple statement and the rational part of uscan easily reject it. But to the degree that it’s incorporated in our understanding of theworld, at a less conscious level, it can have a really powerful influence on our behavior.OK, so think about all of the ways this assumption would affect someone’s behavior ifthey had really, really incorporated into their worldview. So, one implication is that, I’mgoing to do whatever it takes to be competent, to master the challenge in front of me,because if my self-worth is at stake here, really, what could possibly be more important?And so I will push through all manner of discomfort to gain mastery.When other people encounter something too tough, their mind is often telling them, youknow what? Isn’t there something more comfortable we could be doing with our time?But the C D style becomes accustomed to that lack of comfort. They becomeaccustomed to that negative emotion. Unlike other people, negative emotion isn’tnecessarily a sign that I should be running away, that I’m doing the wrong thing. My—my internal assumption is that I need to push through it. And so I’ll persist with anunpleasant task or in a negative atmosphere much longer. I’ll wrestle with the problem.I’m determined to understand and to do things right.Basically, because I expect resistance in the world, it’s not going to scare me off. I don’tautomatically take it as a sign that I’m headed in the wrong direction. And I think what’sinteresting with this style is that, while achievement is important, personal mastery is
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 5actually even more important. Mastery reflects an internal competency that I can carrywith me and I can use to control the world in the future. I’ve added a tool to my toolbox,basically.And so in the same way that I evaluate myself based on competence, it makes sensethat I’d evaluate other people based on that same criterion. So one of the things that weoften see with the C D style is that they have very little tolerance for people they regardas incompetent. And in fact, if you took the Everything DiSC® assessment and youcame up with a C D profile, you probably endorsed statements like “I quickly get irritatedwith illogical people” and “It really bothers me when people waste my time” or “I getimpatient with incompetent people”.So if someone’s incompetent, or at least I perceive them that way, and I—I can’t get ridof them, I’ll work around them. I’ll give them minimal responsibility, maybe not includethem in updates, not deliberately, but because I’ve kind of written them off. Very muchrelated to this is a very strong emphasis on accuracy in the C D style. You know, italmost reflects this kind of core belief: thou shalt not be wrong. Almost as if it’s, youknow, sinful or unethical to be wrong.If I produce something and I put my good name on it, it absolutely must be of highquality. If I make a statement, it must be true, preferably with information to back it up.Anything else is almost morally wrong. And so it’s not that everything needs to beperfect, but the things that I can commit myself to, the things that I put effort into, mustbe unassailable and refined. Maybe I’ll allow some flaws in things that I haven’t pouredmyself into. But if I identify with a project or an accomplishment, it must be flawless.But I do want to make sure that I’m not painting a picture of the C D’s accuracy as beingpurely a defense mechanism. That the only reason this style wants accuracy is becauseit doesn’t want to be blamed for mistakes. It’s broader than that. People with the C Dstyle also—they take a lot of pride, a subtle kind of joy, in producing something of great
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 6quality. They like knowing that they’ve done a truly excellent job and like having controlover all aspects of it. There’s a satisfaction that comes with stepping back and looking atthe work that I did and admiring how well it matches up to some standard. There’s asense of completeness and closure and purpose that comes with getting things justright. It’s a little like slipping that last piece of the puzzle in place.When things fit just perfectly after a bunch of hard work, there’s wholeness and stability.And I think most people can appreciate that, but particularly for the C D style. But thereis still that other more defensive motivation for precision, which is to avoid mistakes, andif someone wants to avoid mistakes, one of the best tools humans have available to usis logic. It’s knowable and predictable. It’s also incredibly stable, like math. If you putcertain variables in, you’re going to get certain variables out. Each time it’s the same. Sothe C D style learns to rely on this tool. And, as we’ll talk about a little later on,sometimes they over-rely on it.A similar tool that someone can use to avoid being wrong is skepticism. Being skepticalmeans that I’m not going to be taken in. I’m not going to think something’s better than itreally is. I’m not going to put my stamp of approval on something that’s inferior, that’sflawed. It protects me from making a mistake. It limits the number of false positives Iget, even if, as a natural consequence, it means I’m also going to increase the numberof false negatives that I get. And this is another area that can be a great asset, but it canalso be overused, which we’ll talk about later. And then another practice that helpspeople avoid mistakes is information gathering. The C D style typically wants a lot ofinformation before making a decision and sometimes wants an unrealistic level ofcertainty before making a decision.So this can translate into being very slow to act or being very risk adverse or frankly, noteven recognizing opportunities where it might be worth taking a moderate risk. Youknow, it’s just not on the radar. And of course, we all want some certainty before we’retaking a chance. It’s just that the threshold is particularly high for the C D style. And so
