|
What are LEARNING IMPACT MAPS? How do you use them?
How do you engage your learners when teaching a dry subject?
|
What's wrong with lecturing?
|
Why is UN-LEARNING important? How do you deal with it?
|
Why Innovative Training (without PowerPoint) has Great Value
|
Is it Work or is it Training? “Work-based learning” with Action Learning
By Adriano Pianesi
I would like to share my excitement for the effectiveness of a new approach to learning from experience called Action Learning. I recently completed my certification as an Action Learning coach and have already facilitated two workshops using the method.
Action Learning is an instructional method of solving a problem in a group setting while learning from experience under the guidance of an Action Learning coach.
In an Action Learning session people discuss and reflect about a problem owned either by an individual, a group or a team. Dialogue is guaranteed by one of the method’s critical ground rules: “Statements can be made only in response to questions.” This rule is established at the beginning of the session and generates a spirit of inquiry that releases the pooled knowledge of the group to solve a problem. The process is this: a participant presents a real problem to the group and participants proceed to ask questions in order to understand the problem and come up with potential solutions. While the group is in this discussion, the Action Learning coach focuses exclusively on the learning that comes from experience and intervenes from time to time stopping the action to solicit learning reflections from participants.
In addition, at the beginning of an Action Learning session the coach asks each participant to name a leadership skill he/she wants to work on. At the end of the session each individual receives feedback from the group on how he/she did in reference to that particular skill during the conversation. In this way, Action Learning serves the dual purpose of solving problems and developing leadership skills.
An Action Learning program is such if six key elements are in place:
• A team willing to meet face-to-face at least once, better if more or on a regular basis
• An Action Learning Coach
• An urgent problem that needs some resolution. The problem must not have an existing solution. For example, “What is the capital of Kyrgyzstan?” does not qualify as an Action Learning problem as only one solution exists; “How can I find out what the capital of Kyrgyzstan is?” does, as there are several ways for somebody to find out.
• A commitment to questioning and reflecting by the members of the group
• A commitment by the problem-owner to action based on the result of the session
• A commitment to learning.
As such Action Learning:
• is not a task force or a quality circle, because in those groups the purpose is exclusively to act while learning is incidental. In Action Learning, learning is one of the main objectives of the session.
• is not a simple dialogue, because the session generates action items as solutions to the problem that the problem owner commits to use in real life.
• is not coaching individuals about a problem, because the group generates the solution while the Action Learning coach only focuses on the learning of the group.
One of the Action Learning’s elements that I found most important is that it uses one of the key findings of contemporary learning theory -- that the process of acquiring expertise must be through applied learning and communication with peers and experts in the workplace, not with top-down communication.
Action Learning addresses effectively the unwillingness of many organizations to send managers away from work to training and the common misconception of seeing learning as separated from “real work” and, ultimately, of little value.
Why? Because Action Learning generates value and distills learning from experience while solving real-world problems. Peter Drucker’s 1959 idea of the “knowledge worker”—the visionary concept of a workforce whose primary job is to develop knowledge to, in turn, generate value fits to Action Learning to a T.
Yet, I worry about how far from this concept the reality of today’s workplace is, with the trainer’s job still shaped by the traditional model of an expert teaching with Power Point presentations!
Colleagues, let’s step up our efforts! I announced my first Action Learning workshop “No Training! Action Learning for Managers” with an invitation that read: “Disclaimer: No PowerPoint slides were created for the design of this course.” and “Bring your work problems with you; we will solve them together and learn something in the process!” This set the collaborative and original tone that lasted through the highly enjoyable session. I might add that the session was also highly effective.
One of the elements I was struck with about Action Learning is its ability to bridge formal corporate knowledge needs with the unpredictability of informal workplace communities. In fact Action Learning implicitly assumes that:
• The solution to problems exists already in workplace communities—not with experts
• The pooled knowledge of learners is the critical resource for learning —not a textbook
• Learning at work must generate knowledge to solve problems –not abstract theory
• Learning is facilitated in action – not away from it
Today, the demand for more and better workplace learning calls for a new generation of training that focuses on pooling and creating knowledge rather than on functions carried out more effectively by computers (like information-dispensing and skill-drilling). I believe Action Learning can be a useful additional tool in the repertoire of adult educators to address this challenge.
I am planning to facilitate another Action Learning workshop soon and I am looking forward to continuing to share my experience further with the readers of my blog.
I own Participaction Consulting, Inc., a consultancy that develops custom training solutions through collaboration to reach lasting organizational change.
I would like to share my excitement for the effectiveness of a new approach to learning from experience called Action Learning. I recently completed my certification as an Action Learning coach and have already facilitated two workshops using the method.
Action Learning is an instructional method of solving a problem in a group setting while learning from experience under the guidance of an Action Learning coach.
In an Action Learning session people discuss and reflect about a problem owned either by an individual, a group or a team. Dialogue is guaranteed by one of the method’s critical ground rules: “Statements can be made only in response to questions.” This rule is established at the beginning of the session and generates a spirit of inquiry that releases the pooled knowledge of the group to solve a problem. The process is this: a participant presents a real problem to the group and participants proceed to ask questions in order to understand the problem and come up with potential solutions. While the group is in this discussion, the Action Learning coach focuses exclusively on the learning that comes from experience and intervenes from time to time stopping the action to solicit learning reflections from participants.
In addition, at the beginning of an Action Learning session the coach asks each participant to name a leadership skill he/she wants to work on. At the end of the session each individual receives feedback from the group on how he/she did in reference to that particular skill during the conversation. In this way, Action Learning serves the dual purpose of solving problems and developing leadership skills.
An Action Learning program is such if six key elements are in place:
• A team willing to meet face-to-face at least once, better if more or on a regular basis
• An Action Learning Coach
• An urgent problem that needs some resolution. The problem must not have an existing solution. For example, “What is the capital of Kyrgyzstan?” does not qualify as an Action Learning problem as only one solution exists; “How can I find out what the capital of Kyrgyzstan is?” does, as there are several ways for somebody to find out.
• A commitment to questioning and reflecting by the members of the group
• A commitment by the problem-owner to action based on the result of the session
• A commitment to learning.
As such Action Learning:
• is not a task force or a quality circle, because in those groups the purpose is exclusively to act while learning is incidental. In Action Learning, learning is one of the main objectives of the session.
• is not a simple dialogue, because the session generates action items as solutions to the problem that the problem owner commits to use in real life.
• is not coaching individuals about a problem, because the group generates the solution while the Action Learning coach only focuses on the learning of the group.
