Skip to content

Need for control

  • 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. 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.
  • The D Style – An Everything DiSC® Podcast
    • The D Style – An Everything DiSC® Podcast
      Dr. Mark Scullard: All right, so we’re going to be spending some time talking about the D style, dominance, and if you have a D style, I think what you’ll find is that, you know, roughly 70, 80 percent of what we’re going to talk about is probably going to fit for you. Some of it will be spot on. There’s going to be a little bit that feels like, “yeah, that’s not really me” or, you know, maybe, “yeah, that sounds like me when I was a lot younger.”
      But I think the value here is more about listening for those insights that really help you make sense of your past experience or really help you see your thought processes and your habits in a new light. So we’re going to take a look at all these different characteristics associated with the D style, things like being direct and forceful and strong-willed. And there’s a few core needs that really tie them together. So, you know, why are people with the D style more likely than the average person to be assertive, to be forceful, to be results oriented? What’s the motivation behind these more observable behaviors?
      Well, let me introduce some very core needs that explain a lot of the D behaviors. First, there’s often this very core need to be strong, a need to know that I’m powerful enough to shape my environment at all times, and I’m powerful enough to fend off any incoming threats at all times. And so you may have picked up the phrase “at all times” in there. And this reflects an assumption—usually an unspoken assumption—that this is a tough world. And if I’m not strong enough to hold my ground and shape my world at any point, well, then I’m at the mercy of the whims of this tough world. And so, really, if I’m a useful, productive, valuable person, I need to be a strong person.
      And then a second core need, which I think is very much related, is a need to have control, a need to control the factors that influence my fate, my ultimate success or failure. I need to be able to have a say in determining that. Oftentimes, I need to have the say in determining that. And not just for myself. To the degree that I’m important or successful, I’m going to have influence in controlling larger and larger events. If I’m going to be doing this whole life thing right, I should have a large footprint. I should be expanding my influence in some way.
      And so this feeds into kind of a third core need, which may not be as easy to own. But let me just throw it out there, and it’s a need to be on top. Again, this might not be as socially desirable to admit, but I think it’s a little easier if I rephrase it in terms of winning. People with a D style want to win. I mean, you know, everybody wants to win, but the D style really likes to win. And me being on top can—maybe even unconsciously—that can be a barometer of how well I’m doing. Am I on the right track?
      I think for people with the D style, this is why having authority can almost in and of itself be rewarding, for its own sake. Respect often comes with that authority. But overall, I think the need is most pronounced—it’s most easy to notice—when the opposite message is coming in. When someone else is saying to us—through their words or more likely through their actions—that in fact, “No, I’m the one who’s on top. I’m the one who’s superior.” You know, that tends to get a reaction; particularly with the D style, that doesn’t sit so well.
      OK, and then there’s one last core need here, which is the need to be making progress, always to be moving forward. There’s this internal pressure, almost this unspoken belief that if you’re a valuable person, then you produce. A nagging sense of pressure to just keep moving. You know, the word “restless” comes to mind. When they’re confronted with quiet, oftentimes, people with a D style their brain is telling them, you know, you’re wasting time if you’re not accomplishing something. Oftentimes, it can be really so ingrained that they might not even realize that other people don’t necessarily share this sense of pressure.
      OK, so these elements are the foundation of what we’re going to talk about here, these four core psychological needs: the need to be strong, the need to be in control, the need to be on top, the need for progress. These pieces have a huge number of implications for how a person approaches their relationships, their projects, their careers. And that’s what I want to get into here, the implications. So one of the behavioral implications is a strong sense of drive. This mostly ties back to the expectation of movement we just talked about. And if you have a D style, I think there’s probably a good chance you might describe yourself as a little bit on the impatient side.
      Now, one of the interesting things that I’ve noticed when talking to a lot of different people with the D style is they often have a very clear vision of how the world should be, especially compared to other people. They have this picture in their heads, and they feel really, really confident about it, and they’re, you know, they’re just eager to make that happen. And if I’ve got this really clear vision of how things should proceed, and it isn’t happening quickly or efficiently, I’m going to get antsy. I’ve got these high standards for myself and others. When people screw up, when they don’t live up to those standards, it doesn’t take much for me to get irritated, maybe even angry.
      Actually, just speaking about people in general, you know, when—when do people get angry? Well, we get angry when we feel our—like our rights have been violated. But, you know, people also get angry when things don’t go the way they think they should. And a key word here is the emphasis on the word “should.” There’s a big difference between saying I would very much like things to go this way and saying things should go this way.
      And so if I’m using that “should” language in my head, it’s going to be much quicker path for me to get irritated. In a way, I feel like my rights are being violated—my blood pressure spikes, my voice raises. And in the extreme cases, the people around me learn very quickly that things better go well or else. You know, don’t poke the bear. Although again this is probably a more extreme case; impatience can take a lot more subtle forms, you know, wanting direct, quick answers, uh, getting restless with people who seem incompetent, or who I feel are wasting my time.