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 7they might not even see the opportunity or if the opportunity is brought up by someoneelse, their go to reaction is just going to be one of cynicism, especially if they haven’thad the chance to work out all the logic and all the contingencies and all the rippleeffects for themselves. They’re not going to be really comfortable just putting their faithand fate in someone else’s judgment.The D C and the C D styles in particular often have very high and very specificstandards. And one of the offshoots of that is what I’ll call a “should mindset”: very firmbeliefs about how people should behave, how a situation should be resolved. And”should”—this is a deceptively powerful word. Counseling psychologists, you know,really pay attention when they hear one of their clients using the word should. It’sbecause should implies a moral judgment. So if you take it in the context of “I should berespectful of other people” or “I should be a good parent” or “I shouldn’t take advantageof other people”, these are pretty reasonable statements.It’s kind of hard to argue with these because if you’re not living up to these sorts ofshoulds, well, you know, maybe, just maybe, you’re not doing life right, alright? Maybeyou really do need to take a step back and reevaluate the kind of person you’vebecome. But I don’t think that’s too judgmental, right? That’s a pretty low bar. All right.Now, the problem happens, though, when we take this word “should” and, mostlyunconsciously, we start applying it to situations that really are not moral imperatives.And as a consequence, we make those situations start to feel like moral imperatives. Ishould give her a call. I should be more productive. I should be exercising. And, youknow, make no mistake, these are all good things to do. But not doing these thingsdoesn’t make me a bad person. But because of my should mindset here, the level ofguilt or even shame I feel for these things is not in any way equivalent to the actualtransgression.And this, I think, just as an aside, is one of the leading causes of procrastination. Not atall to suggest that the C D style is particularly prone to procrastination—they’re not—but,
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 8you know, all of us do this from time to time and our shoulds are a big part of that. Youknow, if I’m telling myself “I should start that project” and I also know simultaneouslythat I haven’t started it—well, whenever I think about that project, it’s coated, you know,it’s saturated in this guilt and anxiety. And so mentally, what am I tempted to do? I pushit out of my mind as quickly as possible. I find something less painful to think about. Andso next time, thinking about the topic becomes even more painful, and that’s—youknow, the cycle goes on with procrastination.All right, but back to the C D style in particular, and I’ve been talking about this wordshould as with regard to my personal shoulds, alright, the shoulds I have concerning myobligations. But with a C D style, when my standards are so high and often very specific,there’s also a lot of shoulds that I assign to other peoples’ behavior. She should get tothis meeting on time. He shouldn’t be browsing the Internet when he hasn’t finished thatproject yet. She shouldn’t have used that tone. He should have called me back by now.And again, in those situation, all those should might very well have an element oflegitimacy, a very big element of it.But the should mindset makes the stakes disproportionately high. The stakes are now ofa moral nature. It can feel like the stakes are this is either a good person or a badperson. Again, this isn’t necessarily conscious as far as the thought patterns go, butwhat I am conscious of is the resulting emotion. And so what we can find is a level ofanger or disgust or frustration, I feel, is not really proportionate to the person’s actualtransgression. You know, objectively speaking, I’m much more irritated than mostpeople would say the actual situation calls for.Now, I do want to point out that this is a broad human tendency. We are all susceptibleto it. The reason I bring it up in a C D’s podcast, though, is that I think it’s a particularlystrong pattern within this style. You know, the guilt that’s associated with the shoulds Ihave about myself and then the irritation, right, that’s associated with the shoulds that Ihave about other people. And I mentioned procrastination as a potential side effect of
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 9should, but if we’re looking for a positive side, the should can also spur us to action. Itcan get us to take responsibility to be accountable. Likewise, I mentioned earlier thatone of the central needs of the C D style is control. And for many people with this style,this leads to this intense drive to understand their world, because I can control the worldaround me if I understand it better. So in particular, people with the D C or CD or Cstyles, they tend to be analytical. They keep digging for answers or understanding, evenwhen those answers don’t come quickly or easily.There’s this, uh, there’s this psychological principle called cognitive ease. It refers tohow easy it is for our brains to process information. The more cognitive ease associatedwith the task, the more likely we are to stick with it. That’s just human nature. But whenthat ease diminishes, the urge that our brain, you know, sends up is to switch to anothertopic, something less painful, so less difficult. It’s one of the reasons why advertiserswant to keep getting their brand in front of you again and again and again, because themore familiar something is, the easier it is for—to process, the more likely we are toengage with it, to think about it again.It’s also the reason people prefer to get information that validates their preexistingbeliefs. We’d much rather hear a fact that confirms what we already believe comparedto a fact that contradicts what we believe. It’s easier to process the confirmatoryinformation. It feels better. Basically—you know, our—basically our brains are lazy. Andso being someone who frequently engages in analytical, critical thinking, someone whokeeps at things even when they’re difficult, well, it may not necessarily always be themost pleasant way to exist, but it’s crucial for developing expertise on complex topics,sticking with it through all the unpleasantness, and so this is really one of the strengthsof this style.Whereas the average person is more likely to succumb to that temptation towardscognitive ease, you know, the—the path of least resistance, the C D style, they’re morelikely to keep at it, to keep digging, even though it’s hard. And so, again, we can call this
