Q) Can you say more about the (C)’s expanded view of personality and temperament—indeed, expanded view of the individual?

Firstly, the theory of the (C) makes a clear distinction between the surface of the individual and what lies underneath. What we call personality, “behavioral style” and now “core competencies” is the surface if you will of what is more substantial and deep-seated. This is generative of personality, temperament, behavioral style and core competencies—a whole array of dispositions that can be referred to as one’s dispositional set. (The now fashionable term, core competencies, is in most respects synonymous with what is meant here by temperament.)

Secondly, it is because of the (C)’s capacity to represent this whole array of dispositions comprehensively, that it is able to home in on the uniqueness of the individual by providing what is more like a portrait than a caricature.

To produce a well-rounded picture, the (C)’s view of temperament and personality incorporates specific values, attitudes, interests, motivations and aptitudes, which are usually excluded, over-generalized, or insufficiently differentiated at (A)-level. Since the (C)’s perspective is so integrated and inclusive, each of these facets might be considered aspects of temperament in a new-found expanded sense. This means so many new and useful distinctions—all internally consistent and picture-enhancing—can now be made.

Take, for example, the role distinctions between selling, marketing and management. At (A)-level, these distinctions are at best hazy. There is no adequate conceptual basis for saying that an individual is generally more suited to selling or to marketing, and surprisingly little basis for differentiating between sales and management. The conceptualization of the (C), on the other hand, is able to make such distinctions easily and clearly.