      And there’s good and bad to that. I remember a director who had a sign in her office that said, “Impatience is a virtue.” And a big part of that virtue is the drive to make a vision become a reality as quickly as possible. Now a vision in everyday life, that might be something like, you know, something as simple as getting to the front of the line. But it can also be something much more grand, like starting my own business, or kicking off a new project or a venture at work, taking advantage of opportunities, quickly taking advantage of them. So there’s this impulse to start executing on that as soon as the decision is made. You know, I’d rather rush in too quickly and sort out the mess later on than waste all of this time deliberating. You know, instead of thinking before I act, the impulse is to think and act at the same time. To cut through the red tape, to take shortcuts because the eye is much more on the prize than it is on the process or the path. It’s this strong results orientation.
      And obviously there’s a lot to be said about results. There’s a lot to be said about moving quickly and expediently. But if you’ve got a D style, you’ve probably also experienced some of the downsides here. You know, one is it can create kind of an unpredictable environment for other people. That is, you know, the people who aren’t in my head and can’t see the vision as clearly as I can. Not to mention there’s this tendency to get frustrated by things not going according to that vision. You know, that—that’s going to create another level of emotional insecurity, particularly for other people who have a real aversion to interpersonal or emotional tension, which, frankly, is a good chunk of the population.
      But interpersonally, there’s also another implication of this very strong focus on efficiency. And this is about empathy. And empathy, basically being about taking the time to put yourself in another person’s shoes and consider things from their perspective—to relate to their emotional experience. And doing that is not quick. To state it bluntly, empathy really isn’t efficient, at least not in the short term. You know, it might be in the long term, but in the moment, taking all that time for me to consider another person’s perspective, and to process how they might be reacting to what I’m saying, how they’d feel, all the different ways that I could phrase things…That’s a lot of work compared to just spitting it out, to being direct, you know, maybe even blunt. That—again in the moment—that feels like efficient communication, just say what you mean, don’t beat around the bush. But again, if you have a D style, particularly a strong D style, you’ve probably gotten at least some feedback throughout your life about why that isn’t always appreciated. You know, but let’s come back to that a little later.
      At this point, though, I really want to pull back a little bit and introduce this idea of driving assumptions. These are unspoken belief systems that we all have, beliefs that are—they’re usually well outside of our awareness. But they’re assumptions that we have about how the world works. And because they’re assumptions, and because they’re unconscious, we don’t question them. We just assume they’re true. So, for instance, for the D style, one of these assumptions is, “I should always be doing something useful.” And I call it a driving assumption because this little belief—that, you know, we probably came up with it when we were seven or eight years old—it drives a huge amount of our behavior, and it drives a lot of how we interpret the events in our lives.
      So for the rest of this talk, I want to discuss some of these assumptions. And if you have a D style, you might find yourself a little torn. You might find yourself saying, you know, that’s—that assumption is really just plain stupid. I’d be embarrassed to admit that I believe something like that. At the same time, though, there might also be some part of you that actually does kind of believe it. You know, you don’t really want to admit it, but you kind of know it’s there.
      And the thing you should know, though, is that this is true for everyone. You know, we all have these unspoken beliefs about the world that, you know, on the surface, they look ridiculous and even embarrassing. If you examine them in the light of day, it’s like, this is how a child sees the world, not an adult. But to the degree that these assumptions are legitimately there, you know, going on in the background, and we go on and on, not owning them or refusing to acknowledge them, perhaps because they’re silly or whatever, they tend to have much more power to shape our lives and guide us towards decisions that, you know—the ones that aren’t necessarily always in our best interest.
      All right, so here’s another driving assumption. And if you have a D style, try it on, ask yourself if there’s some part of you that believes this, even in a small way. Maybe, maybe not. All right, so here it is: “I’m valuable because I achieve or accomplish.” And that’s this very simple statement. And the rational part of us can, you know, pretty easily reject that. But to the degree that it’s incorporated into our understanding of the world at a less conscious level, it can have a really powerful influence on our behavior.
      Okay, so, you know, think about all of the different ways that this assumption would affect someone’s behavior if they really, really had incorporated it into their worldview. So one implication is that restlessness that we just talked about, that internal pressure. You know, not feeling comfortable when things slow down too much, when there’s not too much to do. Or when everyone else is relaxing, you know, it just feels like they’re wasting time.
