Research Summary and Implications
The following is an excerpt from the paper: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Three Popular Training Programs to Improve Interpersonal Skills
Click Here to Download a PDF of the Full Research Paper
Overview
Understanding and responding to the unique social or interpersonal styles of others is
an important skill for working professionals. Extensive lines of workplace research
establish that interpersonal skills are strong predictors of business and professional
success in addition to cognitive ability and technical knowledge. (Goleman, 1998;
Goleman, Boyatzis, &McKee, 2006). In an analysis of job competencies at 286
organizations worldwide, it was found that 18 of the 21 competencies for
distinguishing superior from average performers were interpersonal in nature
(Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In a recent survey of 726 Human Resource (HR) and
performance professionals, the top three most valued competencies in organizations
were management leadership, technical knowledge, and people skills (BPM Forum &
Success Factors, 2007). Intelligence rated near the bottom of the value scale.
As part of their talent-development efforts, organizations implement training and
development programs that often include some form of interpersonal and/or
behavioral assessment. Along with the assessment itself, this type of training
typically includes education about the accompanying theoretical model and
information on how to use this information to work more effectively with others. The
American Society for Training and Development estimates that U.S. organizations
spend almost $110 billion on employee learning and development annually, with an
average expenditure of over $1,400 per employee (Rivera & Paradise, 2006).
According to a 2006 forecast and analysis, soft skills training is expected to post the
largest change in market share over the next few years, overtaking the IT market
for the first time in terms of both size and share (Simba Information, 2006). This
same analysis also reported that soft skills training grew 32.6% from 2005 to 2006
and the compound annual growth rate from 2004 to 2006 was 26.1%. With so much
emphasis on social and interpersonal skills, and so much money being invested in
training and development programs, it is important to understand what these
programs are teaching, and how well they work.
The analysis of and response to the social or interpersonal behaviors of others can be
a challenging task for many of us. Accordingly, this process can be aided by both an
understanding of our personal behavioral styles and training in assessing and
interpreting the interpersonal styles of others. Supported by this knowledge, we can
then better adapt to others’ styles, improving relationship management, teamwork,
and productivity.
In the marketplace, there are multiple measurement tools available to working
professionals to assist them in understanding their own styles and those of others.
Even when a subject is assessed on one of these measures, understanding his or her
personal profile and, more importantly, knowing how to use that information in
interpersonal situations can be difficult without proper support. Thus, in choosing a
behavioral model or assessment program to use personally or for a company’s
workforce, it is important to select one that: a) has scientific evidence of the validity
(or accuracy) of the specific measurement instrument that is used in the program;
and b) has scientific evidence of the effectiveness of the training based on
application of the model.
The current study compares three popular interpersonal skills training programs for
measuring, understanding, and applying one’s social or interpersonal style. These
programs are based on the DiSC model from Inscape Publishing, the SOCIAL STYLE
MODELTM from the TRACOM Group, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator model
from CPP, Incorporated. All three of these programs claim to develop interpersonal
skills related to greater workplace effectiveness, such as communication,
teambuilding, and leadership development. A recent survey of HR executives found
that 86% of the organizations studied use one of these three programs, and at least
60% of their companies’ additional training programs incorporate an interpersonal
skills component (Leflein Associates, 2005). In addition, 73% of these professionals
believe that interpersonal skills training is effective, despite the lack of empirical
evidence for such a claim. When asked how they decided on a program, these
professionals stated that they rely on personal experience (71%) and general
research (53%). To our knowledge, no previous study has compared the effectiveness
of these three programs.
The purpose of the present study is to compare and evaluate training programs
conducted to support the analysis and application of each program. This study was
conducted independently by the Center for Organizational Excellence (COE) at
Colorado State University and by Regis Learning Solutions, a Regis University
affiliate, in order to provide an assessment of the benefits of training using each
program.
A total of 213 participants were trained on one of the three interpersonal skills
training programs by a facilitator certified to deliver training on that specific
program. All training evaluation measures were designed and analyzed by COE staff.
The results showed:
- There were no differences among the three training programs in terms of
participants’ satisfaction with training or their perceived usefulness of the training.