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 10an instinct towards mastery. And I think this can also reinforce the belief that, my worldis controllable if I just focus enough, or at least, it should be controllable. And because Ihave built my understanding of the world on logical, objective standards, it can also feellike I’m in a unique place to be an unbiased or fair in my decision making.After all, I’ve used systematic reasoning to build my case and as a consequence, myreasoning, it feels airtight. I can envision how every piece fits together, you know. Andas a side effect of that, though, it’s much easier for me to justify being stubborn, tojustify digging my heels in. Again, I’ve got an airtight case. In my mind, it’s alsocompletely unbiased. Now, of course, what’s really easy for me to forget, easy for allhumans to forget, is that the conclusions we come to, even rationally and logically, arecompletely dependent on which facts we choose to prioritize and which we choose tode-emphasize. My values impact my logic and the direction that my logic takes me. Andthey influence whether or not an argument seems strong or weak to me. So usually myposition seems unassailable to me, and it’s frustrating that other people can’t see it asclearly.And so given that, even compromising is particularly irritating because it meanslowering my standards and accepting an objectively inferior solution, all because otherpeople, you know, they’re not bright enough to see the situation clearly, you know, andit’s frustrating. And with the C D style, there’s a—definitely a tendency to express thatdisagreement. So, maybe I’m not necessarily expressing my emotion directly, althoughthat’s probably coming across as well, but if you have a C D style, there’s a good chancethat you’re known for being direct, you know, straightforward.And there’s a lot to be said for the power of candor because there’s a lot ofmiscommunication and inefficiency that goes on when people have to guess what otherpeople are thinking. You know, you might see me as rude, but I’m telling it as it is, I’mbeing honest, I’m making it clear what I think, and it’s so much more efficient to do. Idon’t want to have to guess what you’re thinking either. I want you to be frank, too. Also,
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 11I don’t want to have to waste all this mental energy trying to figure out the exact rightwords that aren’t going to hurt your feelings. That’s exhausting, and it slows me down,and it’s controlling. Really, wouldn’t it just be a better world if everyone could justtoughen up a little bit? You know, people, grown ups, they should be strong enough tohear the truth.I do want to take some time, though, to talk about how this argument—the argument Ijust made—can be taken and maybe twisted, maybe just a little bit, in a way that allowsme to rationalize or justify some unhealthy behaviors in the name of truth or in the nameof honesty. For instance, uh, is there a difference between being blunt and beinghonest? Because there are many times when a person can choose two different waysto communicate the truth, one that’s blunt and one that’s diplomatic, both of which areequally honest, both of which communicate the message. But the blunt option has thedanger of triggering someone’s defenses and actually closing them off to the message.So the question I want to ask is: in those circumstances where the blunt and diplomaticcommunications are both equally clear and equally honest, why would someone choosethe blunt option?All right. So, let me throw out a few options—through—a few—a few hypotheses. Allright, one is that I just don’t want to take the time and the mental energy to choose mywords, because what does diplomacy involve? It involves putting myself in the otherperson’s shoes and imagining how they’re going to react. Then it involves choosing thewords that will simultaneously communicate what I want to say without putting the otherperson off more than—than is absolutely necessary. This is work. It’s no wonder peoplesay, you know, to hell with it, I’m just going to blurt it out, it’s their problem if they can’ttake it. Another reason why some people might choose the blunt option, although I thinkmost of us wouldn’t be too quick to admit that this is the reason, but it’s because beingblunt actually feels more powerful. It’s a way to kind of indulge my irritation or frustrationor anger or disgust at someone that bothers me.
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 12You know, I might tell myself that I’m just being fair or honest, but emotionally, does it inany way actually feel good to be blunt with someone? Does it feel empowering? For, forinstance, uh, which of the following statements feels more empowering to say? All right,here’s the first one: “I think that sometimes you’re not putting in as much effort as therest of the people on this team.” Compare that to saying: “You’re being lazy.” Right, thesecond one is much more gratifying to say if I’m a little bit irritated. And I can tell myselfthat I said it that way because I wanted to be direct and honest, but the first option isjust as clear without having the potential negative side effects, it just doesn’t feel asgood to say.The hint of aggression in there also has a sense of power and control to that. And, and,and that feels good, too. So the key here is to be honest with myself about why I’mbeing direct and blunt, especially if it’s a sensitive situation. How much of it is becausethe direct statement is more clear and understandable, and how much of it is becauseeven if I don’t like to admit it, it feels better for me to be blunt, or it’s easier, again, for meto be blunt. Really, this is just about understanding my real motivations so I can make amore deliberate choice in how I act.And as a counterpart to being blunt, something that’s actually usually a lot more subtle,and that’s the non-verbals that the C D style often gives off that can really influencepeople even without me knowing that I’m affecting other people’s behavior. And it’s evenmore influential if I’m in a leadership position. Leadership, that’s a—that’s a particularlypowerful position. If I’m a leader, people are going to be paying a lot more attention tomy moods and, you know, even what they perceive to be my moods, than—than I everrealize. You know, a slight eye roll or an exaggerated sigh—that’s going to get analyzedand replayed over and over again in the heads of the people who follow me. You know,moreover, expressions of anger or irritation like a raised voice, they have an even moredrastic impact.