      And for some people with the D style, not all, but a meaningful number, there’s also an assumption that I need to be expanding in some way—expanding my influence, expanding my reach, the—the footprint that I leave on the world, it—it should move beyond where I’m at right now. I can do bigger and bigger things. And almost, I should be doing bigger and bigger things. You know, this is what it’s all about. And so one of the things that the D style really brings to the workplace is this incredible sense of determination to take down whatever obstacles are there, to—or—to expand over them. And so…and it’s so intense because it’s this buried psychological mandate to achieve, and they’ll push and push and push long after other people have quit.
      Now, to do this, it almost requires a huge amount of confidence in my abilities and in my vision. Second guessing my vision or my ability to accomplish—those things are going to get pushed out on my mind because they need to get pushed out of my mind. And of course, there’s a huge upside to this self-confidence. But the downside to habitually just, you know, pushing doubts out of the mind is that it can eventually weaken my ability to really doubt myself in a healthy way, to process my limitations in a really balanced fashion.
      And this becomes particularly dangerous when it turns into a deafness to the kind of feedback that’s coming in to me. When it becomes increasingly easy for me to blow off criticism or to blow off ideas that differ from my own all in the name of, “Well, you know, they just don’t see things as clearly as I do.” You know, we can all think of extreme versions of this, right? For instance, there’s that, uh, there’s that cliche of the you know, the very domineering, arrogant, alpha executive who doesn’t tolerate anyone challenging him, doesn’t consider anyone’s opinion other than his own. You know, and that’s a far, far extreme. But obviously, this is on a continuum. And so there are also these much more subtle examples of when someone is overly confident, when they’ve kind of lost a little bit of their capacity for healthy self-doubt, especially when they’re being challenged.
      Now, this brings us back to one of those needs we talked about at the very beginning: it’s this need to be strong. And a lot of this is based on a core assumption about the world that, you know, it’s not necessarily always a friendly place. You know, if—if you’re going to get what you need, what you want, if, you know, you’re going to have an impact in some way, if you’re going to be a person of substance in this world, you’re going to need to be strong.
      And this relates back to another one of those driving assumptions. And again, maybe this fits for you. Maybe it fits a lot, maybe a little, maybe not at all. But try it on for a couple of minutes as I unpack it. OK, so here’s this, second, kind of driving, assumption: “I should never show vulnerability.” Again, you see the word “should” in there, and it almost feels like a moral imperative. And there’s also this word “never.” And rationally, well, no, it’s not necessarily a healthy way to think, but we’re talking about unconscious belief systems here. So what would be the implications of this gut feeling that vulnerability is a bad thing? Well, self-reliance, that’s going to become key for me then. I need to be able to rely on myself to solve problems.
      And if I have to rely too much on others or be vulnerable, then I don’t really have complete security. I’m not really the master of my fate. Also, there’s going to be this strong aversion to tenderness, you know, emotions like sadness, or fear, or empathy. To the degree that vulnerability feels repellent, these emotions are as well.
      Again, let me describe this at an extreme, just to really make a point and then bring it back into kind of the average D range. But at the extreme, extreme of the D style, you can think of the the characters on the show, The Sopranos. And if you’re not familiar with it, uh, it’s about a mob family, and it’s, you know, pretty much every male character on that show is an extreme D.
      So you’ve got this culture where there’s absolutely no room to show vulnerability or weakness. Anyone who shows weaknesses, you know, they’re dismissed or ignored or, you know, maybe even killed, you know, force is what’s respected. And then you’ve got this mob boss, Tony Soprano. And, you know, here’s one of the brilliant conflicts that they set up in the show: Having this ultimate tough guy, but in the very first episode, he starts suffering panic attacks. All this stress, anxiety, fear, you know, that he’s just packed down because it feels weak, but it needs an outlet.
      So, you know, it comes out physically—the panic attacks. The great conflict then is…this is a guy who’s learned his whole life that he can’t be vulnerable. You know, the only way he can cure himself, though, of these attacks, is to be vulnerable with a therapist and explore these more tender emotions. And, you know, he’s genuinely and understandably torn. And he lashes out at this poor therapist because she’s—she’s pushing him to do something that every instinct in his mind and his body is telling him not to do. He you know, he despises that weakness in himself, and he masks that insecurity with strength, with anger. You know, that’s a non-tender feeling, like disgust, or frustration, or passion—these are acceptable emotions. It—it’s, you know, it’s—it’s brilliant writing on the behalf of the screenwriters—one of the things that I think gave this series so much depth.
      OK, so back to the real world, though, where, you know, you—even if you’ve got a really strong D style, you’re probably not a Sopranos D, right? You know, on a more moderate level, what does this look like? Well, there’s still often an allergic-ness to this tender stuff like, you know, sentimentality, or gushiness or, you know, it creates kind of a—a real visceral reaction of disgust. But for a number of people with this style, even complimenting or praising someone can elicit this kind of disgust reaction, kind of a subtle ickiness. It just, you know, feels too intimate, too touchy feely. But even though it isn’t obvious, this disgust, it really does often have a connection to vulnerability a lot of the time.
