Skip to content
What you get

What the DISC test gives you, shown as it is

Two documents exist today: the PDF each person downloads at the end of the test, and the team report the facilitator of a group session prints. The examples below are rendered by the same templates as the real ones, from made-up answers.

Fictional example: none of these answers comes from a real person.

The individual report, a PDF of about four pages

At the end of the test, each person can download their result as a PDF, for free, with no account and no email. The file is built in their browser: their result is not sent to our servers to create it.

The first page carries the profile that comes out on top, the four scores, the date, the scoring rule and the test's disclaimer.

fictional example

Influential

"Together, anything is possible!"

The four scores in the example

Influential
11 (44.0%)
Steady
7 (28.0%)
Dominant
4 (16.0%)
Conscientious
3 (12.0%)

Out of 25 forced-choice answers: each score counts the answers that lean toward that style.

Then come the long sections of the profile page, in this order:

  1. In-Depth Description
  2. Strengths in Detail
  3. Areas to Watch
  4. In Relationships
  5. At Work
  6. Under Stress
  7. Growth Tips

The framing sentence, printed above these sections and at the foot of every page:

This text describes tendencies you reported by answering 25 forced-choice questions: it compares your four styles with each other, never with other people. It does not measure your skills or your performance, and DISC has no solid academic validation: read it as a hypothesis to test against your own experience, and do not use it to recruit, assess or steer anyone.

Excerpt from the first section

In the DISC model, the Influential profile describes the style most oriented toward human connection and self-expression in an environment perceived as favorable.

The button builds the PDF in your browser, with the same generator as the result screen, from the fictional answers above.

Read the full Influential profile

The team report, for the facilitator

When a group takes the test together, the facilitator gets a page to print: the distribution, a reading of the composition phrased as hypotheses, one card per profile present and discussion openers. It only appears from 3 answers on, to limit the risk of recognising anyone.

The facilitator's report also holds the first names with each person's profile, hidden from printing by default. It means nothing on made-up answers and does not appear in this example.

fictional example

Example: a fictional group of 10 people

These profiles are self-reports; they are not used to assess anyone, to assign roles, or to compare two people on the same axis.

How the group splits

Influential
4 (40.0%)
Steady
3 (30.0%)
Dominant
2 (20.0%)
Conscientious
1 (10.0%)

What the split shows

10 people answered, spread across 4 of the test's 4 profiles.

No profile gathers half of the group. The most frequent is Influential, with 40.0% of answers.

The Conscientious profile is rare in the split: it may be worth asking what room the group gives to ways of working that are rare here.

This split describes how each person described themselves today, not what the group can do: apart from the count, these sentences are hypotheses to discuss.

The profiles present

What these people read in their result, as written in the test.

Influential 4 of 10

With an Influential profile, you tend to approach others with enthusiasm and optimism. You enjoy building connections. You prefer to persuade through enthusiasm rather than authority, and you like rallying a group around an idea. You like making a project appealing and making people want to get started. In the DISC model, the watch-out for this profile is seeing things through after getting them started.

Strengths mentioned

  • Excellent communicator and motivator
  • Ability to make an idea appealing to others
  • Ability to unite and create positive momentum

Way of communicating

You often speak expressively and at a fast pace. You enjoy chatting, whatever the topic.

To discuss for this profile

In the test, this profile corresponds to the options containing words like "expressive" or "enthusiastic". It is a questionnaire result, not a user manual: for people who recognize themselves in it, better to ask them.

Steady 3 of 10

With a Steady profile, you tend to value patience, reliability and listening, and to seek a calm, predictable working climate. Teamwork and long-term trusting relationships often matter a lot to you. When the group gets carried away, you tend to hold the course. You like offering a measured opinion when asked. In the DISC model, the watch-out for this profile is learning to ask and to say no when you need to.

Strengths mentioned

  • Excellent listening and empathy skills
  • Methodical, consistent and committed to their word
  • Strong team spirit and sense of community

Way of communicating

You tend to speak calmly and to listen more than you talk, taking care not to offend anyone.

To discuss for this profile

In the test, this profile corresponds to the options containing words like "calm" or "patient". It does not tell you what a specific person needs: for people who recognize themselves in it, the simplest way is to ask them.

Dominant 2 of 10

With a Dominant profile, you tend to lean toward action and results. You often decide quickly, even under uncertainty. Rather than extending the analysis, you tend to make the call and move forward, and confrontation rarely holds you back. You tend to take the lead willingly. You often go straight to the point, even if it makes you impatient. In the DISC model, the watch-out for this profile is giving others time to keep up.

Strengths mentioned

  • Comfortable taking the lead and making the call
  • Results-oriented, focused on what matters
  • Comfortable with change and challenges

Way of communicating

You tend to speak quickly and directly. You give the conclusion first and use emails like a chat.