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 13And what it can do is it can create a pretty stressful environment for people where theyaren’t really secure about their standing with me. So if you do have a C D style andyou’re in a role of authority, it is really worth considering the emotional vibe that you’regiving off. Really, part of having an engaged workplace is people feeling good about theplace they show up to for work every day. And more specifically, you know, theyshouldn’t want to avoid running into their leader in the hall. Their blood pressureshouldn’t raise when their leader calls them on the phone, you know? And of course,that’s a little bit of an exaggeration. But in talking with a number of people with C Dstyles, they don’t often realize the intensity of the vibe that they can give off, particularlywhen that vibe is skeptical. That can be really stressful for people, especially if there’ssomeone who really values harmony and stability in their world.Now, you know, when it comes to positions of authority, you know, we really don’t findthat the typical person with the C D style is all that power hungry, all right? They’re notnecessarily the ones who are clamoring to be in command. Um, you know, some are.But for the most part, that’s not a trait. You know, what’s—what’s a more common drivewithin this style, though, is to be an authority, right? Maybe not the authority, but anauthority in some area, you know. And—now a key word here, uh, that I don’t know if Imentioned yet, but I think it’s a useful idea to sum up a lot of this, is the word credibility:the idea that people see me as someone that can be relied on, that they can trust what Isay is true.And, you know, of course, you know, everyone wants to be seen as credible, but for theCD style, this is very much a—a preoccupation, you know, and—and maybeunconsciously, but there’s this mentality that says: I need to guard my credibility.Actually, I think probably the more common phrasing of this, you know, more internalvoice is something like: I must always maintain my credibility. You know, it’s anotherone of those driving assumptions. And if you have a C D style, try it on. Ask yourself ifthere’s some part of you that believes this, even in a small way. And this is a deceptively
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 14powerful little statement. In fact, the key words here are probably not what you wouldexpect them to be.Again, take this sentence: I must always maintain my credibility. I would argue that thekey words here are must and always. Always is powerful because it’s an absolute, itputs a tremendous amount of pressure on a person to live up to this standard at eachand every moment in time, with no exceptions, no room for screw ups. And humanbeings, you know, we just can’t do that. The other key word, must, is one that you mightnot expect at all, but here’s what must does: it elevates this statement from a merepreference or a goal or a nice to have. And it elevates it to a moral imperative. That—that this speaks to our very character, whether we’re a good person or a bad person. Imust guard my credibility at all times because this is a reflection on my worth as aperson.Now, granted, I’m using language here that’s a little grandiose and very few of us thinkin these terms consciously. But for all of us, there are times that our brain makes theseabsolute, completely irrational assumptions about life that guide our perceptions of theworld around us. Okay, so let’s say this assumption is in play, it’s operating beneath thesurface, maybe even to just do a small degree, maybe to a large degree. Maintainingself-control, then, is one of the first things a person is going to do to protect theircredibility. Even if I can’t necessarily control the situation, I can control myself. Sothere’s a certain amount of pride that I take in my ability to control my desires. Self-control also assures that I won’t make a fool out of myself by making a mistake or doingsomething inappropriate.There is therefore a strong instinct to avoid all forms of vulnerability, not to showweakness to others, especially in areas that I think matter. So I’ll go off and do researchon my own rather than letting people see me in a vulnerable position of not knowingsomething. I keep my insecurities to myself and find it frankly, almost—you know—bordering on humiliating when those insecurities might show, because “a credible
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 15person is strong”—I’m using quotation marks here, but, you know, the credible person isstrong. They’re—they’re in control. They can handle the problems that life throws atthem in a composed, disciplined manner.At least, that’s what should happen, should being another one of those very loadedwords. Now, a much more proactive way to ensure my credibility is developingexpertise. Expertise ensures my competence in whatever area we’re talking about. It’snot about getting attention or approval or power. A lot of the times, it’s aboutaccomplishment, but a meaningful amount is also about, if I develop expertise, I’ve gotthis competency in my back pocket. As long as I know I have that, I’m good.And this is core. You can take everything else away and I’ll still have my competency.Expertise helps cement my worth. It closes up the vulnerability that I could be exposed.Here, I have the chance to be on the offensive rather than the defensive. This is where Ican get my pride needs met. Pride feels good, you know, other people get their prideneeds met by being top dog or by getting a lot of attention or by having status. Being anexpert allows me to to dip into that well of pride in the same way. And like anything, itcan be taken too far. It can be tempting for a person to hide behind their expertise, tobuild their self concept around it to the point where it’s like a safe fortress to take shelterin and withdraw into, where wandering outside their areas of expertise becomes evenmore unattractive compared to the warmth and the safety of their comfort zone.But of course, there’s very much a healthy side to this instinct to build expertise as well.Once I have it, I can do things that very few other people can do. I can solve problemsthat very few other people can solve. It’s because very few other people are driventowards mastery the way I am, and they’re not willing to put in the hard, sometimesunrewarding work that’s necessary to develop that mastery.Okay, so, I definitely want to make sure the healthy side is acknowledged because theworld would be much different, a much worse place, if we didn’t have people who were