- Participants in the SOCIAL STYLE training scored significantly higher than did
participants in the DiSC and MBTI programs on a measure of retention of key
knowledge based on the joint training objectives.
- Participants in the SOCIAL STYLE training scored significantly higher than did
participants in the DiSC and MBTI programs on two measures of participants’ skill at
analyzing and responding to the interpersonal behaviors of others.
Implications:
There are multiple measures available to aid in the analysis, interpretation, and use
of one’s interpersonal style when interacting with others. To be maximally effective,
these measures should be supported by effective training that provides not only
information about the measurement instrument, but knowledge and skills associated
with using the instrument effectively to analyze and respond to the behavior of
others.
Effective training evaluation requires multiple measures conforming to the objectives
of the training. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a thorough
evaluation of three training programs based on three models that include
measurement tools for understanding and working with the interpersonal behaviors
or styles of others: Inscape’s DiSC, TRACOM’s SOCIAL STYLE, and CPP’s Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
Evaluations were done in terms of:
- Trainee reactions, that is, the extent to which participants enjoyed the training and
perceived the training as useful for diagnosing the behaviors of others and
communicating effectively with them;
- Participant knowledge of key concepts covered in training; and
- Participants’ skills at applying what they learned by watching a brief video and
correctly analyzing the interpersonal styles of characters in the video and indicating
how they would act toward other characters given knowledge of their styles or
profiles.
The results reveal clear differences among the three programs. Participants in all
three training programs held very positive reactions to the training. Nearly all were
satisfied with the training and nearly all perceived the training they received as
useful and easy to apply. On measures of learning, participants in the SOCIAL
STYLE training scored significantly higher (80% on average) than did either
participants in the DiSC training (67%) or MBTI training (60%). Since different
facilitators were used for each training type, it could be that some facilitators stuck
closer to the training objectives than did others, or explained materialin a way that is
easier to understand. Alternatively, there could be differences among measurement
instruments in the extent to which supporting material is easy to grasp intuitively
and encode to memory. If so, there is a clear advantage to participants receiving
SOCIAL STYLE training. Participants receiving MBTI training typically accurately
remembered their own profile, but struggled remembering many other key concepts
covered in training.
Regardless of what participants remember from the training, it is important that
they be able to use the training to analyze and respond to the interpersonal behaviors
of others. Recall that participants in all programs rated their respective programs
highly in this regard. Ideally, we would have waited for weeks or months after
training and measured participants’ post-training skills in their everyday life.
However, such an effort would be beyond the scope of this project. Instead, we
showed the same video to participants in each training program and measured their
skill at labeling the interpersonal style or profile of characters in the video, and also
their written answers as to how they would apply what they learned in training to
work with other characters in the video given knowledge of their styles.
Again, there was a clear advantage on both measures to participants receiving the
SOCIAL STYLE training. Participants in this program could identify more characters
correctly (on average 2.8 of 5) than could participants in either the DiSC (1.9) or
MBTI (.74) programs. Participants in this program also responded more accurately
than participants in the other two programs when asked their strategies for working
with other characters in the video knowing the characters style.
Since application of the instrument and interpersonal styles is a primary objective of
all three training programs, it would be difficult to argue that differences between
programs were due to some facilitators not emphasizing this skill. Rather, it appears
that, at least for a half-day training program, the SOCIAL STYLE program affects
immediate skill development much more so than do the other two programs. It could
be argued that applying the skills learned in the DiSC or MBTI programs are more
complex and require greater processing time (post-training) before they are
employed correctly. However, in general, research on skill acquisition shows that
without regular everyday practice, skills acquired in training are more likely to
atrophy than improve (Arthur, Bennett, Stanush, & McNelly, 1998), and that the gap
in initial post-training skill differences (e.g., between participants in the SOCIAL
STYLE v. DiSC or MBTI programs) are more likely to increase rather than decrease
over time. Accordingly, the results of this study suggest that the training supporting
the SOCIAL STYLE MODEL is the most effective for improving interpersonal skills
related to analyzing and responding to the behaviors of others.
