When passion drives you

When passion drives me it is so easy to get things done. Energy flows, and I feel light and inspired.

I find that if my motivation has been inspired by a book or webinar or program I can hardly wait for the end of the inspirational event before I want to start on whatever it is that inspired me. I forget that I have actually been involved in a learning event. It isn’t learning – it’s doing. Or is it?

Surely learning should lead to:

• A tangible result
• An intangible change in the thinking of a person or group?
• New knowledge that generates action?

So how come I don’t view my passion and inspiration as a learning path?

When I think about it seriously, I have stuck in my mind a belief that learning has to be serious stuff. It has to involve some sacrifice, some putting off passion until I’ve earned it. It also has to imposed from above by people who know better.

But isn’t that flying in the face of what’s happening in the world right now – the integration of social networking into learning? Of course it is. My thinking is stuck in last century’s learning models. Nowadays when I want to learn something I go online and research it. I look for just enough information to answer my current questions. I might note a few interesting things to research later, but mostly I follow the Japanese JIT (Just In Time) principle – information I need just in time for when I need it. That kind of learning doesn’t fit into the 3-4 years studying topics deemed suitable for a named degree.

Unfortunately, formal learning is often a passion killer unless you know that it is leading into a career that inspires you. The very notion that the extent of your learning can only be measured by tests or assignments, in which you support other people’s past comments, doesn’t fit the requirements of our twitch speed future. How will it inspire us to move beyond the ‘now’? How can passion be merged into learning?

Formal learning organisations are facing an insecure future:

• Less money for research (where passion and inspiration leads)
• The increasing pace with which information becomes obsolete (and libraries must be restocked)
• A huge challenge in verifying the validity and currency of online information
• An increasing push for specialisation requiring a wider range of experienced tutors
• Increasing cost for housing students in a location and less government money to cover it

Staff and tutors at formal learning organisations are surely constantly running to catch-up, never mind get ahead of the knowledge tsunami. That young students might feel a bit disenchanted or disenfranchised in such a world is not surprising. They are already engaged in learning in the social networks they belong to. They just don’t see it as learning because it hasn’t been legitimised by the system. And their learning is indistinguishable from the social chitchat that accompanies the sharing of information.

Yet out in the real world, where passion can be a driving force, businesses are finding their knowledge and commercial improvements come from a free-exchange within a ‘what’s new and what does it do?’ culture. They are also finding that the interaction of staff along with the sharing helps to build bonds that will ultimately create a cohesive team.

Somehow over the next few decades the processes of learning and following your passion are going to have to merge.

What is experiential learning? Part 2

Just presenting a 'hands-on' exercise does not mean you’re using an experiential learning tool. The activity has to have an element of unexpected learning within it. The trainer must take a backstep from the learning environment and become a challenger or a last resort consultant. The trainees direct the learning environment.

A simple example is a game I designed for trainees learning about marketing for the first time. There were some important concepts we needed to get across to them without using the time-honoured PowerPoint-Talking-Heads scenario they were so used to. Instead, I designed a game that took a number of production and employee faults/issues/challenges and created them as obstacles on a classic roll-the-dice board game. I controlled all the ‘issues’ so it was far from experiential learning.

I added an extra learning challenge, however, in that the rules insisted that counters on each lane of the double-track could not get further apart than three spaces. The learning outcome from that would come out in discussion – employee skills and production rates are interlinked. But it was still not experiential learning.

In a group more open to different types of learning, I could have turned this into an experiential learning challenge. Sure, I would have given the board, and the basic rules/format, to the teams but I could have left the teams to come up with their own version of the game to illustrate given goals.

Let’s look at how that would have fitted into the parameters of experiential learning:

• A process of thinking – They would have had to use the KWL (What I Know,/What I want to know/What we learned) process to research and test the process


• Team work and good communication – They would need plenty of team work to do the research and design the rest of the game


• Role recognition – They would have had to acknowledge team member skills and assign roles


• Time and project management – They would have had to apportion time to tasks
  
• Managing conflict – They would need to manage conflict if there were disagreements about what needed to be included


• Group decision-making – And of course they would have to use good decision-making to come to a successful conclusion

If you would like to use the boardgame as a method of teaching about productivity issues I have arranged a generic set with blank cards that you can download free. You will need some light card to stick the boardgame onto, and to create the cards, plus dice and counters.