      But I want to take a minute and step back, actually, to something I said just a minute ago, and unpack this topic of praise. You know, really, though, not just giving praise, but also things like giving reassurance, you know, basically communicating positive sentiments. Which is actually a really important topic that might not seem like an important topic. In romantic relationships it’s important, in parenting, but also surprisingly at work as well, especially if you are in a leadership position.
      In fact, when we look at our 360 data, that is, when people get the chance to give a leader feedback, things like creating a positive environment is one of the areas where D leaders get the lowest marks. Far lower than any other style, in fact. And I think many times with the D style, there’s this resistance to communicating positive sentiments. And the reasons for this aren’t necessarily obvious, but they start to make sense when I think you dig a little deeper into them.
      One of the reasons for resistance, though, I think, is in fact the expectation that I should be giving praise or reassurance. It’s, you know, it’s a social expectation. But if I have a D style, that expectation can almost feel like a—kind of a form of control. You know, you’re telling me how to behave, particularly you’re telling me to do this kind of gushy stuff, which I don’t like for other reasons, but I also don’t like being pressured into it. It kind of feels like manipulation. So it’s not uncommon to hear D managers, you know, say things like, “Why do I need to praise people basically for doing their jobs? You know, that’s why they’re getting a paycheck. That’s their praise.” And I think this is particularly true when I feel that the person doesn’t fully deserve praise, like someone else is feeling entitled to something they didn’t really earn.
      And so with many people with the D style, there’s this really strong aversion to coddling, you know, partly out of principle and partly out of an emotional reaction to the perceived weakness. To seeing people wallow in weakness or in helplessness when really what they should be doing is pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, you know, the way I do. I take responsibility for being strong. Other people need to take responsibility for doing that, too.
      Now, there’s also another angle to this as well, which I don’t think is as common, but it relates back to one of those needs we talked about at the beginning: to be on top. And so I think for some people with the D style, certainly not all, but for some, when it comes to praise, there could also be kind of a resistance because I’m elevating the other person. You know, it’s more likely to be true, I think, if I perceive this person as a peer, you know, basically someone playing in my field. And—and by calling attention to how great someone else is, it—it can in small ways and subtle ways it can kind of feel like it diminishes myself by comparison, right? Or it gives away some of my influence. You know, this is going to be, I think, most pronounced if I have this really socially competitive mindset. You know, that is, if I fundamentally think of relationships in a really comparative way, always being aware of, you know, who’s up and who’s down.
      And of all the Everything DiSC® styles, the D style is probably the one that’s most cognizant of power dynamics. On average, they’re the ones who…in any given social situation, they’re the ones who are most aware of who’s influential, who’s being influenced, who has control in the conversation, you know, who’s being undermined. They want to know how powerfully their statements are coming across. And, you know, this is useful information because power dynamics—they play a legitimately big role in our lives. You can try to ignore them, but they really are always there, you know, in personal relationships, in work relationships. And so in this regard, holding back approval or praise—it can be a little bit strategic. It can keep people in their places.
      And again, I do want to make sure that I stress that this aspect of approval or praise, it—it’s probably not going to resonate with every person with the D style, even most people with the D style. I think what’s probably more common is a lack of comfort with open expressions of affection, especially if they’re prolonged. You know, and that’s kind of what praise is or reassurance. It’s showing affection. And to be fair, I know a number of people with the D style who are actually very comfortable with this stuff. But I also know more who find the whole thing makes them squeamish. And so, if you fall in that latter camp, consider how much this squeamishness is really related to vulnerability.
      You know, when you’re openly and directly showing affection, what you’re doing is you’re making yourself vulnerable. You know, a person can’t be on guard and be affectionate at the same time. Affection really does involve a level of trust that basically leaves a person exposed. It’s—it’s kind of like a window into my core self. You know, all the good things, but also all the ugly parts, you know, the selfishness, the unlovability, right? All of those insecurities we keep under wraps, you know, open affection calls to mind all that exposure. And it can be for some people—it can feel really repellent. And hence that disgust reaction, you know. And that’s why we have disgust, that—that emotion that keeps us away from, for instance, rotten food, you know, poison, things that are going to hurt us. And so if I have a belief system that this really is a tough world, exposure has the potential to hurt us.
      All right, so admittedly, this, you know, this whole discussion, there is a lot of speculation here. But on a more surface level, one of the first characteristics that people often notice about the D style is that there’s a certain tough-mindedness. And also related to that, a sense of confidence. In fact, that 360 data that I mentioned earlier, the number one asset that raters pointed out in D leaders is confidence, you know, far, far more than any other DiSC® style. And if you have a D style, you may very well be aware of the insecurities that are going through your head. But to the outside world, you probably even come across as much more confident than you realize you’re coming across.
