Professional Development Plan
Kenneth Metcalfe
LDR/531
April 5, 2016
Brian Polding

Professional Development Plan
Working in a learning team is challenging because of the different dynamics of the individuals assigned to the team. Each individual has different characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. As the team leader the application of the following professional development plan, based on the team member’s DISC behavioral assessment, will provide a means to identify the individual’s strengths, weaknesses, and outline a means the team leader can use to communicate with each behavioral style. The plan will also explain how an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the styles provides direction for improvement to achieve personal career goals. The individual’s assessments place the members into three of the four styles; Cautious Style, Steadiness Style, and Dominance Style. Since additional members may be added to the team or included in future learning teams, the professional development plan will also include the Interactive Style. Understanding the differences between the behavioral styles is instrumental for a team leader to know “how to engage others whose own DiSC styles may be quite different” (Sugerman, 2009, para.9).
Team DISC Overview
A company named Kudu Industries and Murray Janewski developed the DISC assessment to determine an individual’s strengths, weaknesses, as a means to identify how to communicate more effectively (Sugerman, 2009). “DiSC research shows that every individual has a set of priorities that influence their behavior. By better understanding the priorities and motivations of their own colleagues, Kudu felt its employees would better communicate to one another.” (Sugerman, 2009, para.7). The DISC behavioral assessment was the first step the team took to identify his or her individual behavioral style. The styles are separated into four district quadrants of Dominance, Interactive, Cautious, and Steadiness. The team members can assess the most appropriate means to communicate with the other team members once the assessments are completed and the behavior styles are identified. Figure 1 shows the team leader’s style assessment designated with an “L”, and the team member’s styles designated with “X”. Understanding the four styles and what each style expects facilitates more effective communication (Sebastian, 2010).
Figure 1. Learning team self-assessment DISC chart. Dominance | | | Interactive | | X | | | | LX | X | | Cautious | | | Steadiness |

Behavioral Styles
Each style varies depending on the behavioral attributes. Where an individual’s placement will be on the DISC chart is based on the person’s behavior not personality. According to "Call of The Wild" (n.d.), " Personality is taken to be what we are while behaviour is what we do.” (http://www.callofthewild.co.uk/library/theory/ distinction-between-personality-and-behaviour/). Each style has strengths, weaknesses, and require a different approach when communicating with an individual within that behavioral style.
Dominance Style. Fast paced and task oriented behavior. The strengths of the dominance style are the individual is goal oriented and comfortable with in charge of the situation or task. People with this style tend to be outgoing and direct. The weaknesses identified with this style is that the individual can be perceived as pushy, poor listeners, and have trouble delegating tasks to other individuals. In a team atmosphere, an individual that will complete the task himself or herself without distributing the work load would be a Dominance Style. To communicate effectively with this style, the communication needs to be direct, to the point, outline clear expectations and rules (Sebastian, 2010). Since the individual is motivated by challenges and action the team leader must present the tasks a challenging opportunity ("Disc Profiles 4u", 2016).
Interactive Style. A personal interaction based style focused more towards enthusiasm and charm and less task oriented. These individuals tend to be good communicators. Drawbacks to this type of behavioral style are the need for step by step instructions and recognition. Communicating with the Interactive Style individual the leader must maintain a pleasant demeanor and praise them for their contributions (Sebastian, 2010). Because this behavioral style is motivated by social recognition it is important for the team leader to acknowledge the efforts and contributions the team member has made or how vital the contribution to the team will be in front of the team members peers ("Disc Profiles 4u", 2016).
Cautious Style. Behavior focused on details, accuracy, and content. The Cautious Style individual tend to be task oriented and systematic. These individuals take a slow, systematic approach to tasks and problem solving. Unfortunately, the high expectations they set for themselves and other make them perfectionists and slower decision makers. When communicating with these individuals the leader has to emphasis the facts, details, and be precise when outlining the tasks or responsibilities ("Disc Profiles 4u", 2016).
Steadiness Style. The most people focused style. Strengths of the Steadiness style individuals are that they are good listeners, loyal team members, prefer stability and maintaining things as they are versus change, and approachable. Because of the individuals need for security or stability the individual is not likely to voice their opinion when in disagreement with other team members to prevent upsetting the apple cart. As a team leader communication with people of this behavioral type requires the leader to remember that the individual is motivated by cooperation and places a high priority on collaboration and support. The team leader must be personable, non-confrontational and emphasize the team or group aspect of accomplishing tasks and assignments when communicating with an individual of the Steadiness Style ("Disc Profiles 4u", 2016).
Career Goal Achievement Communication skills between individuals and members of a team are essential to success. Through identification of the behavioral styles the team members can communicate more effectively as a team and an individual. Understanding the behavioral style also allows a person to identify their weak areas and take the corrective actions to minimize or eliminate that weakness from preventing effective communication. An example of how a Cautious Style individual can use this analysis is an awareness that their need for perfection and double checking may lead to not meeting deadlines assigned. If the individual is aware and takes the corrective measures, they can meet both the objectives of quality work and submission of the assignment on time. Knowledge of these styles and how to mitigate or work around the weaknesses of each will facilitate goal achievement.

Conclusion The professional development plan presented is a tool the team leader can utilize to communicate more effectively. According to Francis (2016), “A team cannot work together and complete a goal without effective communication. Effective communication ensures all tasks are assigned, deadlines are agreed to and kept and conflicts are brought to light and dealt with accordingly. “(Goals of Business Communication). The use of the DISC behavioral assessment provides a means for identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and effective means for communication between the four different behavioral styles. Clear and efficient communication will contribute to the achievement of team goals and individual career goals.

Reference
Call of the Wild. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.callofthewild.co.uk/library/theory/distinction-between-personality-and-behaviour/
DiSC Profiles 4u. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.discprofiles4u.com/pages/DiSC-Behavioral-Styles.html
Francis, K.A. (2016). Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/goals-business-communication-113.html
Sebastian, E. G. (2010). YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9iwLlmMLns
Sugerman, J. (2009). Using the DiSC® model to improve communication effectiveness.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(3), 151-154.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197850910950952