To discuss for this profile

In the test, this profile corresponds to the options containing words like "direct" or "determined". It does not tell you how a specific person wants to be spoken to: for people who recognize themselves in it, the safest way is to ask them.

Conscientious 1 of 10

With a Conscientious profile, you tend to look for precision, method and accuracy. You like to understand the why before acting. You prefer preparing to improvising, and you tend to check the details before signing off. In the DISC model, the watch-out for this profile is accepting that "good enough" is sometimes the right answer.

Strengths mentioned

  • Precision and attention to detail
  • In-depth analysis and critical thinking
  • Respect for rules and procedures

Way of communicating

You tend to speak little and in a measured way. You often prefer writing and express few emotions.

To discuss for this profile

In the test, this profile corresponds to the options containing words like "precise" or "cautious". It is a questionnaire result, not a user manual: for people who recognize themselves in it, better to ask them what helps.

To start the conversation

  1. 1

    Does everyone recognise themselves in their profile? What surprises you in how the group splits?

  2. 2

    The Conscientious profile is rare in the split. How much room does the group give to ways of working that are rare here?

Running a DISC session in 60 to 90 minutes

A session plan that turns the grid into a team conversation, with what to say and what is better avoided.

It is printed at the end of the team report, and the facilitator also finds it on a separate page as soon as the session is created. Here it is in full.

Read the facilitation kit, to share or print

What DISC is, and what it is not

DISC goes back to William Marston's book Emotions of Normal People (1928), which described four ways of reacting to one's surroundings. Today's questionnaires, this one included, draw on that framework, and to our knowledge no freely available DISC questionnaire has solid academic norms.

In a workshop, it can work as a shared vocabulary: words that describe preferences, to say "we don't work the same way" without it sounding like blame. It supports a discussion; it does not measure the person.

What this questionnaire does not allow

  • saying how a person or the team will succeed;
  • building teams or assigning roles by profile;
  • comparing two people on the same axis: answers are forced-choice with a fixed total, so each person's four scores are read against each other, never against someone else's;
  • assessing, hiring or justifying a decision about someone;
  • reading DISC's C as Big Five Conscientiousness: no correspondence between the two has been established.

The session plan

  1. Minutes 0 to 10, the frame.

    State the goal: talking better, not ranking each other. Say that DISC supports a conversation, that a first name is optional and that nobody will have to announce their profile. Share the link or the QR code.

  2. Minutes 10 to 25, taking the test and reading alone.

    Everyone answers on their own, then reads their result page in silence and notes one sentence that fits them and one that does not.

  3. Minutes 25 to 40, the grid.

    Show the grid and first ask what people see in it, before any interpretation. Then read the make-up as questions: a frequent profile, a missing profile, a lone voice. Each reading is a hypothesis the group confirms or sets aside.

  4. Minutes 40 to 55, the discussion.

    Do the "where this profile got me wrong" exercise below, then ask this question: "In which recent situation did our way of working help us, and in which did it get in our way?"

  5. Minutes 55 to 60, the commitment.

    The group picks a single concrete action for the month, based on what was said, not on the colours. Whoever carries it volunteers: the grid does not appoint anyone.

  6. 90-minute variant.

    Between minute 40 and minute 70, work in sub-groups of three or four on a real team situation (a meeting, a recent decision): what was easy, what got stuck, and which DISC words help to say it? Each sub-group reports back in one sentence, then keep twenty minutes for the commitment.

The "where this profile got me wrong" exercise

Everyone rereads their description and picks out two sentences: the one that describes them least well, and the one that could describe almost anybody. Pool the second ones, without saying which profile they come from.

This is the Barnum effect, described by Bertram Forer in 1949: a general enough description feels personal to most people. Spotting it together is a reminder that the result is a starting point, and makes it legitimate not to recognise oneself in it.

Why start from a real situation

A meta-analysis of debriefs (Tannenbaum and Cerasoli, 2013) links going back together over a specific work episode with better performance afterwards, mostly in simulation studies (medical and military). It does not cover DISC or any profile tool: that is why one question in the plan starts from a real, recent situation, and this plan promises no effect on the team.

To avoid during the session

  • guessing or announcing out loud the profile of a colleague who has not shared it;
  • reading out to the group the first names from the facilitator-only list;
  • commenting on a pair of named people, or comparing two members on the same colour;
  • sharing out tasks or roles according to colours;
  • drawing from the grid a judgement on what the team is worth or will achieve.

The PDF of about four pages and the session kit exist only for DISC today. The other tests have a one-page PDF, and those that open to groups have the same team report, without a kit.

What these documents do not do

They describe preferences each person reported while answering, nothing more:

  • they are not for hiring or selecting anyone;
  • they do not assess the skills or the performance of a person or a team;
  • they do not place anyone against a norm: a person's four scores are read against each other, never against someone else's;
  • this questionnaire has no published academic validation: it is a basis for discussion, to be checked against each person's experience.