One of the Action Learning’s elements that I found most important is that it uses one of the key findings of contemporary learning theory -- that the process of acquiring expertise must be through applied learning and communication with peers and experts in the workplace, not with top-down communication.
Action Learning addresses effectively the unwillingness of many organizations to send managers away from work to training and the common misconception of seeing learning as separated from “real work” and, ultimately, of little value.
Why? Because Action Learning generates value and distills learning from experience while solving real-world problems. Peter Drucker’s 1959 idea of the “knowledge worker”—the visionary concept of a workforce whose primary job is to develop knowledge to, in turn, generate value fits to Action Learning to a T.
Yet, I worry about how far from this concept the reality of today’s workplace is, with the trainer’s job still shaped by the traditional model of an expert teaching with Power Point presentations!
Colleagues, let’s step up our efforts! I announced my first Action Learning workshop “No Training! Action Learning for Managers” with an invitation that read: “Disclaimer: No PowerPoint slides were created for the design of this course.” and “Bring your work problems with you; we will solve them together and learn something in the process!” This set the collaborative and original tone that lasted through the highly enjoyable session. I might add that the session was also highly effective.
One of the elements I was struck with about Action Learning is its ability to bridge formal corporate knowledge needs with the unpredictability of informal workplace communities. In fact Action Learning implicitly assumes that:
• The solution to problems exists already in workplace communities—not with experts
• The pooled knowledge of learners is the critical resource for learning —not a textbook
• Learning at work must generate knowledge to solve problems –not abstract theory
• Learning is facilitated in action – not away from it
Today, the demand for more and better workplace learning calls for a new generation of training that focuses on pooling and creating knowledge rather than on functions carried out more effectively by computers (like information-dispensing and skill-drilling). I believe Action Learning can be a useful additional tool in the repertoire of adult educators to address this challenge.
I am planning to facilitate another Action Learning workshop soon and I am looking forward to continuing to share my experience further with the readers of my blog.
I own Participaction Consulting, Inc., a consultancy that develops custom training solutions through collaboration to reach lasting organizational change.
Dialogue is Dangerous When it is Done Right:
by Christine Little
Director of Global Learning & Organizational Development
Habitat for Humanity International
The meeting was stalled with 40 people standing in clusters around the edges of the room. They were stuck, frustrated, and looking for me help them out. For a day we had moved through the safer activities of the meeting, working in small groups, gathering input for the content of a purpose statement, discussing and charting the stickier points of process and structure.
But this question was a high risk question. "Which of these points are you personally committed to putting some action to?" There was no hiding from that question in a small group. There was no hiding from it in the creation of more elegant bullet points. It could not be anonymously penned on a flip chart or jotted onto a sticky note right before darting out the door.
This question was personal. It was confrontational. It confronted them with their own freedom to choose - am I committing to what we can create in this room, or am I opting out?
Since reading Peter Block's compelling book "the answer to how is yes," (and having been in an even more compelling two-day workshop with him) I have rethought the way I design for safety in dialogue.
"Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Safety can also work against dialogue. Exposure is the price for meaningful dialogue. And significant change -- the ultimate pay off for learning -- is not safe, painless or easy. It requires courage. Our design and facilitation would do well to promote courage rather than safety. Courage is ultimately more useful for the world.
I have facilitated, and participated in, elegantly designed processes that made it easy to hide, to play it safe or to avoid meaning. In these gatherings, dissent has been put on the "parking lot" so that it can't derail the process in the room. Questions and reporting techniques keep the dialogue manageable (especially for the facilitator), but they neutralize expressions of doubt, confusion, and disagreement.
I still use small groups. I still sequence activities to move from easy to more difficult. I don't call on individuals to confront them with the question I think they are dodging. But I also create space for individuals and for the group to participate in more courageous dialogue.
Here are some ways I have changed my approach to design and facilitation in pursuit of courage over safety:
I use questions that examine doubt, commitment and personal choice. "Head" questions can generate good information - we need them to get the ideas out there, but "gut" questions can bring a group to confront its choice.
I have greatly reduced my reliance on clever techniques that gather information in manageable bites. The SNOW cards, graphic organizers and two-word answers that I favored in order to boost dialogue, generate more information and create safety, were also diminishing some of the meaningfulness of the dialogue. They have their place. But the frequently served my need for time management and control more than they served
I build time into my design to process with the group how they are functioning (individually and as a group) in the meeting room. Block notes that the meeting itself is a metaphor for the organization. It is rich with data, and often partly invisible to people in the room. It is worthwhile to examine what it means if people are quietly agreeing to decisions in the meeting, then frenetically trying to lobby the CEO at break.
I stay with the group when the tension builds, when they are stuck, or resisting, or polarizing, but I don't give into the temptation to save us all by quickly designing a safer task.
This last part takes the most courage from me. I am proud of my capacity to design tasks, ask the right questions, keep the group engaged in the work. I like to be the person in the room who can design the environment and the work in such a way that a group produces what it set out to produce. The trouble is, if the session is mainly a demonstration of my design capacity, it may not actually be a demonstration of the commitment of the people in the room to carry forward what they have planned.
As we stood in that meeting room, the tension grew. The participants stopped talking about their own dilemma and switched to talking about how the meeting was being run. They said I was asking the wrong question. That we needed to go back and get the wording of the bullet points right first. That the categories were all wrong.
In my own mind, I could already hear how the story would be told about this failed meeting. "Two wasted days! The CEO sitting in the room for two days! All those wasted airfares. And the problem is she got the design all wrong." It was an act of will not to break the tension by moving them into small groups and giving them the task of rewording some bullet points. That would have guaranteed an output. But the bigger prize -- personal commitment to the decision -- would have been lost.
After a torturous 20 minutes, something shifted. The group took control of the meeting. They started moving the tables around so that the room was better designed for the work. They very quickly formed groups and figured out their own process for collecting and reporting. I had designed some questions for them, but I didn't even put the flipchart up. My questions no longer mattered. They had decided to commit, and they already knew what had to be created in the next two hours. All I needed to do was sit down and let them work.
Director of Global Learning & Organizational Development
Habitat for Humanity International
The meeting was stalled with 40 people standing in clusters around the edges of the room. They were stuck, frustrated, and looking for me help them out. For a day we had moved through the safer activities of the meeting, working in small groups, gathering input for the content of a purpose statement, discussing and charting the stickier points of process and structure.
But this question was a high risk question. "Which of these points are you personally committed to putting some action to?" There was no hiding from that question in a small group. There was no hiding from it in the creation of more elegant bullet points. It could not be anonymously penned on a flip chart or jotted onto a sticky note right before darting out the door.