      The second highest rated asset for the D style was taking charge. Again, much higher than any other style. And this feeds back to one of those core needs that we talked about at the beginning, the need for control. And really, if you mix a need for control with high confidence, you’re going to have someone who really takes charge. Like we talked about before, if I’m going to make my life count for something, I need to be able to shape my environment. And if I do have this vision in my head that’s so clear, I’m going to feel like I’m in the best position to take charge. And, you know, I almost feel like if everyone would just follow my lead, we’re going to succeed.
      And in a lot of situations, that attitude really can be a tremendous asset. In fact, I’ve been talking about this 360 data. It’s based on ratings from managers, peers, direct reports. Let me list out for you the five areas where D leaders do the best, better than really any of the other styles. And then after that, kind of the five areas where they do the worst because they tell a really interesting story. And—and as I read these off, you know, what you’ll probably see is that the things that they do well are actually kind of the source of some of their greatest weaknesses.
      So. All right, so here they are. The five highest rated, you know, starting with the highest it goes: showing confidence, taking charge, stretching boundaries, setting high expectations, and focusing on results. So in there you see these themes, right, showing strength, making progress, creating movement. But think about—OK, what would be some of the downsides of someone who’s overfocusing on these elements, of having too much of these qualities? You know, and here are the areas where the style tends to do the worst: showing diplomacy, showing modesty, creating a positive environment, staying open to input, maintaining composure. Two of the big themes that you see in here are being inattentive to other people’s emotional needs and believing only in my ideas.
      And let me tackle the last one first, being overconfident about my ideas almost to the exclusion of other people’s ideas. Now, some of this can be about ego, and there’s also a part of this, which is kind of about that attentiveness to power dynamics. If I’m really aware and mindful of who’s in charge at all times, it makes sense that, you know, I’m going to speak more forcefully, more assuredly, more authoritatively, you know, perhaps in a way that really doesn’t leave much room for dissent. Certainly, I let people know that if they’re going to openly disagree with me, they’re going to get some pushback.
      All right. But I also think there’s another part, and oddly, it relates to this kind of sense of urgency with the D style. You know, if I’ve got a drive to keep things moving, it will definitely seem kind of inefficient to give attention to ideas that don’t immediately strike me as appealing or as a good fit. Frankly, I don’t have time to entertain every idea, regardless of its quality. But the problem is that my threshold for what’s worth exploring—that can be really, really high. You know, if, for instance, I have an idea that came out of my head, you know, it makes sense to me. I see how all the pieces fit together. I know all the background information.
      If someone else presents a different idea, though, I don’t immediately have all that background. The connective tissue isn’t as obvious. It’s going to take a while for me to step outside myself and fully see things from that other person’s point of view, to digest all of the context that led them to their conclusion. So if I really want to keep things moving, you know, guess which idea I’m going to find more appealing. It feels much more efficient having all of that computing taking place in one central computer, which is basically my head, right, and simply telling other people what to do. Again, reflecting this belief that the world really would just run so much more smoothly if everyone would just listen to me.
      But what’s the cost of that? You know, one is that people kind of slowly learn that the only opinion that really counts is mine, especially if I’m the leader. Now, not only do they feel like their ideas are ignored, but worse, they keep their mouths shut because they don’t want to be made to feel stupid. You know, people’s ideas, they’re kind of like their children, you know, getting one ruthlessly shot down—it’s—it’s personal and, you know, it’s kind of demoralizing. And people stop subjecting themselves to that after a while. You know, people need to feel that their leader genuinely listens to them and genuinely values what they have to say. And this is actually why an area like staying open to input is actually so correlated with overall ratings of leadership success.
      Now, I think there is sometimes, you know, D leaders try to get away with, you know, picking up tricks to make people believe that they’re being listened to. Um, you know, maybe asking people for their opinions, but at the same time, knowing full well that I’m just going to plow ahead with my idea anyway. You know, the real challenge for the D leader is about shifting my thinking, you know, disciplining myself to—to step away from my own ideas long enough so that I can really, really absorb this other perspective, even if it doesn’t immediately appeal to me. Because, frankly, even beyond the interpersonal side of this, research into good decision making, you know, again and again and again, it—it points to the benefits of getting multiple perspectives on a topic.
      And related to this and related to some degree to the D’s attentiveness to power dynamics, is how people with less power are regarded and treated. And really, no matter who you are, you know, all people, there’s kind of this tendency to give the most attention to people who have the most power. It’s really—it’s written into our DNA. But this instinct, it can be particularly pronounced for the D style. The temptation is kind of to almost dismiss people who really don’t have as much formal authority, or people who have less social presence, or who are less assertive. You know, kind of see them, eh, potentially as people who can be delegated to, but not really given full consideration when it comes to making decisions.
