What do the new ISO L&D Metrics Standards Mean for DiSC?
Align the New ISO L&D Metrics with your DiSC Workshop
Maybe you’ve just started facilitating DiSC workshops, or perhaps you’ve been building a culture of DiSC in your organization for quite a while. Either way, it’s very likely you’ve experienced the satisfaction of sending newly trained learners on their way to practice building better relationships with their new DiSC toolbox.
But how do you know if the training is “working”?
The learning and development field largely lacks a standardized system to measure training effectiveness. Therefore, it is easy to overlook opportunities to quantify whether your training efforts are succeeding or missing the mark.
To overcome this hurdle, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recently published a new set of L&D metrics standards that provide a framework to measure training effectiveness. This article will provide an overview of those standards and explain how they might apply to the DiSC practitioner.
About the ISO and L&D Metrics Standards
The Switzerland-based ISO is, according to its website, “an independent, non-governmental international organization with a membership of 170 national standards bodies. Through its members, it brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges.” In short, ISO is a group that organizes experts to set standards in any field where they may be needed.
The L&D metrics standards are based on a two-year international study of learning and development work. There are 19 metrics aimed at small to medium-sized organizations and 52 for larger orgs. The idea is that even though every organization might benefit from the 52 metrics, most smaller organizations do not have the dedicated staffing to track everything. Therefore, the 19 metrics for smaller organizations can be viewed as the most immediate; the “low hanging fruit.”
Why Standard L&D Metrics?
The reason metrics need to be standardized in the L&D field is so larger bodies of consistent data can be collected. For instance, the Association for Talent Development (ATD) regularly gathers data on the L&D field. However, its availability to draw conclusions from this data is compromised by the inconsistent way organizations collect training information. One company might measure the number who enroll in DiSC training while another might only have numbers on those who completed the training. Standardization would ensure everyone is measuring the same data, in the same way, and therefore more accurate conclusions can be drawn.
Key to understanding these training-related standards is the idea that there are four main reasons to set L&D metrics:
- Inform: Identify trends, answer questions; this might look like sharing information about previous workshops to get buy-in for further DiSC training
- Monitor: Ensure that a value or yield remains in line with historic benchmarks; this might mean seeing whether new hires are continuing to take DiSC assessments and be introduced to the model early in their new roles
- Evaluate: Evaluate effectiveness and impact; this could mean measuring whether learners are still thinking about DiSC on a regular basis a month or two after the training
- Manage: Set targets to improve and plan/deliver training to meet those targets; for example, you might identify a point several months after training where interest in DiSC drops off and set a goal to intervene with a refresher activity
It’s also important to understand why you are collecting data on metrics.
We know it’s probably a good idea to measure the results of DiSC training, but what specifically do we hope to learn? That will guide how often we collect information and how we report that data.
Recommended Metrics
The entire set of ISO’s recommended L&D metrics is available for purchase. Closely following the published standards will be important for the success of the larger field as they establish a common language and framework. However, if you are just beginning to track metrics on a small scale, the standards may be less important than simply knowing where to focus your efforts.
Many L&D practitioners are familiar with the Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation with its four levels including Level 1 (Reaction), Level 2 (Learning), Level 3 (Behavior) and Level 4 (Results). Research shows most trainers do not track data past Level 2; the new ISO standards seek to simplify those levels and focus mainly on quantifiable information.
The new ISO standards include the following general focus areas:
- Efficiency metrics.
These can be defined as “quantity metrics” such as the number of DiSC workshops offered, the number of learners taking a particular workshop, costs, etc. You might begin to measure ROI by tracking whether you retain more employees after DiSC training versus before it.
- Effectiveness metrics.
These can be defined as “quality metrics” that answer the question, “How good was the program?” Effectiveness metrics can be compared to Kirkpatrick’s four levels and might include asking learners to rate the videos, activities and other training content; give feedback on the usability of the Catalyst website; and rate the facilitator’s skill in leading the training. ROI is often elusive when a training focuses on “soft skills,” but you may achieve an effectiveness measurement by tracking job satisfaction ratings before and after DiSC training to look for trends.
In our own DiSC training program, we gauge effectiveness using participant surveys and team leader post-training debriefs. Participant surveys are issued at the end of the training session to capture immediate feedback and include Likert-scale-based questions such as “Please rate the overall quality of today’s session” and “Please rate the quality of the training materials (assessments, presentation slides, etc).” Our team leader debrief meetings include similar questions but asked in an open-ended manner to allow for elaboration: “Which activity did you feel was most effective and why?
- Outcome metrics.
Outcome metrics are tied to the organizational metric targeted by the learning (e.g., in the case of DiSC training, to increase sales by building stronger connections with customers or to reduce errors by improving communication among teammates). Outcome metrics are perhaps the most challenging to measure and therefore, the ISO standards do not suggest small to medium-sized organizations tackle outcome metrics at all until they have established the strong and consistent collection of efficiency and effectiveness metrics. Efficiency metrics — such as the number of learners who took DiSC Workplace — are easier to measure than outcome metrics — such as whether DiSC Workplace training improved employee retention — which would require you to isolate the impact of training. Although outcome metrics are more difficult to measure, they are the ones that upper-level stakeholders often care about the most.
We have recently shifted our focus to collecting outcome metrics by asking learners the following set of questions prior to and several months after their virtual DiSC workshop(s):
Of course, all of these items are behaviors we’d hope to improve through DiSC training. They also all speak to larger organizational aims (team performance, clearer communication, efficient use of time). Ideally, if asked again about these behaviors a few months down the road, learners who are benefiting from DiSC would be able to check more boxes. To see if this is true, we’ve been following up with a second poll via email one to three months later. We hope that collecting these outcome-based metrics will allow us to provide the data that executive stakeholders request.
Overall, the new ISO standards for L&D metrics aim to provide a useful framework and specialized language for understanding the impact of the work we do. In terms of DiSC, this may mean better ways to measure important impact such as ROI and alignment with broader organizational goals.