This question was personal. It was confrontational. It confronted them with their own freedom to choose - am I committing to what we can create in this room, or am I opting out?
Since reading Peter Block's compelling book "the answer to how is yes," (and having been in an even more compelling two-day workshop with him) I have rethought the way I design for safety in dialogue.
"Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Threat can work against dialogue. If I will be ridiculed for a wrong answer, I am likely to withhold my answers until I am sure they are right. If honest opinion gets punished, I may opt for the safe, comfortable, slightly less honest dialogue that frequently fills meeting, training and conference rooms.
Safety can also work against dialogue. Exposure is the price for meaningful dialogue. And significant change -- the ultimate pay off for learning -- is not safe, painless or easy. It requires courage. Our design and facilitation would do well to promote courage rather than safety. Courage is ultimately more useful for the world.
I have facilitated, and participated in, elegantly designed processes that made it easy to hide, to play it safe or to avoid meaning. In these gatherings, dissent has been put on the "parking lot" so that it can't derail the process in the room. Questions and reporting techniques keep the dialogue manageable (especially for the facilitator), but they neutralize expressions of doubt, confusion, and disagreement.
I still use small groups. I still sequence activities to move from easy to more difficult. I don't call on individuals to confront them with the question I think they are dodging. But I also create space for individuals and for the group to participate in more courageous dialogue.
Here are some ways I have changed my approach to design and facilitation in pursuit of courage over safety:
I use questions that examine doubt, commitment and personal choice. "Head" questions can generate good information - we need them to get the ideas out there, but "gut" questions can bring a group to confront its choice.
I have greatly reduced my reliance on clever techniques that gather information in manageable bites. The SNOW cards, graphic organizers and two-word answers that I favored in order to boost dialogue, generate more information and create safety, were also diminishing some of the meaningfulness of the dialogue. They have their place. But the frequently served my need for time management and control more than they served
I build time into my design to process with the group how they are functioning (individually and as a group) in the meeting room. Block notes that the meeting itself is a metaphor for the organization. It is rich with data, and often partly invisible to people in the room. It is worthwhile to examine what it means if people are quietly agreeing to decisions in the meeting, then frenetically trying to lobby the CEO at break.
I stay with the group when the tension builds, when they are stuck, or resisting, or polarizing, but I don't give into the temptation to save us all by quickly designing a safer task.
This last part takes the most courage from me. I am proud of my capacity to design tasks, ask the right questions, keep the group engaged in the work. I like to be the person in the room who can design the environment and the work in such a way that a group produces what it set out to produce. The trouble is, if the session is mainly a demonstration of my design capacity, it may not actually be a demonstration of the commitment of the people in the room to carry forward what they have planned.
As we stood in that meeting room, the tension grew. The participants stopped talking about their own dilemma and switched to talking about how the meeting was being run. They said I was asking the wrong question. That we needed to go back and get the wording of the bullet points right first. That the categories were all wrong.
In my own mind, I could already hear how the story would be told about this failed meeting. "Two wasted days! The CEO sitting in the room for two days! All those wasted airfares. And the problem is she got the design all wrong." It was an act of will not to break the tension by moving them into small groups and giving them the task of rewording some bullet points. That would have guaranteed an output. But the bigger prize -- personal commitment to the decision -- would have been lost.
After a torturous 20 minutes, something shifted. The group took control of the meeting. They started moving the tables around so that the room was better designed for the work. They very quickly formed groups and figured out their own process for collecting and reporting. I had designed some questions for them, but I didn't even put the flipchart up. My questions no longer mattered. They had decided to commit, and they already knew what had to be created in the next two hours. All I needed to do was sit down and let them work.
The final diary of my Classroom Timer
The dramatic account in the words of Rory McLean, former Lead Developer of my team and Humorist Maximus NOTE I do keep a bag with markers, mp3 player, pens, a bell and a timer in a box for use in my classroom sessions. I never thought it would become the subject of such drama :-)
Tuesday:
Another day in the box with the other "toys". I'm crushed up against a cupie doll that has eyes and ears that expand when you squeeze it. I can't believe a serious electronic device like me if forced to share space with a cupie doll...I have three split times for Christ's sake...this is outrageous...I should be in a hand-crafted box. What's worse is that my backside is crushed against the cupie doll and I don't know what else expands when he's squeezed. I pray that nobody sits on the box.
Wednesday:
I can't really tell what's going on since the plastic box is so cloudy. Adriano might have a training class...maybe I can finally get out of here. He's running around, showing a screen to everyone. It looks like the zoom button screen. I can't tell. Maybe we're training some FBA folks.
Thursday:
No meeting...damn. Adriano did open the box to take the bell for a little bit. When bell returned he said it was just the weekly departmental meeting and they would ring him some nobody could abuse Kenny for more than three minutes each.
Friday:
I can't take it any longer. Some people say they like the smell of markers but try smelling "grape" for five days straight. Makes me want to vomit.
...But I do have a plan. I'm setting off my alarm and that should get attention.
Late Friday Night:
The alarm didn't get Adriano's attention. Trinh was here a few minutes ago, but she couldn't locate me and left.
Saturday:
Alarm is still going off...but nobody can hear me. I feel so lonely. The drain on my batteries is scaring me.
Sunday:
No hope. Alarm is starting to make sick chirping noise. No energy left. Tell Adriano I was always there for himmmmmm.....
Tuesday:
Another day in the box with the other "toys". I'm crushed up against a cupie doll that has eyes and ears that expand when you squeeze it. I can't believe a serious electronic device like me if forced to share space with a cupie doll...I have three split times for Christ's sake...this is outrageous...I should be in a hand-crafted box. What's worse is that my backside is crushed against the cupie doll and I don't know what else expands when he's squeezed. I pray that nobody sits on the box.
Wednesday:
I can't really tell what's going on since the plastic box is so cloudy. Adriano might have a training class...maybe I can finally get out of here. He's running around, showing a screen to everyone. It looks like the zoom button screen. I can't tell. Maybe we're training some FBA folks.
Thursday:
No meeting...damn. Adriano did open the box to take the bell for a little bit. When bell returned he said it was just the weekly departmental meeting and they would ring him some nobody could abuse Kenny for more than three minutes each.
Friday:
I can't take it any longer. Some people say they like the smell of markers but try smelling "grape" for five days straight. Makes me want to vomit.
...But I do have a plan. I'm setting off my alarm and that should get attention.