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 16driven in this specific regard. All right. The unhealthy side, I mean, a lot of the time it’s—it’s more useful to talk about the unhealthy side of our instincts because that’s theinformation that we can use to help us grow. So, to the degree that there is thisunhealthy instinct to use expertise as a shield or to avoid putting myself in a positionwhere I might fail, to maintain credibility all times, to ensure that I’m not the origin ofmistakes, there’s a deeper impulse here to make sure that flaws are not exposed.People with a C D style, if they’ve really allowed themselves to dig deep, to be reallyhonest with themselves, recognize this association between their flaws being exposed,on the one hand, and really deep sense of humiliation. And it’s almost an unspokenassociation. But to the degree that in the back of my head, I believe that the exposure ofmy flaws would be awful. People seeing those flaws would be awful. I make sure thatthose flaws stay on complete lockdown. I make sure that my output, whatever it is, if itcomes out of me, it’s very controlled and very measured.And related to this, there’s a—there’s another concept that I want to bring up here thatweaves through a number of the C D characteristics. It’s—it’s really one of the moreprized possessions of the C D style. And—and that is their dignity. And of course,everyone cares about their dignity to some degree. And this word can mean differentthings. But what I’m talking about here is dignity in terms of not looking foolish, notlosing the basic respect of others. And so this is another one of those drivingassumptions. I must maintain my dignity at all times, which isn’t such an extremestatement.But let’s unpack a little of what this actually entails. This is a mandate that usuallyentails self-control at all times. It also entails that I am at all times in control of mychoices. It entails that I do not say things that are foolish or things that can be provenwrong. It often means that I don’t expose myself to criticism, to—open to ridicule. Andthese aren’t necessarily conscious mandates, and they’re not necessarily true of all
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 17people with the C D style. But it’s common to see these, at least to some degree,operating in the back of the mind.So let’s imagine, if true, what kind of implications you might see if someone had thisvery intense need to guard their dignity. And I think one of the most obvious places is inthe social realm. You know, that’s a realm where the rules for what’s appropriate andnot appropriate, you know, are usually pretty ambiguous, if not completely arbitrary. Andso the normal strategy I might take when I know there’s going to be a stressful situationis to prepare and to analyze and to study. But with social situations, there’s no amountof preparation that I can do to ensure that I’m going to come across well.And the people who are usually regarded as the most socially engaging are in fact theones who usually do put themselves out there, they open themselves up, they throwthemselves into the situation. They’re speaking stream of consciousness a lot of thetimes, they’re not second guessing what comes out of their mouth. The filter betweenwhat they’re thinking and what they’re saying is very permeable. You can see theirpassion and they pull people into those passions.Now, these people may be very image conscious, they—they may thrive on attention,their self-worth might be wrapped up in the approval of others, but their self-worth andtheir concept of dignity is probably quite different than the typical C D’s concept ofdignity. For the average C D style, my brain simply won’t allow me to expose myself likethat. I can’t let go of those inhibitions because those inhibitions have been locked inplace over the years to protect my dignity, to protect me from saying that ridiculousthing, whatever it is. I’ve got this very intense internal monologue going on about thesocial dynamics and what’s appropriate, but on the outside, it usually just looks like I’ma quiet person.And the cruel irony, of course, is that all of that quietness is exhausting, you know? It’sall of that internal stress, analyzing the dynamics, looking for opportunities to jump into
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 18the conversation. But this can feel like—almost like merging into traffic that’s going 70miles an hour when I’m standing still. It’s exhausting. And there are some otherdimensions to this whole dignity thing, though, that aren’t just about mingling or socialevents. And another important one of them is about emotional control or emotionaldisplays. And the general strategy here is to really just avoid them.I remember a friend describing to me how he sees it when someone loses theirtemper—and the friend is actually he’s got this, uh, a lot of C style in him, maybe a littlebit of D. And surprisingly to me, what he described was being embarrassed for the otherperson. And so let’s say someone with a really strong personality loses it and startsyelling. That person, the person yelling, may feel like they’re showing power or strengththrough their aggression.But my friend’s reaction was to just see this person as losing their dignity. They’re losingcontrol of the one thing you can have control over, they’re creating a whole window intotheir flaws and shortcomings. When you get emotional like that, there’s no telling whatwill pour out and—and it’s not just anger. It’s really any sort of strong emotional display,you know, it could be too much enthusiasm or too much sadness, right? And not to saypeople with this style don’t experience strong emotions. They do. But they just have avery strong instinct to control the display of those emotions.So with the C D style, you can often see this self-sufficiency projected outward through aquiet strength. There’s a—a strong sense of emotional control, but also a little bit ofintensity beneath the surface that people can usually pick up on, a little bit of ofrestlessness. But again, definitely projecting a sense of strength.And—and part of that is keeping more tender, more vulnerable emotions internal, kindof tucked away from the outside world, you know. And by tender emotions, I meanthings like, uh, you know, sadness or hurt or emotional displays of affection or empathy,you know. For a lot of people with the C D style, certainly not all, but a number, you
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 19know, even seeing other people be too open with this kind of stuff can feel—I don’tknow—squeamish, you know. Particularly gushy, sentimental stuff, it’s going to get adisgust reaction, revulsion almost. It feels manipulative. When someone’s putting all thissquishy stuff out there, it’s almost as if they’re implicitly demanding a reaction out of me,a reaction of empathy, or they’re trying to make me feel that gushy stuff too. It’s like, no,no, you know, don’t try to drag me into this emotion. Don’t try to play on my sympathies.You know, don’t try to shame me into having those same feelings.The C D style definitely has an aversion to being controlled and I think that sometimeslistening to someone tell a sappy story can feel like that, being manipulated—indirectly,but it’s still there. And there’s also kind of this allergic reaction to melodrama. You know,the sense that people are exaggerating or overplaying their emotion in a situation, youknow, maybe even a sense that they’re faking it a little bit, but also, you know, that it’s atool for them to get attention. It’s—it’s another form of manipulation. You’re using thistrumped up reaction to get everyone to pay attention to you and pull attention away fromother, more legitimate concerns. It’s like a politician kissing a baby, trying to make usthink he’s trustworthy. I actually heard someone else describe why they found this sooff-putting. They—I love the way they put it—they described it as “an appeal to shallow,uncomplicated emotions at the expense of reason.”Alright, so there are those potential reactions, but I think there’s also often somethingelse, more beneath the surface. You know, when you see that strong disgust reactionthat people with the D C or C D style have to that sappy, sentimental stuff, I think a lot ofthat potentially ties back to the aversion to vulnerability. And disgust is an interestingemotion. The reason it’s basically there is to protect us from stuff that can poison us orto hurt us. You know, our ancestors were disgusted by rancid, fetid food so that theywouldn’t eat it, you know? They had that emotional reaction, it’s an overpowering,emotional experience that protected them. So if you follow that logic, what is it that’spoisonous about sentimentality, about touchy feely stuff? Why would, for some people,why would their brains be telling them that you need to stay away from this stuff, that it’s
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 20going to hurt you, that it’s going to poison you? And one hypothesis is that there’s sucha strong aversion to tender emotion like this because those emotions representvulnerability.How do they represent that they represent that? They represent unabashed intimacy orbeing completely un-skeptical, surrendering that normal cynicism that protects usagainst things like manipulation or lying people, but also against looking foolish oroverexposing ourselves.And then, a little further, that cynicism can protect us from looking weak or soft oractually being weak or soft. Simply put, someone comes at me with this tender stuff,they’re basically asking me to completely abandon my critical eye, my layer ofprotection. It’s the opposite of control. It’s the opposite of mastery. And so my brain istelling me that this is an absolute no go, you know, to make sure I stay clear. And thethe way that it gets me to stay clear is it creates this reaction of disgust, sometimeseven anger. And so even complimenting someone or praising them or reassuring themor encouraging them, particularly at work, can feel uncomfortable. A little too kind oftouchy feely, maybe even cringe inducing, maybe even unprofessional. And what’sinteresting is, you know, more negative emotions don’t necessarily have that stigma ofbeing unprofessional, like, for instance, getting frustrated or angry, because at leastthey reflect a more hard nose down to business approach.I mean, that’s what you’re getting paid for, right? Is to be down to business. But—but Ihave seen a number of cases where this mindset has gotten people in trouble,specifically when they find themselves in a leadership position. And the problem stemsfrom being very problem focused. If, for instance, you know, mentally I’m on the hunt forproblematic issues and I always have an eye open for them, this can be a really goodthing. It helps me excel as a critical thinker. It helps me spot things that are goingwrong.
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 21Unfortunately, the opposite tendency might not come easily. That is, I’m much moreattentive to problems and obstacles at the expense of being attentive to victories andhopes. I consider myself a realist and I keep my expectations for the future muted.That’s what a good skeptic does. I don’t show too much overt enthusiasm for the futurebecause after all, this is a form of vulnerability. If things don’t pan out, I’m going to lookfoolish for being on the record as an optimist. And further, when we do have a victory, Imay show a surge of happiness in the moment, but I’m also really quick to refocus onthe next objective. It’s part of my, kind of my “should” list.Unfortunately, this can really leave other people feeling like there’s, you know, there’s—there’s never a moment of real achievement or real celebration. It’s just always on to thenext challenge. What can be draining for a lot of people. And so for many people withthe C D style, when they find themselves moved into a leadership position, one of thedeterminants of whether or not they’re successful is their ability to make that transition,that they’re going to have to put themselves out there sometimes with—with someoptimism. They’re going to need to balance out that cynicism. Maybe even morechallenging, though, is the one to one stuff: showing appreciation or giving reassurancewhen people need it. You know, the first challenge is getting over the allergicness to it.Then there’s even, you know, kind of the more practical challenge of reminding myselfto do that kind of stuff on a regular basis.But even outside of the realm of leadership, if we step back from that, it’s notuncommon that the skepticism of the C D style is pretty noticeable, sometimes actually alot more noticeable than they even realize. For instance, they might be less likely topolitely laugh at someone’s unfunny joke.You know, basically they’re giving fewer nonverbal and verbal cues that they’re trying toplease or comfort the other person, like little smiles or nods. Instead, sometimes there’san unspoken vibe that says, you know, prove it to me, or, you know, prove yourself tome. And they’re not necessarily meaning to give that off. But sometimes other people
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 22are picking up on that. And if you consider that basically we all have social needs andfor a lot of people, one of those core needs is approval or belonging or admiration, butfor the C D style, oftentimes the larger social need is respect. And so, for this reason,they’re not usually giving off those cues that say “like me!”, right? That feels kind ofundignified, right? There’s not much self-sufficiency in that.But there are some consequences of this social need for dignity, both positive andnegative. And one of the positive is that perception of strength in the C D style. It says,I’m not easy to please, and because of that, many people will work harder to earn myacceptance. And there’s certainly a lot of benefits to that. I have more influence. It’seasier to get my way. People pay attention to me. I have a seat at the table as adiscerning person. People look to me for my approval because it doesn’t come easily.The downside, though, is that it might take longer before people feel comfortable beingopen with me, uh, being vulnerable with me, because they don’t want to be judged.When you know someone has really high standards, it’s a natural thing to say toyourself, I don’t want to be judged unfavorably by those standards. So as aconsequence, I protect the kind of information that I share with someone who I fearmight judge me. There’s less openness in that relationship, or at least it can take longerto build that sort of trust. There was an article that I read recently. It was, um—it was bya Harvard psychologist who studies first impressions. And she was making the pointthat when we meet someone new, people judge us immediately on two dimensions.One of them is, can I respect this person? Basically, are they competent or are theystrong? And then the second question people judge us on is, can I trust this person,which is largely evaluated based on how warm the person comes across.And I—and I bring up this theory here because I think at times the C D style scores veryhighly on the respect dimension, but it can come at the expense of the warmthdimension, which can be crucial for trust. Now, when it comes to the C D style judging
