M4 A1 DISCUSSION

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

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

Comparing Correlations Between

Four-Quadrant And Five-Factor

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

Nell T. Hartley, Robert Morris University, USA

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of using multiple instruments may be reduced.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

practice of knowledge.

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

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

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

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

P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theories.

LITERATURE REVIEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

traits:

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

done

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

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

assessment and the Five-factor Model.

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

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

Table 1: Advantages of DISC Personality Assessment Advantages Citation(s)

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

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

perceived values in business settings. International Journal of

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

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

instrument to guide leadership and communication. AORN

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

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

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

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

mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute

of Mental Measurements

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

employee retention, job success, sales management, and

persuading patients to accept treatment plans that are essential

for their health and well-being

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

impacts on GPA for accelerated schools: A values and

behavioral approach. Journal Of Instructional Pedagogies, 31-

15.

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

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

templates/ppsi/pdfs/1.0/ResearchDiSC_ValidationResearchRe

port.pdf

Provides three perspectives: personal, private, and public

which presents a more rounded view of personality

Motley, 2005

Table 2: Advantages of Five-factor Model

Advantages Citation(s)

Able to better understand people who score in the middle range

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

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

relationship between the myers-briggs type indicator (mbti)

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

303-307.

The FFM has been the most widely accepted working

hypothesis of personality structure (1997)

(McCrae & Costa, 1997)

Evidence exists for the criterion-related validity of scores on

FFM measures

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

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

item ipip five-factor model measure across gender and ethnic

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

Equivalent translations exist in half a dozen languages which

permits wider cross-cultural universality

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

Comparative validity of Brief to Medium-Length Big Five

and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological

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

Faculty Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business area.

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

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

Table 3: Years Teaching Frequency Percent

Valid

0-9 18 26.9

10-19 18 26.9

20-29 13 19.4

30+ 17 25.4

Total 66 98.5

Missing System 1 1.5

Total 67 100.0

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

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

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

reimbursed.

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

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

were recruited from an Organizational Behavior-related email list.

Table 4: Course in Which Tests were Administered

# %

Organizational Behavior 44 65.7%

Principles of Management 12 17.9%

Freshman Experience 5 7.5%

Other 16 23.9%

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

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

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

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

Table 5: Type of Personality Test/Social Inventory Administered

# %

Myers-Briggs 35 52.2%

Big 5 27 40.3%

DISC 4 6%

Other 20 29.9%

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

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

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

personality tests are used in numerous courses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

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

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

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

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

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

Subjects

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

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

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

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

Sample Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6: Gender of Respondents Frequency Percent

Male 55 61.8

Female 32 36.0

Missing 2 2.2

Total 89 100.0

Table 7: Student Major

Number of Respondents Percent of Sample

Accounting 14 15.7

Finance 5 5.6

Hospitality and Tourism Management 3 3.4

Management 34 38.2

Marketing 21 23.6

Sports Management 6 6.7

Other (non-business) 4 4.4

Missing 2 2.2

Total 89 100.0

HYPOTHESES

Overall Hypothesis

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

DISC and in the Five-factor theory.

Hypothesis Formation

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

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

Tables 8 and 9.

Table 8: DISC Adjectives

D I S C

forceful expressive restrained compliant

Strong-minded emotional satisfied careful

pioneering influential Easy mark correct

domineering attractive willing precise

determined stimulating Even-tempered fussy

demanding captivating patient timid

Self-reliant companionable kind Open-minded

persistent playful Self-controlled agreeable

High-spirited talkative Good-natured Soft-spoken

impatient convincing contented resigned

aggressive Good mixer gentle respectful

nervy poised accommodating conventional

argumentative confident relaxed cooperative

restless inspiring considerate Well-disciplined

courageous optimistic sympathetic diplomatic

positive eager lenient exacting

adventurous enthusiastic loyal adaptable

Will power entertaining Good listener humble

competitive Life-of-the-party obedient tolerant

vigorous persuasive neighborly cautious

outspoken eloquent reserved strict

dogged animated obliging devout

assertive gregarious nonchalant docile

bold outgoing moderate perfectionist

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

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

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

Retiring Sociable Well organized Disorganized

Sober Fun-loving Careful Careless

Reserved Affectionate Reliable Undependable

Aloof Friendly Punctual Late

Inhibited Spontaneous Self-reliant Dependent

Quiet Talkative Businesslike Playful

Passive Active Persevering Quitting

Loner Joiner Hardworking Lazy

Task-oriented Person-oriented Practical Impractical

Follower Leader Conscientious Negligent

Traditional (closed) Adventurous (open) Stable Emotional

Conventional Original Calm Worrying

Down-to-earth Imaginative Relaxed High-strung

Uncreative Creative Even-tempered Temperamental

Narrow interests Broad interests Secure Insecure

Not curious Curious Patient Impatient

Unadventurous Daring Not envious Envious, jealous

Conforming Independent Adaptable Vulnerable

Prefer routine Prefer variety Objective Subjective

Traditional Untraditional Comfortable Self-conscious

Inartistic Artistic Self-satisfied Self-pitying

Tough-minded Agreeable

Critical Lenient

Serious Cheerful

Competitive Cooperative

Skeptical Trusting

Argumentative Agreeable

Stubborn Flexible

Egocentric Selfless

Cynical Gullible

Manipulative Straightforward

Proud Humble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 10 emerged.