Late Friday Night:
The alarm didn't get Adriano's attention. Trinh was here a few minutes ago, but she couldn't locate me and left.
Saturday:
Alarm is still going off...but nobody can hear me. I feel so lonely. The drain on my batteries is scaring me.
Sunday:
No hope. Alarm is starting to make sick chirping noise. No energy left. Tell Adriano I was always there for himmmmmm.....
Conflict Resolution Training: Aim high
We published - with the author's permission - an article about the purpose of conflict resolution training in government agencies. I feel Geoff’s article applies not just to Conflict Resolution Training but to many other Federal Government training classes . Enjoy!
Conflict Resolution Training: Aim high
The cardinal rule of organizational behavior is that what gets measured gets done. Applied to training, the means the criteria used to evaluate a course not only dictate how it is designed and delivered, they also shape how trainees interpret and apply the course content.
This article discusses how three approaches to evaluation used by government agencies affect the extent to which conflict resolution training has a positive impact on the workplace.
Compliance
The purpose of many training courses is to comply with a statute, regulation, Executive Order, or agency directive that requires certain categories of employees to receive training on a particular subject within a designated timeframe. These mandates rarely, if ever, require employees to retain or use the knowledge
or skills conveyed to them. They require only that certain information be transmitted. As a result, agencies typically track only whether such transmission occurs.
One method is documenting content and attendance. For live training, this means ensuring that employees' names appear on sign-in sheets, and that the video or PowerPoint slides they view and the manual they receive contain the requisite content. A second method for documenting the transmission of information
is requiring employees to answer questions designed to test
their comprehension of the material. Both methods provide a clear audit trial for proving compliance with a training mandate, but they reveal nothing about
what employees do when they return to the workplace.
As a result, these measures provide no incentive to provide quality training. The simplest and quickest ways to convey information are passive: requiring students to listen to a lecture, watch a video, or read materials on a website. Unfortunately, these are also the least effective methods for training adults. In theory, testing would create a demand for quality, but in reality this often is not the case. Since the agency's goal is documenting compliance, it wants as high a pass rate as possible. Retraining, retesting, or, worse yet, having to discipline employees who fail tests is an administrative burden. The easiest ways to ensure a high pass rate are to teach to the test (stress the material covered in the questions) and to make the questions as easy as possible to answer. If they are warned during a course that certain actions are illegal and could lead to prosecution, disciplinary action, or other adverse consequences, employees are likely to adjust their behavior accordingly regardless of how the course is evaluated.
But if the course is intended in whole or in part to inspire rather than command certain behaviors, the agency's apparent lack of concern about what they do when they return to their workstations is likely to strongly influence employee behavior.
The message that usually comes through loud and clear is that this course is just another bureaucratic interruption of their real work.
Reaction
Training in conflict resolution skills is often used to react to perceived problems in the workplace. If there are a lot of disputes, why not provide training in how to resolve them? If communication seems to be lacking or ineffective, communications
training seems like a sensible response.
Are lawyers and other agency personnel spending a lot of time or money on litigation?
Training in negotiation or mediation skills might help. The methods typically used to gauge the success of this type of training are attendance and participant feedback. At the end of the course, employees are asked to rate various aspects
of the training. Participant evaluations provide an incentive to make a course enjoyable and provide valuable information about what participants like and dislike.
But there is a serious downside to assuming that if employees like a course they will
use what they learned in some beneficial way. Without any proof of a return on investment, it is hard to justify spending money on training. Many theoretically sound ideas fail to hold up in real world testing. Furthermore, as is the case with compliance training, if an agency does not commit to measuring the impact of skills
training on workplace behavior, employees may assume the agency is more concerned with "looking good" by reacting to a problem than it is with changing how things are done.
Everyone in the federal sector has seen flavor-of-the-month initiatives that come and go faster than celebrity marriages.
Performance
An agency may commit to bettering its performance on a mission- related goal and determine that training is a means to this end. Training in conflict resolution skills may further such agency goals as reducing complaints or grievances; improving
employee satisfaction or productivity; or lowering sick leave abuse, attrition, or transfer requests.
Measuring the impact of conflict resolution training on employee performance creates a powerful incentive to provide top quality training. Measuring impact also makes it imperative to incorporate training into a comprehensive plan for promoting positive
change. If employees are tasked with achieving a goal and are informed that training will help them achieve it, they have a strong incentive to figure out how to apply the skills they learn productively. It all gets back to the simple rule that what gets measured gets done. If the measure of success for conflict resolution training is workplace performance, employees get the message that improving performance matters.
Since impact on a mission-related goal cannot be measured until well after a course ends, content, attendance, testing, and course evaluations are useful for ensuring a course is on track. Used as tools instead of goals, these measures can play a constructive role in promoting effective training.
The downside of measuring success by employee performance is the increased risk of failure. Content and attendance are a breeze to control, and good trainers can easily ensure that employees pass tests and review a course favorably. But
staking your reputation on how others perform post-training may seem downright scary. Just remember there is tremendous power in letting go. If an agency demonstrates its belief in the skills it is teaching and the employees it is teaching them to by committing to measurable results, employees will strive
to live up to expectations.
Geoff Drucker is the Director of Federal Dispute Resolution with the McCammon Group and can be reached at 703.582.9971 www.mccammongroup.com
Conflict Resolution Training: Aim high
The cardinal rule of organizational behavior is that what gets measured gets done. Applied to training, the means the criteria used to evaluate a course not only dictate how it is designed and delivered, they also shape how trainees interpret and apply the course content.
This article discusses how three approaches to evaluation used by government agencies affect the extent to which conflict resolution training has a positive impact on the workplace.
Compliance
The purpose of many training courses is to comply with a statute, regulation, Executive Order, or agency directive that requires certain categories of employees to receive training on a particular subject within a designated timeframe. These mandates rarely, if ever, require employees to retain or use the knowledge
or skills conveyed to them. They require only that certain information be transmitted. As a result, agencies typically track only whether such transmission occurs.
One method is documenting content and attendance. For live training, this means ensuring that employees' names appear on sign-in sheets, and that the video or PowerPoint slides they view and the manual they receive contain the requisite content. A second method for documenting the transmission of information
is requiring employees to answer questions designed to test
their comprehension of the material. Both methods provide a clear audit trial for proving compliance with a training mandate, but they reveal nothing about
what employees do when they return to the workplace.