Click Here to Download a PDF of the Full Research Paper
The following is an excerpt from the paper: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Three Popular Training Programs to Improve Interpersonal Skills
Click Here to Download a PDF of the Full Research Paper
Overview
Understanding and responding to the unique social or interpersonal styles of others is
an important skill for working professionals. Extensive lines of workplace research
establish that interpersonal skills are strong predictors of business and professional
success in addition to cognitive ability and technical knowledge. (Goleman, 1998;
Goleman, Boyatzis, &McKee, 2006). In an analysis of job competencies at 286
organizations worldwide, it was found that 18 of the 21 competencies for
distinguishing superior from average performers were interpersonal in nature
(Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In a recent survey of 726 Human Resource (HR) and
performance professionals, the top three most valued competencies in organizations
were management leadership, technical knowledge, and people skills (BPM Forum &
Success Factors, 2007). Intelligence rated near the bottom of the value scale.
As part of their talent-development efforts, organizations implement training and
development programs that often include some form of interpersonal and/or
behavioral assessment. Along with the assessment itself, this type of training
typically includes education about the accompanying theoretical model and
information on how to use this information to work more effectively with others. The
American Society for Training and Development estimates that U.S. organizations
spend almost $110 billion on employee learning and development annually, with an
average expenditure of over $1,400 per employee (Rivera & Paradise, 2006).
According to a 2006 forecast and analysis, soft skills training is expected to post the
largest change in market share over the next few years, overtaking the IT market
for the first time in terms of both size and share (Simba Information, 2006). This
same analysis also reported that soft skills training grew 32.6% from 2005 to 2006
and the compound annual growth rate from 2004 to 2006 was 26.1%. With so much
emphasis on social and interpersonal skills, and so much money being invested in
training and development programs, it is important to understand what these
programs are teaching, and how well they work.
The analysis of and response to the social or interpersonal behaviors of others can be
a challenging task for many of us. Accordingly, this process can be aided by both an
understanding of our personal behavioral styles and training in assessing and
interpreting the interpersonal styles of others. Supported by this knowledge, we can
then better adapt to others’ styles, improving relationship management, teamwork,
and productivity.
In the marketplace, there are multiple measurement tools available to working
professionals to assist them in understanding their own styles and those of others.
Even when a subject is assessed on one of these measures, understanding his or her
personal profile and, more importantly, knowing how to use that information in
interpersonal situations can be difficult without proper support. Thus, in choosing a
behavioral model or assessment program to use personally or for a company’s
workforce, it is important to select one that: a) has scientific evidence of the validity
(or accuracy) of the specific measurement instrument that is used in the program;
and b) has scientific evidence of the effectiveness of the training based on
application of the model.
The current study compares three popular interpersonal skills training programs for
measuring, understanding, and applying one’s social or interpersonal style. These
programs are based on the DiSC model from Inscape Publishing, the SOCIAL STYLE
MODELTM from the TRACOM Group, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator model
from CPP, Incorporated. All three of these programs claim to develop interpersonal
skills related to greater workplace effectiveness, such as communication,
teambuilding, and leadership development. A recent survey of HR executives found
that 86% of the organizations studied use one of these three programs, and at least
60% of their companies’ additional training programs incorporate an interpersonal
skills component (Leflein Associates, 2005). In addition, 73% of these professionals
believe that interpersonal skills training is effective, despite the lack of empirical
evidence for such a claim. When asked how they decided on a program, these
professionals stated that they rely on personal experience (71%) and general
research (53%). To our knowledge, no previous study has compared the effectiveness
of these three programs.
The purpose of the present study is to compare and evaluate training programs
conducted to support the analysis and application of each program. This study was
conducted independently by the Center for Organizational Excellence (COE) at
Colorado State University and by Regis Learning Solutions, a Regis University
affiliate, in order to provide an assessment of the benefits of training using each
program.
A total of 213 participants were trained on one of the three interpersonal skills
training programs by a facilitator certified to deliver training on that specific
program. All training evaluation measures were designed and analyzed by COE staff.
The results showed:
- There were no differences among the three training programs in terms of
participants’ satisfaction with training or their perceived usefulness of the training.