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 23other people, there’s a lot of weight put on this competence piece. As I mentionedearlier, this style really has a much lower tolerance for incompetence.And, you know, I mean, no one’s crazy about incompetence, but the C D style finds it tobe particularly grating. And if you have this style, this is probably something you canrelate to. And, you know, and we just talked about how other people, they pick up onthat, even if we’re not intentionally giving that off, they pick up on that.But what I wanted to get to here is the underlying emotion that you often see in thesesituations and what’s going on there. And there’s this fascinating study that I think doesa great job of illustrating the issue that I want to get into. So here’s what they did. Theresearchers, they took a group of very strong political conservatives and a group of verystrong political liberals, and they put them in an MRI scanner, a machine that lets us seewhat’s going on inside the brain.Now, the people inside the MRI, they had two tasks. The first task is, they were asked tocome up with arguments that were against their own political party. And then the secondtask is, they were asked to come up with arguments against the other political party.And no matter which group, liberals and conservatives, they got the same results. Onthe first task—criticizing my own party—the parts of the brain that showed activity werein the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with logical reasoning.Basically, people were rational.Where it gets interesting, though, is when people were asked to criticize theiropponents, there was substantially less activity in the logical, critical thinking parts of thebrain. Instead, there were two other parts that were highly active. One of them was thepart of the brain associated with disgust. And that’s not surprising. You can imagine howsour a number of people might be towards their opposition, especially politically. Thesecond part of the brain, though, was the one that I found most fascinating. It was thepleasure center of the brain, which seems kind of weird, right? I mean, why would
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 24talking about your political enemies be associated with pleasure? And isn’t pleasurekind of the opposite of disgust?What was happening was that people were enjoying, probably subtly, they probablyweren’t aware of it, but they were enjoying the contempt they felt for their opponent. It’sactually an emotion that we have a name for. We call it self-righteousness. It’s theenjoyment of getting angry or disgusted with someone and if you think about it, this ideaof of negative emotion being paired with pleasure, as bizarre as it seems, it’s notuncommon. You know, we have phrases like wallowing in sadness or—or stewing inanger. It’s an acknowledgment that, as unpleasant as these emotions are, sometimesthere actually is a pleasurable, reinforcing component to them.Now, I would guess if you asked any people in this study if they were taking pleasure inbeing disgusted, most of them would say no, you know, one, because it’s not somethingwe really want to admit, but to because the experience of disgust is what we’re mostaware of. And that’s what can make this sort of experience so dangerous, potentiallyaddictive, because we’re not aware of the reinforcement that we’re getting by engagingin disgust.OK, so what does this have to do with the C D style?Well, while this mental trap is one that all humans are susceptible to, for the C D style,this kind of disgust, pleasure pairing, I think is particularly tempting, again, preciselybecause of those high standards and high expectations that we talked about earlier.And so finding fault with someone, whether it’s for not having common sense or forbeing too lazy or too slow or whatever, it’s tempting to dwell on these flaws exactlybecause there sometimes can be that subtle reinforcement going on behind thescenes—to dwell on a logical argument during a fight and to enjoy building thatargument about why the other person’s behavior or their position is so unacceptable.And I can keep indulging in this rumination because it feels like I have no choice, that I
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 25have to get irritated as a matter of principle, you know. I just can’t let this thing slide.You know, why would I choose to get irritated about this if I didn’t have to be?Well, here’s one potential reason why. And again, I want to be clear that this is a humanpattern. It’s not isolated to one DiSC® style. It’s just that this particular mental trap canbe especially tempting for the C D style. And so if you do have this style, I think it’s justworth considering, you know, the next time you find yourself irritated with someone, andparticularly when, you know, you’re dwelling on that irritation, to what degree is thereactually a hint of enjoyment that comes along with that? And if there is that enjoyment, ifthe behavior is being reinforced in some way, is that something you actually want tocontinue to indulge?Now, I think this is related to the inherent skepticism we talked about at the verybeginning, but it really is only one way that the skepticism can manifest itself. I know anumber of people with D C or C D styles that notice that even when they’re not feelingfrustrated or irritated or impatient in a situation, other people can sometimes still thinkthey are. A large part of this is the non-verbals that are being given off, and for non-skeptical people, less skeptical people, throughout their lives, they’ve often developedcertain very welcoming or encouraging non-verbals that have become so routine forthem that they’re unconscious. Again, things like smiling or nodding or saying, youknow, yeah, or ha without even knowing it.So if the other person subconsciously is expecting those cues and not getting them, avoice in the back of their head might start asking, is something wrong? You know, doesthis person not like me. For a more skeptical person, on the other hand, the morenatural posture is to not have immediate acceptance, to not give off that vibe, you know.Instead, the vibe is more likely to be kind of a wait and see position or posture that says,you know, prove it to me. That says, you know, I’m not easily impressed or that I’m adiscerning person, I’m a critical thinker. I don’t immediately put my trust out there beforeI have reason to believe that I can trust you. You know, that’s just the reasonable thing