The set gives some examples of issues you might adapt to suit your industry. Then you can decide whether you want to control the learning about the issues or let your trainees use their own knowledge about production issues to create a game.

Lessons from Canada Geese, Part 2

If you come from a large organisation don’t under-value the knowledge of an on-site trainer. An on-site trainer sees employees when they’re being stretched and even put under stress. These observations build up into a clear picture of the capabilities of the person. These trainers ought to be involved in any consultation about promotion and restructuring. Why? Because they’ll know who will cope with added responsibilities if roles must be amalgamated.

When you’re training a group of people, especially if you use experiential learning methods, you learn how people react under pressure, whether they’re prepared to step into a leadership role, how they think (laterally or linear), and whether they’re a group player or a prima donna. An HR manager removed from practical training may miss out on learning these attributes of employees.

The on-site trainer can also be instrumental in bringing about culture changes, provided their role is clearly supported and valued by the organisation. The best worksite health and safety policy will not reduce accidents or injuries unless it's entrenched in worksite practice. ‘Big stick’ techniques are often less effective than culture change. Threats lead to clever concealment; culture change leads to a change in belief about self and the relationship with the organisation. Culture change takes time and management commitment. It needs to be led by the trainer with a positive, reward focus.

Imagine if those small groups of Canada geese decided to leave at different times of the year and didn’t bother to practice their vee-formation flying before they left? Not many of them would be around to return the following spring. It’s their commitment to the larger group, their willingness to share leadership, and their constant calls of encouragement that keep them a cohesive group flying through the nights and the rough ocean weather until they reach the next sanctuary on their journey.

When times are tough, as they are for organisations around the globe, culture change is a vital ingredient to ensure you’re a survivor. If you’re a trainer you can make a huge impact on the survival chances of your group.

• Avoid the negativity – train only the employees who see learning as valuable for them


• Focus training on the wider picture – convince employees of their role in creating a lean, efficient and well-functioning team


• Challenge the grey-matter – use unusual training tools to keep people on their toes and thinking – you’re training the whole person


• Spread the message that solutions are right within us – we just have to have the confidence to think outside the box


• Reward employees who show initiative – even if it is only to point them out to management as potential for promotion (but let them know you have done so)


• See other trainers as resources to share new techniques and tools – share your own ideas and borrow others

Survival in today’s climate will be about the organisations that learn to work for the greater good, the ones that look for new leaders from within their ranks and support each other strive for excellence. Divisive cultures will only lead to poor performance and inevitable disaster.

- Heather Sylvawood, Educational Designer, Edutech KM Ltd

Is it worth training reluctant learners?

I don’t think there is a hard rule about that … it really depends on what causes the learner’s reluctance.

If they're reluctant because they’re afraid that they won’t cope with the course, then some confidence building with pre-course material and tutor-to-trainee work can certainly engage them in further studies.

If they just can’t be bothered, but they have to do it for money, because the boss says so, or it keeps them in a job, then it may not be worth the energy you’ll need to spend to keep them focused. You would be better advised to concentrate on the ‘reluctant-because-they’re-afraid’ learners.

Having said all that, sometimes you just can’t tell ahead of the course. One course we trialled included some beginner trainees. When they arrived, they barely said anything; they pulled down their beanies and avoided eye contact at all costs.

The course was full of experiential activities as well as the tutor-directed learning that had to be done for them to learn enough to achieve the performance criteria. The young men played the games, they were forced to join groups and discuss topics, they were forced to lead groups and report back findings. At the end of the course (3 blocks of 2 days) they stood up at the front and delivered a report using presentation aids on a production issue they had researched. It was a major triumph.

One of the tutors knew their manager well and asked how they’d gone since they'd returned to the worksite. The ‘boss’ was delighted to report how much they engaged in work meetings. They asked questions and wanted to know “why?” This manager was not at all fazed by their new-found confidence. He saw it as a plus for the organization because these young men are likely to continue to think laterally and their asking ‘why?” will lead to improvements on site.

So perhaps the answer to the question: “Is it worth training reluctant learners?” is: “It depends on the course and the potential of the trainees.” And that potential you don’t get to see until they’re being forced to move out of their comfort-zone.