- Participants in the SOCIAL STYLE training scored significantly higher than did
participants in the DiSC and MBTI programs on a measure of retention of key
knowledge based on the joint training objectives.
- Participants in the SOCIAL STYLE training scored significantly higher than did
participants in the DiSC and MBTI programs on two measures of participants’ skill at
analyzing and responding to the interpersonal behaviors of others.
Implications:
There are multiple measures available to aid in the analysis, interpretation, and use
of one’s interpersonal style when interacting with others. To be maximally effective,
these measures should be supported by effective training that provides not only
information about the measurement instrument, but knowledge and skills associated
with using the instrument effectively to analyze and respond to the behavior of
others.
Effective training evaluation requires multiple measures conforming to the objectives
of the training. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a thorough
evaluation of three training programs based on three models that include
measurement tools for understanding and working with the interpersonal behaviors
or styles of others: Inscape’s DiSC, TRACOM’s SOCIAL STYLE, and CPP’s Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
Evaluations were done in terms of:
- Trainee reactions, that is, the extent to which participants enjoyed the training and
perceived the training as useful for diagnosing the behaviors of others and
communicating effectively with them;
- Participant knowledge of key concepts covered in training; and
- Participants’ skills at applying what they learned by watching a brief video and
correctly analyzing the interpersonal styles of characters in the video and indicating
how they would act toward other characters given knowledge of their styles or
profiles.
The results reveal clear differences among the three programs. Participants in all
three training programs held very positive reactions to the training. Nearly all were
satisfied with the training and nearly all perceived the training they received as
useful and easy to apply. On measures of learning, participants in the SOCIAL
STYLE training scored significantly higher (80% on average) than did either
participants in the DiSC training (67%) or MBTI training (60%). Since different
facilitators were used for each training type, it could be that some facilitators stuck
closer to the training objectives than did others, or explained materialin a way that is
easier to understand. Alternatively, there could be differences among measurement
instruments in the extent to which supporting material is easy to grasp intuitively
and encode to memory. If so, there is a clear advantage to participants receiving
SOCIAL STYLE training. Participants receiving MBTI training typically accurately
remembered their own profile, but struggled remembering many other key concepts
covered in training.
Regardless of what participants remember from the training, it is important that
they be able to use the training to analyze and respond to the interpersonal behaviors
of others. Recall that participants in all programs rated their respective programs
highly in this regard. Ideally, we would have waited for weeks or months after
training and measured participants’ post-training skills in their everyday life.
However, such an effort would be beyond the scope of this project. Instead, we
showed the same video to participants in each training program and measured their
skill at labeling the interpersonal style or profile of characters in the video, and also
their written answers as to how they would apply what they learned in training to
work with other characters in the video given knowledge of their styles.
Again, there was a clear advantage on both measures to participants receiving the
SOCIAL STYLE training. Participants in this program could identify more characters
correctly (on average 2.8 of 5) than could participants in either the DiSC (1.9) or
MBTI (.74) programs. Participants in this program also responded more accurately
than participants in the other two programs when asked their strategies for working
with other characters in the video knowing the characters style.
Since application of the instrument and interpersonal styles is a primary objective of
all three training programs, it would be difficult to argue that differences between
programs were due to some facilitators not emphasizing this skill. Rather, it appears
that, at least for a half-day training program, the SOCIAL STYLE program affects
immediate skill development much more so than do the other two programs. It could
be argued that applying the skills learned in the DiSC or MBTI programs are more
complex and require greater processing time (post-training) before they are
employed correctly. However, in general, research on skill acquisition shows that
without regular everyday practice, skills acquired in training are more likely to
atrophy than improve (Arthur, Bennett, Stanush, & McNelly, 1998), and that the gap
in initial post-training skill differences (e.g., between participants in the SOCIAL
STYLE v. DiSC or MBTI programs) are more likely to increase rather than decrease
over time. Accordingly, the results of this study suggest that the training supporting
the SOCIAL STYLE MODEL is the most effective for improving interpersonal skills
related to analyzing and responding to the behaviors of others.
Click Here to Download a PDF of the Full Research Paper
Interpersonal Skills
Training Comparison
Training Comparison
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |