Your responses. Your context.

Prepared for Alex Morgan · Fictional sample. Completed 10 October 2026. This report describes the answers you gave to 100 statements about typical work and interaction. Your responses are a perspective on your behavior, not a complete account of who you are.

Read with curiosity

Look for examples that fit and examples that do not. People adapt to roles, relationships, and circumstances; a preference is not a limit on what you can learn. Share this report only with people you choose to involve. The purchasing account also receives this report, as explained before participation.

DISC-100 development edition v1.0. This original inventory is research-informed but not yet psychometrically validated or normed. Use it for reflection and developmental conversation. Do not use it to diagnose, rank job candidates, make employment decisions, or infer intelligence or character.

What these numbers mean

Each scale is a response index from 0 to 100. Higher values indicate greater endorsement of that dimension’s keyed statements. A score of 75 does not mean you exceed 75% of other people. Scores are not percentiles, probabilities, performance grades, or estimates of ability. Each dimension stands separately; the four values do not add to 100.

How your profile was calculated

Each dimension contains 25 items. Responses use a five-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Five items in each dimension are reverse-keyed using 6 minus the response. The mean of the keyed responses is transformed by (mean - 1) × 25 and rounded to a whole number. All 100 responses are required.

No norm group, uncertainty interval, or validated cutoff is currently available. Compare your responses with concrete examples, not with an imagined ideal profile. This snapshot may vary with context, mood, and how you interpreted the statements.

D / Dominance — 72/100

You may be comfortable making decisions, stating a position, and creating momentum when a task is unclear.

Try this: Before an important decision, ask one colleague what you might have missed. State both the goal and the reasoning.

I / Influence — 61/100

You may bring energy to conversations, introduce people to ideas, and make collaboration feel inviting.

Try this: Close a discussion by writing down the next action, its owner, and a realistic date.

S / Steadiness — 48/100

You endorsed the steadiness statements less strongly than the response-scale midpoint. You may prefer variety, movement, or a changing pace. That can help you engage with shifts in work; check whether the people around you have the continuity they need.

Try this: Name one boundary or concern early, before agreement turns into an obligation you cannot sustain.

C / Conscientiousness — 83/100

You may clarify requirements, identify inconsistencies, and improve a decision by asking for supporting evidence.

Try this: Agree a definition of good enough and a decision deadline before starting the analysis.

Start with your own pattern

Your conscientiousness responses offer one possible entry point: Share the evidence and criteria, specify what is uncertain, and allow time to consider details. Balance that with a second lens: Lead with the outcome, name the decision needed, and leave space for questions.

When the other person wants a different pace

Ask, “Would it help to talk this through now, or to read a short outline first?” If you want to move quickly, explain why the timing matters and identify what remains open. If you need time, request a specific pause and commit to when you will respond. A clear agreement is more useful than a guess about someone’s type.

Four useful adjustments

For direct decision making, state the outcome, constraints, and decision owner. For social engagement, invite ideas and acknowledge contributions before closing with an action. For continuity, explain the sequence of change and the support available. For scrutiny, share the criteria, evidence, and uncertainties. These are communication options, not prescriptions for four categories of people.

A conversation to have this week

Choose someone you work with often. Ask: “When is my communication most useful? What do I do that makes collaboration harder? What one small adjustment would help?” Write down one example before discussing this report. Agree a behavior you can both observe, then check back after two weeks.

A pattern worth observing

Conscientiousness: Searching for more certainty can delay useful action. Distinguish the evidence you need from the certainty you would prefer. Treat this as a prompt, not a conclusion about you. Think of a recent situation in which the same preference helped, and another in which a different response would have been more effective.

Your second perspective

Dominance: Moving quickly can leave less room for other perspectives. Notice when urgency is helpful and when it narrows your view. If this observation does not fit your experience, record what does. A report should support your judgment about real examples rather than override it.

Separate the person from the situation

Recall a demanding moment. What was the task, what information did you have, and what did others need? Name the behavior you chose without turning it into an identity: “I interrupted twice” is more useful than “I am dominant.” Consider time pressure, power, role expectations, language, and relationships before explaining an outcome through personality.

Response quality and interpretation

No simple uniform-response or high-neutral-response flag was triggered. This does not establish that the answers are accurate or free from bias. Self-report can be influenced by the impression someone wants to make, differences in interpretation, and the setting in which they respond.

Week 1 / Observe without judging

Use your conscientiousness pattern as a starting question. Record three moments when it seems relevant. Note the situation, your action, and its effect. Include at least one counterexample. Ask a trusted colleague for an observation, with their permission; do not ask them to confirm a label.

Week 2 / Try one deliberate adjustment

Agree a definition of good enough and a decision deadline before starting the analysis. Choose two situations to practice. Before each one, write a simple intention: “When ___ happens, I will ___.” Afterwards, record what you actually did and what changed. A useful experiment can also show that the proposed adjustment was not needed.

Week 3 / Invite feedback

Ask the same colleague what they noticed, using a concrete question about the behavior you practiced. Compare their examples with your notes. Do not treat disagreement as a problem to eliminate; another viewpoint can reveal a context your self-report missed. Adjust the experiment together.

Week 4 / Keep what helps

Review your examples and choose what to continue, change, or stop. Define one observable commitment for the next month. Progress is a more useful behavior in a meaningful situation, not a higher DISC score. Repeating this questionnaire does not by itself prove that a development intervention worked.

Keep the evidence in view

Read the ten-chapter science library and the published scoring explanation at Machiavelli Assessments. Historical source: W. M. Marston, Emotions of Normal People (1928). Measurement guidance: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 2014). These sources inform the approach; they do not validate this inventory.