As a result, these measures provide no incentive to provide quality training. The simplest and quickest ways to convey information are passive: requiring students to listen to a lecture, watch a video, or read materials on a website. Unfortunately, these are also the least effective methods for training adults. In theory, testing would create a demand for quality, but in reality this often is not the case. Since the agency's goal is documenting compliance, it wants as high a pass rate as possible. Retraining, retesting, or, worse yet, having to discipline employees who fail tests is an administrative burden. The easiest ways to ensure a high pass rate are to teach to the test (stress the material covered in the questions) and to make the questions as easy as possible to answer. If they are warned during a course that certain actions are illegal and could lead to prosecution, disciplinary action, or other adverse consequences, employees are likely to adjust their behavior accordingly regardless of how the course is evaluated.
But if the course is intended in whole or in part to inspire rather than command certain behaviors, the agency's apparent lack of concern about what they do when they return to their workstations is likely to strongly influence employee behavior.
The message that usually comes through loud and clear is that this course is just another bureaucratic interruption of their real work.
Reaction
Training in conflict resolution skills is often used to react to perceived problems in the workplace. If there are a lot of disputes, why not provide training in how to resolve them? If communication seems to be lacking or ineffective, communications
training seems like a sensible response.
Are lawyers and other agency personnel spending a lot of time or money on litigation?
Training in negotiation or mediation skills might help. The methods typically used to gauge the success of this type of training are attendance and participant feedback. At the end of the course, employees are asked to rate various aspects
of the training. Participant evaluations provide an incentive to make a course enjoyable and provide valuable information about what participants like and dislike.
But there is a serious downside to assuming that if employees like a course they will
use what they learned in some beneficial way. Without any proof of a return on investment, it is hard to justify spending money on training. Many theoretically sound ideas fail to hold up in real world testing. Furthermore, as is the case with compliance training, if an agency does not commit to measuring the impact of skills
training on workplace behavior, employees may assume the agency is more concerned with "looking good" by reacting to a problem than it is with changing how things are done.
Everyone in the federal sector has seen flavor-of-the-month initiatives that come and go faster than celebrity marriages.
Performance
An agency may commit to bettering its performance on a mission- related goal and determine that training is a means to this end. Training in conflict resolution skills may further such agency goals as reducing complaints or grievances; improving
employee satisfaction or productivity; or lowering sick leave abuse, attrition, or transfer requests.
Measuring the impact of conflict resolution training on employee performance creates a powerful incentive to provide top quality training. Measuring impact also makes it imperative to incorporate training into a comprehensive plan for promoting positive
change. If employees are tasked with achieving a goal and are informed that training will help them achieve it, they have a strong incentive to figure out how to apply the skills they learn productively. It all gets back to the simple rule that what gets measured gets done. If the measure of success for conflict resolution training is workplace performance, employees get the message that improving performance matters.
Since impact on a mission-related goal cannot be measured until well after a course ends, content, attendance, testing, and course evaluations are useful for ensuring a course is on track. Used as tools instead of goals, these measures can play a constructive role in promoting effective training.
The downside of measuring success by employee performance is the increased risk of failure. Content and attendance are a breeze to control, and good trainers can easily ensure that employees pass tests and review a course favorably. But
staking your reputation on how others perform post-training may seem downright scary. Just remember there is tremendous power in letting go. If an agency demonstrates its belief in the skills it is teaching and the employees it is teaching them to by committing to measurable results, employees will strive
to live up to expectations.
Geoff Drucker is the Director of Federal Dispute Resolution with the McCammon Group and can be reached at 703.582.9971 www.mccammongroup.com
No more ties!
"For some people the knowledge one person already has before a learning experience is like a collection of old ties, with each tie being an element of the held knowledge. When new knowledge becomes available (in a training session)the knowledge acquisition process is mechanically simple: I add more ties to my collection.
All I have to do is put every new tie in the next space in the rack, every new information in its proper place. This kind of knowledge applies to fact and memory learning and is helpful to learn the capital of Ukraine or your aunt's phone number!
Educational Researchers call this kind of process "rote learning".
There is another kind of knowledge acquisition process: the one that is used to build expertise (the one most adult training is all about). Rather than adding another tie to the collection, this kind of new knowledge looks more like the creative problem-solving we perform when we are confronted with a strange new object (for instance a red L-shaped container filled with M&M's.)
Rather than simply putting "one more tie in the drawer" I have this additional strange new thing and I am now creatively:
-investigating what the new object is,
-comparing it to something I already have,
-trying to understand what it can do for me,
-evaluating if I am interested in keeping this object in the house.
For this last kind of activities it becomes critical:
• The Collaboration of others
• Realistic Manipulation and Hands-on Action
• Sustained Dialogue and critical Reflection-on-action.
All of us can agree on how different a tie is compared with a red L-shaped container filled with M&M's. Unfortunately people continue to assume that the process of building expertise is like a mechanical "adding a new tie to a collection" and not like problem-solving, the puzzling and demanding mental work we perform when dealing with something new, weird and strange like a L-shaped container.
How can we convince them? Email me your answer!"
All I have to do is put every new tie in the next space in the rack, every new information in its proper place. This kind of knowledge applies to fact and memory learning and is helpful to learn the capital of Ukraine or your aunt's phone number!
Educational Researchers call this kind of process "rote learning".
There is another kind of knowledge acquisition process: the one that is used to build expertise (the one most adult training is all about). Rather than adding another tie to the collection, this kind of new knowledge looks more like the creative problem-solving we perform when we are confronted with a strange new object (for instance a red L-shaped container filled with M&M's.)
Rather than simply putting "one more tie in the drawer" I have this additional strange new thing and I am now creatively:
-investigating what the new object is,
-comparing it to something I already have,
-trying to understand what it can do for me,
-evaluating if I am interested in keeping this object in the house.
For this last kind of activities it becomes critical:
• The Collaboration of others
• Realistic Manipulation and Hands-on Action
• Sustained Dialogue and critical Reflection-on-action.
All of us can agree on how different a tie is compared with a red L-shaped container filled with M&M's. Unfortunately people continue to assume that the process of building expertise is like a mechanical "adding a new tie to a collection" and not like problem-solving, the puzzling and demanding mental work we perform when dealing with something new, weird and strange like a L-shaped container.
How can we convince them? Email me your answer!"
Seek persistent disequilibrium
Neither constancy nor relentless change will support a creation. A
good creation, like good jazz, must balance the stable formula with frequent out-of-kilter notes.
Equilibrium is death. Yet unless a system stabilizes to an equilibrium point, it is no better than an explosion, and just as soon dead. A Nothing, then, is both equilibrium and disequilibrium.
