The four Styles differ in their approach to group work because they tend to make decisions differently.

In a meeting run by a Dominant Style, decisions are more likely to be made unilaterally by the Dominant Style, or he or she will call for a vote. Dominant Styles like voting because it’s clean, quick, and decisive. It keeps debating to a minimum. Also, it’s harder to argue that a vote is unfair. And closure is clearly attained. Next topic!

A problem with voting—though Dominant Styles rarely see it as a problem—is that there are winners and losers. Influencing Styles, being more people-oriented, try to work out compromises that reduce resentment and maybe even fudge over differences. Influencing Styles want to downplay group divisions. They’re not big on voting.

Steady Styles also prefer decisions by consensus. They’d like to see the vast majority of the group be on the bus. So actions tend to be worked and reworked until almost all are in agreement.

Conscientious Styles crave “rational” decisions. Optimally, the decision won’t be made as much as it will be dictated by the facts and logic of the situation, including the key players required to make it work. Conscientious Styles like to list pros and cons of issues—sometimes even weighing the options numerically—to reach the “correct” decision. The process, they believe, will make obvious the best course of action.

Love ’em or hate ’em, work groups are here to stay. But while they can be high-performance vehicles, they can also be high-maintenance, especially in the early stages. Only a team that fully understands and savors its members’ Styles is likely to be genuinely productive.

If the teams are assigned tasks that fit their particular Styles —and if members practice The DISC Platinum Rule—the advantages of stylistic diversity can quickly outweigh the group’s liabilities. The result, despite the differences, can be a wonderful synergy.