      And, you know, to be fair, it really can legitimately be frustrating sometimes when it’s so much more difficult, or it’s so time consuming to get, you know, opinions and ideas out of people, you know, particularly people who are more reserved. But there’s also kind of a certain social cost that occurs when people feel like they’re kind of ignored again and again. You know, sometimes it’s resentment, um, sometimes it’s people shutting down. But it really is kind of worth, if you have a D style, maybe this fits for you, maybe it doesn’t. But it really is worth being mindful of, because, like I said, it’s a temptation that, regardless of your style, we’re all born with.
      So let’s pull back out again to the big picture, you know, this is where these core needs we were talking about at the beginning, the need for control, the need to be strong, the need for progress. The one I haven’t gotten into as much is the one that’s probably the least socially desirable. And, you know, that’s the need to be on top. And socially speaking, it’s a need that—that, you know, it’s really valued in some situations, like in a competition. But in other situations, you know, we often get the message that, oh, you know, you shouldn’t think in those terms. It’s arrogant or it’s selfish to think that way.
      And the truth is, I think there are both positives and negatives to a need like this. You know, on the positive, it’s basically all the really good stuff that comes from being competitive. Competition, you know, it brings out vigor, and passion, and determination. And it’s kind of like this, this internal furnace that powers someone to just, you know, push and push and push even when other people, you know, everyone else is just said to themselves, “Well, yeah, that’s good enough.” You know, and I could go on and on here about the value of competitiveness. But, you know, it’s a topic that I think is pretty well celebrated in pop culture and motivational posters, right? You know, needless to say, it’s a—it’s a—it’s a really good asset. It’s a great asset. And it’s one that’s particularly strong with the D style.
      And so then there’s this other side to the need to be on top. And especially in conflict or when things get heated, it can be problematic. You know, for instance, like creating win-lose scenarios where the other person is really forced to either fight or to back down. And for some people with the D style, I think some of them have found, whether they acknowledge it or not, you know, that intimidation really can be kind of a useful tool for getting things done. You know, if I maintain a forceful, kind of matter-of-fact, commanding method of communicating my ideas, people will feel that there’s little room for disagreement.
      It’s a method of arguing that’s aggressive enough that it really takes others an extraordinary level of energy and gumption to do battle with me. You know, and I know that others typically have a lower capacity for fighting or for resisting. You know, I know I can wear them down. And as a result, a lot of people will just capitulate. You know, it’s easier. And frankly, there really is you know, there’s no upside in arguing a point with me if I do always get my way.
      You know, when I think about successful leaders, I think a lot of people with strong personalities, they really kind of—they find that they need to be deliberate about asking questions, about paraphrasing the ideas that other people have, creating space for people to find their ideas based on their own experience and find the words to articulate them. But, you know, as we talked about, this is tough to do when there’s that voice in the back of my head that’s saying, “We just got to keep moving.” And also that other voice that says, “I really want to control where this whole thing goes.”
      All right, so back to this idea of being on top, which, again, I think it’s most pronounced when, you know, someone’s really directly opposing me or challenging me. You know, and it’s those times where compromise feels like losing, not—not just because the actual decision would be worse for it, but also partly because this person was clearly not shown that I won. You know, I may get so wrapped up in my anger in the moment and the desire to put the other person in their place, that the long-term consequences of what I do in this moment, they don’t really matter. You know, things that I rationally should know very well, but the passion is so great that these consequences, they don’t really have much power to temper my behavior in the moment. And it can be really difficult to control this rush of emotion, you know, particularly an emotion as strong as anger.
      I think there’s a really, really powerful, kind of colorful example of this in the movie, A Few Good Men. You have the Jack Nicholson character who has this extremely D personality, right? Like, really extreme. You know, this is a guy who does not like having his authority questioned. Again, this is an extreme example. But he sees this young lawyer challenging him, and it feels like this tremendous insult. To him, it feels like this lawyer is trying to get him to submit. And he injects this power struggle into the situation, Nicholson does, because of really because of his own insecurities. You know, it’s—it’s a power struggle that most other people wouldn’t have created in this situation.
      But to Nicholson, right, not completely undoing this other lawyer, not completely crushing this person who dares to challenge him—that’s a humiliating loss. You know, it’d eat away at him, and it would leave him stewing at night. And all the normal checks, you know, the things like love, or fear, or self-preservation that would normally keep a person from really going full throttle on vindictiveness, you know, those things get pushed into the background at that moment because all he’s thinking about is putting down this person who’s trying to humiliate him.
      So, you know, basically, in the end, the lawyer, Tom Cruise’s character, if you’ve seen the movie, he—he uses Nicholson’s lack of restraint against him. He deliberately gets Nicholson worked up, betting on the chance that this guy will lose sight of his best long-term interest and say something that’s really self-incriminating. You know, and it’s a—it’s a really great ending to a movie.