A Something is persistent disequilibrium -- a continuous state of forever surfing on the edge between i never stopping but never falling. Honing in on that liquid threshold is the still mysterious holy grail of creation and the quest I of all amateur gods.
From
Kevin Kelly OUT OF CONTROL THE NEW BIOLOGY OF MACHINES
good creation, like good jazz, must balance the stable formula with frequent out-of-kilter notes.
Equilibrium is death. Yet unless a system stabilizes to an equilibrium point, it is no better than an explosion, and just as soon dead. A Nothing, then, is both equilibrium and disequilibrium.
A Something is persistent disequilibrium -- a continuous state of forever surfing on the edge between i never stopping but never falling. Honing in on that liquid threshold is the still mysterious holy grail of creation and the quest I of all amateur gods.
From
Kevin Kelly OUT OF CONTROL THE NEW BIOLOGY OF MACHINES
Disambiguation of Software Implementation!
To be sure, if the technology were totally
“disambiguated”, univocal in producing
its effects and impacts, hosting
would consist of straightforward adaptation
and alignment.
The latter is precisely
the picture of the world of implementation
as portrayed by structured information
systems methodologies: systems
are objects, knowledge is data, work is
business process, and people are emotionless
decision makers who have to align their preferences and adjust to the
changes rationally planned for them.
It is the “de-worlded” world of business reengineering
models, where designers, consultants and managers juggle around boxes and arrows to come up with solutions that optimize pre-selected performance
criteria. The intricacies and uncertainties of hospitality, hostility and ambiguity
are ruled out from such a de-worlded world of abstract organizations, but
equally ruled out is the “organizingness” of everyday life as experienced by the
members of the organization.
It is precisely such “organizingness” that helps
technology become integrated in the
workflow, “aligned” and “understood.”
Unfortunately “organizingness” cannot
be represented geometrically: it is made
by real world participants from absorbed
coping, care, being there amidst ambiguity,
intimacy, sporting hospitality as well
as tamed hostility towards what the new
and the unknown is disclosing.
Claudio Ciborra
“disambiguated”, univocal in producing
its effects and impacts, hosting
would consist of straightforward adaptation
and alignment.
The latter is precisely
the picture of the world of implementation
as portrayed by structured information
systems methodologies: systems
are objects, knowledge is data, work is
business process, and people are emotionless
decision makers who have to align their preferences and adjust to the
changes rationally planned for them.
It is the “de-worlded” world of business reengineering
models, where designers, consultants and managers juggle around boxes and arrows to come up with solutions that optimize pre-selected performance
criteria. The intricacies and uncertainties of hospitality, hostility and ambiguity
are ruled out from such a de-worlded world of abstract organizations, but
equally ruled out is the “organizingness” of everyday life as experienced by the
members of the organization.
It is precisely such “organizingness” that helps
technology become integrated in the
workflow, “aligned” and “understood.”
Unfortunately “organizingness” cannot
be represented geometrically: it is made
by real world participants from absorbed
coping, care, being there amidst ambiguity,
intimacy, sporting hospitality as well
as tamed hostility towards what the new
and the unknown is disclosing.
Claudio Ciborra
The Importance of Robust Dialogue
From "Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done" by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan
In the typical corporate meeting-a business review, for example-the dialogue is constrained and politicized. Some people want to shade and soften what they say to avoid a confrontation. Others need to beat those they are talking to into submission. In groups that contain both types of people (which is the case in many meetings), dialogue becomes a combat sport for the killers and a humiliation or bore for the passives. Little reality gets on the table, and the meeting doesn't move the issues forward much.
Now think of a meeting that produced great results-that got the realities and ended with a plan for results. How did it happen?
Dialogue alters the psychology of a group. It can either expand a group's capacity or shrink it. It can be energizing or energy draining. It can create self-confidence and optimism, or it can produce pessimism. It can create unity, or it can create bitter factions.
Robust dialogue brings out reality, even when that reality makes people uncomfortable, because it has purpose and meaning. It is open, tough, focused, and informal. The aim is to invite multiple viewpoints, see the pros and cons of each one, and try honestly and candidly to construct new viewpoints. This is the dynamic that stimulates new questions, new ideas, and new insights rather than wasting energy defending the old order.
How do you get people to practice robust dialogue when they are used to the games and evasions of classical corporate dialogue? It starts at the top, with the dialogues of the organization's leader. If he or she is practicing robust dialogue, others will take the cue. Some leaders may be short on the emotional fortitude required to invite disagreement without getting defensive. Others may need to learn some specific skills to help people challenge and debate constructively. These people should be able to get help.
But the key is that people act their way to thinking because they're driven for results. If you reward for performance, the interest in performance will be sufficiently deep to sponsor a dialogue. Everybody needs to get the best answer, and that means everybody must be candid in their exchanges - no one person has all the ideas. If someone says something you disagree with and you rudely tell him he's full of hot air, a lot of other people aren't going to speak out next time. If instead you say, "Okay, let's talk about that. Let's listen to everybody, and then make our choice," you'll get much better responses.
In the typical corporate meeting-a business review, for example-the dialogue is constrained and politicized. Some people want to shade and soften what they say to avoid a confrontation. Others need to beat those they are talking to into submission. In groups that contain both types of people (which is the case in many meetings), dialogue becomes a combat sport for the killers and a humiliation or bore for the passives. Little reality gets on the table, and the meeting doesn't move the issues forward much.
Now think of a meeting that produced great results-that got the realities and ended with a plan for results. How did it happen?
Dialogue alters the psychology of a group. It can either expand a group's capacity or shrink it. It can be energizing or energy draining. It can create self-confidence and optimism, or it can produce pessimism. It can create unity, or it can create bitter factions.
Robust dialogue brings out reality, even when that reality makes people uncomfortable, because it has purpose and meaning. It is open, tough, focused, and informal. The aim is to invite multiple viewpoints, see the pros and cons of each one, and try honestly and candidly to construct new viewpoints. This is the dynamic that stimulates new questions, new ideas, and new insights rather than wasting energy defending the old order.
How do you get people to practice robust dialogue when they are used to the games and evasions of classical corporate dialogue? It starts at the top, with the dialogues of the organization's leader. If he or she is practicing robust dialogue, others will take the cue. Some leaders may be short on the emotional fortitude required to invite disagreement without getting defensive. Others may need to learn some specific skills to help people challenge and debate constructively. These people should be able to get help.
