Motivation plan development and implementation strategies

DiSC

Motivation Plan

DiSC assessment results: Learning team members

The Division Chief / Intelligence Coordinator Office of the Director for National Intelligence is a high-stress supervisory position that demands a high level of interpersonal intelligence. To lead people in an appropriate and effective manner requires knowledge of the different ways that people think and what motivates different personality types. This acknowledgement is itself at the heart of the DiSC personality assessment. It suggests that there are four basic personality orientations: a dominant (D), interactive (i), steadiness (S), and conscientious (C) worldview. Of course, all people show some characteristics of all four personality types. However, most people have one -- or at minimum two -- which dominates.

Learning team profile: Steadiness

The DiSC profile of the Division Chief / Intelligence Coordinator was primarily that of 'steadiness.' Given that the office is essentially a bureaucratic one, this should not come as a surprise. Steady styles are often the most people-oriented of the four styles. While interactive types often have an intense need for personal validation in an extroverted fashion, Steady styles are more inclined to support others in an honest fashion. They are focused upon creating harmony rather than discord and are loyal to institutional rules. When exercising leadership, they do so in a supportive way and try to get people 'on board' with their decisions, rather than imposing their will on others. Buy-in is very important for leaders to solicit and this is one of the advantages of a 'steady' style -- they are genuinely interested in others. They are often described as approachable, warm, and relaxed. In the case of such a sensitive position, it is important that when people they have a problem they feel comfortable reporting it to a supervisor. Having a network of trustworthy people who can confide in a leader is essential for an intelligence-related agency to be successful.

There are some potential problems with a 'steady' style, however. Steady styles can be extremely risk-adverse. In organizations which require dynamic leadership, this can be problematic, given that there may be a need to change and adapt to the needs of the marketplace. However, in the case of a bureaucratic agency, this is less of a concern. Steadiness in following the rules can be an asset rather than a detriment, given that the leader seldom sets policy and creativity and innovation are not prized to the same extent that they are in say, advertising. The President and Congress are ultimately responsible for changing agency policies. However, even a bureaucratic institution can become overly and hopelessly mired in tradition in a negative fashion. In extreme instances, ethical misbehavior may go unrecognized if it becomes to be viewed as part of the standard operations of the agency. Steady leaders are more willing to tolerate 'unpleasantness' to avoid conflict and are more afraid of change than the status quo remaining, even if the status quo no longer works to achieve agency goals.

To increase the motivation of this learning team style, it is important to stress how leaving one's comfort zone can serve agency goals. A subset of the S. style, the steady-dominant style, may be more willing to change, given that this individual is partially motivated by the desire for advancement as well as to serve the needs of the agency. But a steady style will always be most comfortable working in the context of something larger than him or herself and a nakedly competitive atmosphere will seldom be productive, because a steady individual will not like to feel as if he or she is stepping on anyone's 'toes' to get ahead.

Dominant style (D).

This may be contrasted with another member of the learning team, a person with a dominant motivational style. Dominant types are intensely competitive and achievement-oriented. They are hard workers and self-driven, but can appear arrogant. Dominant styles, in contrast to steady styles, have a need for personal control and mastery that extends beyond the immediate needs of the organization: they take a results-oriented approach because of a personal need to achieve. One problem with a dominant style, particularly when working for a bureaucratic institution like a government agency is that they are often willing to bend the rules to get things done, assuming in a utilitarian fashion that if the results are good, all will be forgiven. Dominant styles may also be incompatible with government agencies because they view rules as red tape. Alone, they may work quickly, but they will not work well with others. The positive aspect of this, however, is they may inject some much-needed energy into a stagnant institution.

Dominant types are motivated by personal achievement and competition. One substyle of dominance is that of the 'dominant steady' or Ds, who is known as a micromanager who wants to see tasks completed from start to finish him or herself. On the positive side, this means that he or she is a highly competent worker; the negative is that they are not a team player. To motivate all dominant styles, the rewards of working for the team must outweigh the positives of going it alone. Personal achievement must be stressed as a motivator for this type. If they feel that completing a task will enable them to get ahead, the will do it and are more inclined to be team players if they feel that the workplace culture requires it. Dominant styles are extroverts and can be useful but must be carefully watched and managed so they do not bully other employees.

Interactive styles

Interactive styles, like dominant styles, are extroverts, but they are much more motivated by their relationships with people. Unlike steady types, they thrive on being admired by others. They take great enjoyment in working with others on teams but can be more focused on people and on being liked than the task at hand. However, their interpersonal intelligence and relationship skills can be very valuable, particularly in motivating people to complete unpleasant tasks. Although some of their work as 'idea people' may be less necessary in a bureaucratic environment, they can still be valuable as a motivational presence in general, encouraging people to be more engaged with the workplace, thanks to the motivating force of their personality.