      And again, this is almost a caricature of the D style. But you can probably imagine how this mentality might manifest itself in a lot more subtle ways. I think a much more subtle occurrence is people with the D style getting very tense when they sense other people are trying to control them. And of course, you know, most people—most of us don’t like being controlled, but there’s a particularly strong aversion in the D style. And I think probably even more than that, there’s a much higher sensitivity to thinking that the other person is probably trying to control them. You know, in other words, they’re much more likely to see someone’s actions as controlling even when that wasn’t really the other person’s intention or motivation at all.
      And we talked about this before. You know, even subtle social expectations can feel like a form of control, like the expectation to praise someone, or the expectation that I need to be tactful, the idea that I should soften my words or modify my tone to meet someone else’s emotional needs. And so, you know, a natural reaction is to resist that control. You know, if there’s even a hint that they’re being manipulated, most people with the D style, they’re going to put up some pretty strong resistance. You know, it’s kind of a slightly different issue, like if someone is being overly flattering, right.
      Actually and I think, in fact, attempts at subtle influence can feel much more insulting than direct influence because—because if you’re directly trying to influence me, you’re putting your cards out on the table. You’re respecting my decision making ability by being up front. You’re presenting me with a conscious choice. But if you’re being subtle about it, you’re trying to, kind of, circumvent my decision making ability, which is actually much more controlling and much more insulting.
      Now, this—this ties back a little bit to a topic we were talking about earlier, an assumption about how the world works: that the world is, in fact, not always a friendly place. That, you know, a person needs to be strong, and they need to be in control to navigate the world, right? But there’s also kind of an inherent skepticism here, at least more skepticism than the average person has. And—and I—in fact, I think there’s sometimes an assumption that these other kind of more non-skeptical people, that they’re being naive. You know, that other people well, they don’t really know what I know about the world—they don’t really know the real state of affairs.
      You know, I see things for what they really are. And other people are kind of naively blinded sometimes, you know, sometimes by stupidity, maybe by their insecurities, kind of their wishful thinking, maybe even kind of a phony adherence to these unnecessary social conventions, like, you know, being falsely humble or falsely polite. You know, and other people show this kind of excessive tactfulness because, well, you know, they just want to be seen as nice and that’s what they’ve been taught to do, but that’s not the real world. So I might be seen as arrogant or rude, but that’s because I’m cutting through all of the B.S. that other people cling to.
      And I think this—the kind of a more mindset that I’m describing here, this can kind of lead to one of the kind of core behaviors of the D style, which is being direct, sometimes blunt. Again, you might see me as rude, but I’m telling it like it is. I’m being honest. I’m making it clear what I think. And it’s so much more efficient to do it that way. And I don’t want to have to guess what you’re thinking either. I want you to be frank, too. Also, I don’t want to have to waste all of this mental energy trying to figure out the exact right words that aren’t going to hurt your feelings. You know, that’s exhausting. And, you know, it just slows me down. It slows things down.
      And—and frankly, it’s also a little bit controlling. Really, you know, wouldn’t it just be a better world if everyone could kind of just toughen up a little bit? You know, people, you know, grown ups, they should be strong enough to hear the truth. And there really is you know, there’s a—there’s a powerful argument to be made there. And there’s a tremendous amount of value in being candid because I think there’s a lot of miscommunication and inefficiency that goes on when people have to guess what other people are thinking.
      I do want to take some time, though, to talk about how this argument that I just made, how it can be taken and maybe twisted and maybe just a little bit in a way that allows me to rationalize or justify some unhealthy behaviors in the name of being truthful or honest. For instance, is there a difference between being blunt and being honest? Because there are times when a person can choose two different ways of communicating a truth, one that’s blunt and one that’s diplomatic, you know, both of which are equally honest, both of which clearly communicate the message.
      But the blunt option sometimes has the danger of triggering someone’s defenses, and actually it closes them up to hearing the real message. So the question I want to ask: In those circumstances where the blunt and the diplomatic communications are both equally clear and equally honest, why would someone choose the blunt option? So let me—let me throw out a few options. One that we’ve already talked about before is that maybe I just don’t want to take the time and the mental energy to choose my words.
      Because what does diplomacy involve? It involves first putting myself in the other person’s shoes and imagining how they’ll react. And then it involves choosing my words, you know, the words that will simultaneously communicate what I want to say, without putting the other person off more than is absolutely necessary. And that’s work. You know, it’s—it’s no wonder why some people say, you know, “To hell with it. I’m just going to choose to blurt it out. It’s their problem if they can’t take it.”