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

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

Table 10: Hypothesis Formation

Five-Factor Adjectives DISC Adjectives Hypotheses

Adventurous D Hypothesis #1: The ranking of D is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Adventurous. Adventurous Adventurous

Original Pioneering

Daring Courageous*, Adventurous+, Bold*

Independent Self-reliant

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

positively correlated with the ranking of

Tough-minded. Tough-minded Willpower+

Competitive Aggressive+

Argumentative Competitive+

Stubborn Forceful

Egocentric Argumentative

Proud Determined

Extraversion I Hypothesis #3: The ranking of I is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Extraversion. Extraversion Outgoing

Sociable Companionable, Good mixer+, Gregarious,

Neighborly*

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

Friendly Outgoing*

Talkative Talkative

Leader Influential+

Persuasive+

Agreeable S Hypothesis #4: The ranking of S is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Agreeable. Lenient Lenient

Cooperative Accommodating*, Obliging+

Agreeable Kind, Good-natured, Considerate+

Gullible Easy mark+

Stable S Hypothesis #5: The ranking of S is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Stable. Even-tempered Even-tempered

Patient Patient, Gentle

Not envious Contented+

Comfortable Relaxed

Self-satisfied Contented+

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

positively correlated with the ranking of

Introversion. Retiring Timid*

Quiet Soft-spoken+

Follower Compliant+

Conscientious C Hypothesis #7: The ranking of C is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Conscientious. Careful Careful

Cautious*

Conscientious Precise+, Fussy+

Stable C Hypothesis #8: The ranking of C is

positively correlated with the ranking of

Stable. Calm Resigned*

Even-tempered Docile+

Adaptable Adaptable

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

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

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

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

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

sides.

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

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

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

D I S C

Big 5

Factor One LEFT

Introversion/Passivity

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.023

.846

77

-.383**

.001

76

.063

.583

77

.300**

.008

76

Big 5

Factor Two LEFT

Traditional (closed)

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.126

.275

77

-.251*

.029

76

.234*

.040

77

.175

.131

76

Big 5

Factor Three LEFT

Tough-minded

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.278*

.014

77

-.114

.327

76

-.308**

.006

77

.157

.175

76

Big 5

Factor Four LEFT

Conscientious

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.039

.737

77

-.196

.090

76

.054

.639

77

.185

.110

76

Big 5

Factor Five LEFT

Stable

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

-.297**

.009

77

-.032

.781

76

.275*

.016

77

.008

.946

76

Total N 86 85 86 85

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

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

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

coefficient results are presented here.

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

Hypothesis #1: The ranking of D is positively

correlated with the ranking of Adventurous.

Not supported: No significant correlation was found.

Hypothesis #2: The ranking of D is positively

correlated with the ranking of Tough-minded.

Supported: A significant positive correlation existed between the

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

the .05 level.

Hypothesis #3: The ranking of I is positively correlated

with the ranking of Extraversion.

Supported: I was negatively correlated with Introversion (the opposite

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

Hypothesis #4: The ranking of S is positively correlated

with the ranking of Agreeable.

Supported: S was significantly negatively correlated with Tough-

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

supported since Tough-minded is the opposite of Agreeable.

Hypothesis #5: The ranking of S is positively correlated

with the ranking of Stable.

Supported: S was positively correlated with the ranking of Stable

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

Hypothesis #6: The ranking of C is positively

correlated with the ranking of Introversion.

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

Hypothesis #7: The ranking of C is positively

correlated with the ranking of Conscientious.

Not supported: no significant correlation found

Hypothesis #8: The ranking of C is positively

correlated with the ranking of Stable.

Not supported: No significant correlation was found.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUTURE RESEARCH

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

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

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

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

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

communication.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

mail: [email protected] (Corresponding author)

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

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

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

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

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

Management History. E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Management, 18(2): 185-213.

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

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

Assessment, (4): 26-42

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

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

Green Court Atlanta, GA. 30350.

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

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

California: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.

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

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

Publications.

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

Society for the Advancement of Management.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

personal_finance/#.USKZa7_6M7A

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

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

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