But the key is that people act their way to thinking because they're driven for results. If you reward for performance, the interest in performance will be sufficiently deep to sponsor a dialogue. Everybody needs to get the best answer, and that means everybody must be candid in their exchanges - no one person has all the ideas. If someone says something you disagree with and you rudely tell him he's full of hot air, a lot of other people aren't going to speak out next time. If instead you say, "Okay, let's talk about that. Let's listen to everybody, and then make our choice," you'll get much better responses.
Knowledge Construction Worker
Knowledge Construction Worker
OPEN-MINDEDNESS in CONVERSATIONS
By Loren Ekroth
It’s hard to keep an open mind during heated
conversation, isn’t it? People get identified with
certain ideas and assert them fervently. They
offer “Yes, but . . .” responses to those with
different or opposing views. They don’t really
consider evidence against their own views.
Why Are People Closed-minded?
Once a belief has been established, it is hard to
change. Often our beliefs are set early in life
as a result of our up-bringing and limited
exposure to other belief systems. For that
reason, the majority of people share the
religious faith and political beliefs of their
parents. The adage says, “The way the twig
is bent, so grows the tree.”
Beliefs are maintained by selective exposure to
information. Media research demonstrates that
individuals privatize themselves by paying most
attention to those media that support their beliefs
and much less to media that offer contrary ideas.
As well, birds of a feather DO flock together,
so we surround ourselves with people of like
mind in our clubs, churches, and workplace.
Once polarized in our beliefs and opinions, we
tend to ignore or dismiss contrary evidence so
as “not to be confused by the facts.”
Benefits of Open-Mindedness
Being open-minded carries certain benefits,
among them the ability to be less swayed by
specific events and to be less susceptible to
manipulation and suggestion. Open-minded
people are more thoughtful and not so easily
roused to anger because they can actually
consider alternative views without upset.
(Think of how beneficial open-mindedness
would be for you when your Uncle Dick goes
on a political rant with you during a holiday
get-together! You could hear him out with
civility and not ruin your day.)
How to Increase Your Open-Mindedness
Here are two exercises attributed to Catherine
Freeman, a therapist and coach:
1. Take a position opposite to your own on a
controversial topic such as abortion or gun control.
Generate at least 3 reasons to support this opposite
position, the more the better. (This method is
similar to what college debaters are required to do:
to argue both sides of proposition with reasoned
argument.)
2. Recall a time someone wronged you and
come up with some reasons why they may have
done that inadvertently without intent to harm.
(Also, The “Work” of Byron Katie has a simple,
clear steps of 4 questions that is profoundly
helpful in getting un-stuck from judgements.
(Details at www.thework.org.)
To an in-law firmly convinced of his
rightness on a number of political issues, I
say “I agree that we disagree.” I don’t try
to change him, and he offers himself as a
model close-minded person. I can usually
listen to his views without becoming upset,
and once in a while I’ll change my thinking.
My intention is not that he change, but only
that he be thoughtful when we talk. For me,
that is a more attainable goal than change.
OPEN-MINDEDNESS in CONVERSATIONS
By Loren Ekroth
It’s hard to keep an open mind during heated
conversation, isn’t it? People get identified with
certain ideas and assert them fervently. They
offer “Yes, but . . .” responses to those with
different or opposing views. They don’t really
consider evidence against their own views.
Why Are People Closed-minded?
Once a belief has been established, it is hard to
change. Often our beliefs are set early in life
as a result of our up-bringing and limited
exposure to other belief systems. For that
reason, the majority of people share the
religious faith and political beliefs of their
parents. The adage says, “The way the twig
is bent, so grows the tree.”
Beliefs are maintained by selective exposure to
information. Media research demonstrates that
individuals privatize themselves by paying most
attention to those media that support their beliefs
and much less to media that offer contrary ideas.
As well, birds of a feather DO flock together,
so we surround ourselves with people of like
mind in our clubs, churches, and workplace.
Once polarized in our beliefs and opinions, we
tend to ignore or dismiss contrary evidence so
as “not to be confused by the facts.”
Benefits of Open-Mindedness
Being open-minded carries certain benefits,
among them the ability to be less swayed by
specific events and to be less susceptible to
manipulation and suggestion. Open-minded
people are more thoughtful and not so easily
roused to anger because they can actually
consider alternative views without upset.
(Think of how beneficial open-mindedness
would be for you when your Uncle Dick goes
on a political rant with you during a holiday
get-together! You could hear him out with
civility and not ruin your day.)
How to Increase Your Open-Mindedness
Here are two exercises attributed to Catherine
Freeman, a therapist and coach:
1. Take a position opposite to your own on a
controversial topic such as abortion or gun control.
Generate at least 3 reasons to support this opposite
position, the more the better. (This method is
similar to what college debaters are required to do:
to argue both sides of proposition with reasoned
argument.)
2. Recall a time someone wronged you and
come up with some reasons why they may have
done that inadvertently without intent to harm.
(Also, The “Work” of Byron Katie has a simple,
clear steps of 4 questions that is profoundly
helpful in getting un-stuck from judgements.
(Details at www.thework.org.)
To an in-law firmly convinced of his
rightness on a number of political issues, I
say “I agree that we disagree.” I don’t try
to change him, and he offers himself as a
model close-minded person. I can usually
listen to his views without becoming upset,
and once in a while I’ll change my thinking.
My intention is not that he change, but only
that he be thoughtful when we talk. For me,
that is a more attainable goal than change.
Bitter price of iconic image
It is 35 years since the Olympic protest of Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Both later paid for it, writes Steve Dilbeck in Los Angeles.
Evening is still coming as Tommie Smith sits on a wooden bench and looks over the Santa Monica College track, his young charges heading off for the day while the football team continues to work out.
He gives them all a long look, smiles a peaceful smile.
"None of these kids know who I am," Smith said. "They don't have the slightest idea. To them I'm just 'coach'."
In the late afternoon, John Carlos is trying to talk on the phone from Palm Springs High, but he has to keep barking out instructions to students.
Carlos, too, found few knew who he was when he arrived on campus.
"When I came here 17 years ago, they didn't particularly know," Carlos said. "A few years later a textbook came out and they happened to see my picture and name in the history book."
The defining moment that elevated Smith and Carlos beyond American sports figures and into history books happened 35 years ago yesterday in Mexico City.
It was during the 200 metres victory ceremony at the 1968 Olympics. Smith had won in world-record time; Carlos had captured the bronze.
As they stood on the victory platform and the US anthem began, they bowed their heads, and, each wearing a black glove, raised a clenched fist in a black power salute. Australia's Peter Norman, who won silver, wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge in support of the pair.
