Unpacking Unique DISC Graphs

Understanding Atypical Profiles

In the DISC profiling system, there are three unique graph patterns that are considered rare and atypical. These configurations stand out because they don’t display the usual highs and lows across the DISC dimensions—Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Compliance—that are typically seen in most profiles. Some vendors even label these as “abnormal” due to their distinctive, flattened line patterns, specifically in three configurations: all points above the mid-line, all points below the mid-line, and all points hovering around the mid-line. These are commonly referred to as the Over-Achiever, Under-Achiever, and Tight profiles, respectively.

The “over-achiever” (with all four DISC points above the mid-line) as the name suggests over-extends all the four dimensions to a high degree. They describe the over-achiever as indicating potential adaptability or flexibility, while others question whether it reflects a lack of authenticity, as if the individual is “stretching” across too many traits. For the “under-achiever” (with all four DISC points below the mid-line) they are viewed as disengaged, passive, lacking motivation. Still the final graph, “tight” (with all four DISC points hovering around the mid-line) is described as too flexible and “being all things to all men”.

Why Are These Profiles Considered “Abnormal”?

So why are they labelled in a negative sense. In part, these three unique graphs do not fit the typical highs and lows of how a typical DISC graph work. When a profile lacks these clear highs and lows, it challenges the interpretation of DISC, which expect certain traits to be more pronounced. That is why it is important to understand how to interpret the low points and the skill of blending both highs and low points (see earlier posts on DISC Profiling: Why low scores matter and Unlocking the power of DISCAsiaPlus). But a more fundamental issue is the way the questions have been formatted. 

In the design of the DISC questionnaire itself, most vendors typically use a forced-choice questionnaire format, where respondents must select one trait that is “most like” me and one that is “least like” me. This design naturally generates profiles with highs and lows, as it forces the respondent to prioritize certain traits over others.

By contrast, a normative questionnaire format—where respondents rate each item or question on a continuous scale (e.g., 1 to 5)—produces different results. For instance, if an individual selects the highest or lowest score for all items in a normative assessment, it could yield a graph where all dimensions appear consistently high or low. Consider the following example: “I feel at ease with people” loads on the “Influence” dimension. Respondents are free to choose between the range of 1-5. Theoretically, respondents can select “1” or “5” for all questions and results in an under-achiever pattern or over-achiever pattern respectively. But the forced-choice format of DISC doesn’t allow this, which is why these atypical patterns are so rare within DISC profiles.

Comparing the Frequency of These Patterns in DISCAsiaPlus

To examine how rare these profiles are, consider data from DISCAsiaPlus, where 6,641 participants took the assessment. The results showed:

Interpreting These Unique Graphs

At DISCAsiaPlus, these unique profiles are not seen as abnormal but rather as indicators of the blend of the DISC dimensions that require skilled interpretation. For instance, the “Tight” graph pattern is labeled as “Trouble-shooter.” This label acknowledges that, while subdued, these individuals may have strengths in observing, analyzing, and addressing issues without drawing attention to themselves.

While these rare profiles are less common and may require additional interpretation skills, they can still provide valuable insights into an individual’s personality. A formal accreditation course can enhance a practitioner’s ability to understand and interpret these unique configurations fully. Here’s a brief description of the troubleshooter:

Troubleshooter is characterized by a deep and intense introspection and a pre-occupation with oneself. They prefer to take the obvious and practical path to success. Being creative and pragmatic, they can be counted on to resolve problems in a quick and efficient way. They are not intrusive and mainly keep to themselves. This tendency can be interpreted as disengaged and aloof although they are deeply engaged with their thoughts. When they work in a field of their interests, they can be intensely engaged with the subject. This is where they function best, working alone with intense concentration.

The acrostic MEND provides an excellent handle in describing the Troubleshooter.

Mind their own business

Engaged deeply in their thoughts

Need to resolve problems quickly

Drive practicality