Some time ago, I was part of a critical project that changed how I view talent management. Our team was tasked with conducting a comprehensive "Skill Audit" of our organization’s managerial employees including Top Management.
The goal was ambitious: to identify leadership styles and pinpoint the specific skill gaps hindering performance. To achieve this, we created a multi-dimensional Assessment Center that included live debates, group discussions, one to one discussion with evaluators, 360 - Degree Feedback and role-playing activities.
However, we knew that observing a debate only tells you what a leader does. It doesn't tell you why they do it. That is why we integrated DISC as our core psychometric /personality assessment.
To truly understand the mechanics behind this process, I underwent first level DISC certification training. That experience became the foundation of our audit methodology. Here is how we used DISC to decode the leadership DNA of our top management.
The Missing Link: Why We Needed Psychometrics
In an assessment center, you often have subjective activities. For example, during a Group Discussion, one manager might be very aggressive while another stays quiet.
Is the quiet manager lacking confidence? (A Skill Gap)
Or is the quiet manager simply an introverted thinker processing the data? (A Style Difference)
Without psychometric data, you might wrongly penalize the quiet manager. We used DISC as the objective psychometric baseline. While the debates measured their observable skills (Communication, Persuasion), DISC measured their internal behavioral design. This allowed us to "triangulate" the data.
How DISC Works as a Strategic Tool
Unlike a technical exam where answers are "right" or "wrong," DISC acts as a self-report inventory. It uses a "Forced Choice" methodology. The leader is forced to choose between equally positive traits (e.g., choosing between Daring vs. Diplomatic).
By stripping away social desirability, the algorithm reveals the leader's dominant priority on two key axes:
Pace: Active (Fast) vs. Reflective (Moderate)
Focus: Task-Oriented vs. People-Oriented
The 4 Leadership Archetypes We Audited
By cross-referencing our debate observations with their DISC profiles, we identified four distinct leadership styles in our boardroom.
D : stands for Dominance - The Commanding Leader (Active + Task)
Debate Behavior: Often dominated the conversation and interrupted others.
DISC Insight: Their high "D" score validated this wasn't just rudeness; it was a natural drive for results.
The Audit Finding: Their skill gap was often Active Listening. They needed coaching on how to pause and invite input.
I : stands for Influence / Influencer - The Inspiring Leader (Active + People)
Debate Behavior: Charismatic, energetic, and excellent at diffusing conflict.
DISC Insight: Their high "I" score showed they prioritize social influence.
The Audit Finding: While great at talking, they often lacked substance in their arguments. Their gap was Detailed Strategic Planning.
S : stands for Steadfast / Steadiness - The Supportive Leader (Reflective + People)
Debate Behavior: Tended to be the peacemaker, avoiding direct confrontation.
DISC Insight: Their high "S" score revealed a deep need for harmony and stability.
The Audit Finding: They were the stabilizers of the company, but scored lower on Change Management. Their gap was the willingness to "rock the boat" when necessary.
C : stands for Conscientiousness / Compliance - The Analytical Leader (Reflective + Task)
Debate Behavior: Quiet, took notes and spoke only at the end with a summary.
DISC Insight: Their high "C" score proved this wasn't a lack of confidence. It was a preference for accuracy over speed.
The Audit Finding: They ensured quality but struggled with Decision Speed. They fell into "analysis paralysis" waiting for perfect data.
The Breakthrough: Natural vs. Adapted Analysis
The most powerful tool in our Skill Audit was analyzing the difference between a manager's Natural Style (who they are) and their Adapted Style (who they were "acting" as during the debates).
We found several managers who performed aggressively in the debates (high "D" behavior) but their psychometric report showed they were naturally supportive ("High S").
The Diagnosis: These leaders were masking. They were "acting" tough because they thought the role demanded it.
The Risk: This is a massive predictor of burnout. They were burning mental energy just to wear a mask.
The Verdict
The Skill Audit project taught me that you cannot fix performance issues until you distinguish between a Skill Gap (Ability) and a Style Gap (Behavior).
The debates showed us how they performed, but DISC told us who they were. By combining the two, we didn't just judge our top management; we understood them. This allowed us to build development plans that were not generic, but scientifically tailored to the individual.
This entire project was led by Mrs. Nanda Dave, Founder of The Mentors & Enablers. You can contact them for your organizational needs for the talent development.
By Mit - A HR Professional
No comments:
Post a Comment