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 26to do. But to that other person, depending on where they come from, this neutral stancecan mistakenly come across as disinterested or even defensive or perhaps guarded.But again, if I have this underlying perspective that says, hey, the world’s not always atrustworthy place, well, in that case, openness is the last thing you want to do.Vulnerability is the enemy. That’s just common sense. And in fact, a lot of times peoplewith the C D style can become very good at reading between the lines in an interactionand picking up on the message beneath the surface, particularly if that message is acritical one or a threatening one. You know, the potential manipulation or potentiallyulterior motives, the subtle ways that people are trying to influence me.And you can see this particular form of attentiveness as it relates to an underlyingskepticism and to a higher need for control. And it’s neither good nor bad thing, orrather, it can be either. It’s good when I pick up on a motivation or manipulation thatreally is there. On the other hand, this heightened attentiveness is a drag on me if I’mpicking up on problems that aren’t really there, if I’m reading an insult or a power grabinto a conversation when there actually is nothing of the sort going on in the person’shead. Really one way of looking at this is: what type of error would I rather make?Would I rather incorrectly think that there’s a problem or would I rather incorrectly thinkthere’s no problem? Would I rather be overly critical or would I rather be overly naive?For most people with the C D style, they’re much more comfortable erring on the side ofbeing overly critical.All right, and—and so before wrapping up, the one final area that I want to touch onbriefly is conflict. And, you know, there—there’s a lot to be said in this area. You know,we could probably go on for a whole nother podcast on this topic. So, you know, we’recertainly not going to get into everything. But I wanted to kind of pull in some of thoseneeds that we talked about at the very beginning, particularly that need for competenceand that need for control.
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 27And, you know, if you consider someone with strong needs in both of these areas, itreally makes a lot of sense that this person is really not going to want to be beat in anargument. I mean, no one wants to be beat, but I think particularly in this case. And it’skind of a mentality there that says, if I let someone out-argue me, that reflects reallypoorly on my competence and it also threatens my sense of control, you know? Andthat’s a lot of internal pressure to make absolutely certain that I don’t lose. You know,there’s there’s a lot more at stake in this conflict than whatever issue it is that we’reactually arguing about on the surface.And one of the things that people with the C D style readily admit is being stubborn whenthey get in a fight. And one of the things that really helps them be stubborn are thosefinely honed critical thinking abilities. I come up with this airtight, perfectly logical casethat run through the arguments in my head, playing out all of the different points andcounter points that I make. And as a result, my position feels rock solid. And hopefully,you know, because of my critical thinking, my position actually is more accurate. Butregardless of how good it is in reality, it’s going to feel much more defensible becauseI’ve used logic to build it, and as a strong critical thinker, I’m going to be good atdefending even a bad argument to protect my preexisting beliefs. I feel more validatedthan in not changing and sticking to my guns.And—and it’s uniquely important to me to not lose because of all those things I justtalked about, the control, the competence, the non-vulnerability. And with that incentivepushing me, there’s that temptation to just bury the other person in logic and my quickthinking. Now, on the positive side of conflict, a real strength of the C D style is aboutsticking up for my rights and also about not letting problems get swept under the rug.Particularly in an organization, that’s incredibly valuable because there are just so manyincentives out there in the typical organization for people just to ignore problems, maybegrumble about them in the break room, but never actually address the issues, all right?there’s a lot to be said about candor.
© by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. 28All right. So there definitely is a lot of information here, a lot of different dimensions thatwe talked about, and so: how do you make sense of it all, or rather, how do you put it touse? Well, I just want to make one broad suggestion. It’s about these drivingassumptions. And I think a practice that’s actually really powerful in terms of our growthas people is to simply monitor our behavior and our thoughts and start to notice whenthese assumptions are being played out in the background.And so let me give you kind of a reminder of the assumptions and maybe add a fewnew ones and think about—to what degree can I see these playing in my head? They’rethings like: I’m valuable if I’m competent. I should always be self-sufficient. If I’m not incontrol, I open myself up to disaster. I should have complete mastery in all areas of mylife that are under my responsibility. It is undignified to show intimate emotions. I mustmaintain my dignity at all times.Now, the whole exercise here is about becoming more aware of when these type ofassumptions are driving our behaviors, our thoughts, our emotions. Some of themprobably resonate with you more than others, right? And sometimes these things aregoing to be realistic. Sometimes they’re not going to be realistic. But the first step isreally just about becoming more consciously aware of them, alright? So that I can makedecisions and choices in a deliberate fashion. And if the assumption is realistic in thatsituation, great. You know, I run with it. But if it’s not, then I learn to challenge it andreplace it with a statement that’s more accurate, more fitting for the circumstances. Andit absolutely takes some time and deliberate effort. But ultimately, I end up having morecontrol over how I see the world and really, how I interact with it.All right, well, thank you, everyone, for your time.Narrator: This podcast is a copyrighted production of John Wiley and Sons.