      I think another reason why some people might choose the blunt option, although I think most of us wouldn’t necessarily want to admit this is the reason, is because kind of being blunt can feel a lot more powerful. You know, it’s a way to kind of indulge my irritation, or frustration, or anger, or even disgust at something that bothers me. You know, I might tell myself that I’m just being fair or honest, but emotionally does it any way feel good to be really blunt with someone? You know, does it feel empowering?
      For instance, let’s take this as an example. Which of the following statements feels more empowering to say. All right, so here’s the first one: “I think sometimes you’re not putting as much effort in as the rest of the people on this team.” OK, so compare that to this statement: “You’re being lazy.” The second one, it’s a lot more gratifying to say, if I’m a little irritated. And I can tell myself that I said it that way because I wanted to be direct and honest. But the first option is really just as clear, but it doesn’t have all of the potential negative side effects. It just doesn’t feel as good to say. A hint of aggression in there also has a sense of power and control to it, and, you know, and that kind of feels good. Like we talked about earlier.
      There’s a—you know, there’s a strong need for strength and control in the D style, so to speak in a way that empowers both of these needs, well, that feels good. You know, I’m getting my needs met. And so the key here is to be honest with myself about why I’m being direct or blunt, especially if it’s a sensitive situation. You know how much of it is because the direct statement is just more clear and understandable, versus how much of it is because, you know, even if I don’t like to admit it, it kind of feels better for me to be blunt. Or it’s easier, again for me, to be blunt. Really, it’s just about understanding my real motivations, so I can make more deliberate choices about how I act.
      OK, so then there’s one final aspect of this skepticism that I want to address before wrapping up, and it’s kind of the counterpart to being blunt. It’s really the nonverbals that the D style often gives off that can, you know, often influence people even without knowing that I’m influencing people by doing it. And actually, it’s particularly influencing if you combine, you know, my skepticism with my assertive personality. And then even on top of that, it’s even more influential if I’m in a leadership position. If I’m a leader or in any position of authority, I’m in a particularly powerful position. You know, people pay a lot more attention to my moods or, you know, what they perceive to be my moods, than I’m ever going to realize. You know, a slight eye roll or an exaggerated sigh, you know, that—that small behavior, that’s going to get analyzed and replayed over and over again in the heads of the other people who follow me.
      You know, and even more than that, expressions of anger or irritation, things like a raised voice, those are going to have an even more drastic impact. And this can create a—you know, a pretty stressful environment where people aren’t really secure about where they stand with me. And so if you have a D style and you’re in a role of authority, it is you know, it’s worth considering, what’s the emotional vibe that you’re giving off? Really, part of having an engaged workplace is people feeling good about the place they show up to work every day.
      And, you know, more specifically, they shouldn’t want to avoid running into their leader in the hall. Their blood pressure shouldn’t rise when the leader calls on the phone, you know? And of course, it’s a bit of an exaggeration. But in talking to a number of people with D styles, they don’t often recognize the intensity of the vibe that they give off. You know, particularly when that vibe is more skeptical in nature. You know, that can really be stressful for the people around them, especially for the other people who really value things like harmony and stability in their worlds.
      All right, so there is—there’s a lot of information here, you know, and a lot of different dimensions that we talked about. And so, you know, how do you make sense of all of this, or rather, how do you put it to use? Well, I’ll just—I’ll make one broad suggestion. And it’s about these driving assumptions. And I think a practice that’s actually really powerful in terms of our growth as people is to really kind of just simply monitor our behavior and our thoughts and start to notice when these assumptions are actually being played out in the background.
      And so let me give you kind of a reminder of these assumptions. They were things like, “I should always be doing something useful.” “I’m valuable because I accomplish.” “If I’m not in control, I open myself up to disaster,” “I should never project vulnerability.” “Everybody needs to respect me.” And maybe some of these you don’t agree with at all, maybe you can just see a little bit of—of those in you, the whole exercise is about becoming more aware of when these assumptions are driving our behavior, our thoughts, or emotions. You know, sometimes they’re realistic, sometimes they’re not.
      But really, the first step is just about becoming consciously aware of them so that I can make decisions and choices in a more deliberate fashion. And if the assumption is realistic in the situation, then great, you know, I run with it. But if it’s not, then I learn to challenge it and replace it with a statement that’s more accurate or more fitting for the circumstances. And this absolutely takes some time and deliberate effort. But ultimately, at the end of the whole thing, I end up having more control 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.
  • The DC Style – An Everything DiSC® Podcast
    • And when I don’t have that control, when I don’t have any way to regain it, it’s very
      right. So that’s the need for control and then the last, very similar control is a need to not
      be vulnerable.
      Again, if we’ve got an untrustworthy world, it’s not exactly wise to make
      yourself vulnerable on a regular basis. So when we actually do survey people with the D
      C style, they’re much more likely to identify themselves as being a little bit more
      guarded or standoffish.