It remains one of the most vivid Olympic images - a picture once seen, never forgotten. It was a courageous, non-violent protest, benign but impassioned dissent. They meant to bring further attention to civil rights issues, to give pride to African-Americans, and they succeeded.
But the reaction was as swift as it was negative. In the US there was outrage from many white Americans. People saw heads bowed as disrespectful towards the American flag. They mistakenly saw the clenched fists as supportive of the Black Panthers.
The Associated Press report described them "in a Nazi-like salute". Chicago columnist Brent Musburger called them "black-skinned storm troopers".
The outspoken Carlos made the kind of comments that only inflamed the establishment. After the ceremony he said: "We're sort of show horses out there for the white people. They give us peanuts, pat us on the back and say, 'Boy, you did fine.' "
The International Olympic Committee demanded the US Olympic Committee ban them from the Games, but it refused. The next day the IOC said if the sprinters were not banned, the entire US track and field team would be barred from further competition. The USOC caved in.
Smith and Carlos were withdrawn from the relays and expelled from the Olympic Village. When they returned home, Smith and Carlos were ostracised. Jobs became scarce. They received death threats and their homes were attacked.
"One rock came through our front window into our living room, where we had the crib," Smith said. "It seemed like everybody hated me. I had no food. My baby was hungry. My wife had no dresses."
Even today, there are those who remain angry and full of hatred.
"There are still threats," Carlos said. "I was never concerned about those punks. I just let them know it will be remembered, that life doesn't stop when you leave this planet."
After graduating, Smith was given an honourable discharge from army service for "un-American activities" That probably did him a huge favour, since the Vietnam war was raging and the body count growing.
"I was going to 'Nam," Smith said. "I could see myself in rice paddies. I believe there's a God. Sixty-eight had its downfall, but it had its protection for me. I might not be alive."
Carlos had two brothers serving, but after his protest both were immediately discharged.
Smith borrowed money to complete his education and get his teaching qualification. He tried gridiron for a few years with the Cincinnati Bengals, then finally got a job as a track coach in Ohio. In 1978 he moved to Santa Monica College, where he has been a social science and health teacher, and coaches track and field.
Carlos had an even more trying time, working as a security guard and bouncer, among other jobs.
"I'd get minimum wage and then go to Vegas and roll the dice to get it up to something to feed my family," he said. "We had to chop up furniture, the kids' beds, to stay warm."
Looking back, the first thing that comes to him is basic.
"That I survived," he said. "That I still have any sanity.
"My first wife is deceased as a result. She took her life because she couldn't deal with the pressure from the results of Mexico."
Smith, one of 12 children, was born in 1944 in Clarksville, Texas, where his father was a "dirt farmer".
After the family moved to California, Smith would help in the fields for up to 10 hours a day,
even as he began to excel athletically in high school. His talent won him a scholarship at San Jose State and he was soon a world-class sprinter.
When he returned from Mexico, he went to visit his father, still working the fields. His father could not read but had heard people were angry at his son.
"He kind of looked at me, looked up and down, and said in his southern drawl: 'You know, I've been hearing a lot of things about you. Everybody been telling me you did something wrong. You stuck a hand up or hit somebody or something.'
"I said that's not truthful. He said: 'Well, you're telling me that and I'm going to believe you. You're my son.' First time I shook hands with him in my life." Carlos is from Harlem, where his father was a cobbler and his mother a nurses' aide.
"My mom and dad never saw me run a single race," Carlos said. "They were always working every weekend. They were just trying to raise us."
One of five children, Carlos lived with his family in an apartment behind his father's shoe store and across from the Savoy Ballroom, where the best big bands and jazz groups of the day played.
Carlos and his friends would help people out of cabs or sing and dance outside the club. "We were out there hustling," he said.
Then he would retreat to his apartment, where he could hear Duke Ellington lead his band or Frank Sinatra sing.
Like Smith, Carlos was a multisport star, who ultimately wound up at San Jose State.
People often assume the pair were great friends
but, in truth, they were never close. They never competed at the same time at San Jose State. They never forged some great plan should they both make the podium. At best, they are cordial to each other.
"I don't think John Carlos likes me, even now," Smith said. "I don't think Carlos likes very many people. That's just his demeanour. I'm more of a human person. I will not sit and talk to him. I talk to him on the phone."
Smith lives near Los Angeles, Carlos in Palm Springs, but they have never been to each other's home. And to this day, they disagree on exactly what happened in Mexico, whose idea the protest was.
Harry Edwards, another former San Jose State athlete, had formed the Olympic Project for Human Rights and wanted black athletes to boycott the Games. Before the team flew to Mexico, OPHR members decided to compete and protest individually.
In the 200m, Carlos - who had beaten Smith in world-record time at the trials - led early before Smith closed to win in 19.83, still a world-class time.
But a stunned Smith said he heard Carlos claim he allowed him to win because the gold was more important to him. Smith said his wife later confronted Carlos and he said it was true.
Carlos said: "Tommie can say whatever he wants. All I can say is, I respect Tommie Smith as one of the greatest sprinters in Olympic history."
The two also disagree on whose idea the podium protest was.
After the race, the two and Norman had to wait two hours in a tunnel before the ceremony. Smith said he had the gloves and was trying to determine exactly what to do with them.
"The thought process was of power or strength, and I didn't know how to do it except just hold my hands up like in church," Smith said. "I've been religious all my life. Praise God with your hands up in church, with your head bowed. I thought this would be a good thing for me to do.
"So I told John: 'This is what I'm going to do. I have another glove if you want it. You are welcomed to do, and you do what you think is necessary.' I said if you want to do it, just watch me and follow my lead."
Carlos tells it differently: "He had the gloves, I had the idea."
While Smith said his head was bowed in prayer, Carlos said his was in reflection.
"I reflected on my father, who had fought in the the First World War. I reflected on when I was seven or eight and my mother would be working a lot of nights and away from her family. I reflected on the ignorant-ass teachers sent into the urban parts of the city who had no business being there. There was much to reflect upon."
What both agree on is, despite everything, they have no regrets.
These two supposed radicals, combative outsiders, have spent their lives teaching the young. Both remain very religious.
"They wanted to build us to be arrogant, militant, unruly African-Americans," Carlos said. "Anything but individuals serious about life, serious about their country, and its responsibilities to its citizens.
"People looked at us like we were subversive. We were like birds busting out of a cage."
Smith said: "I was always an advocate of equal rights. Not that I wanted to whup the white man, or get whupped by the white man, because I saw that happened to my father. I wanted to be equal to the man doing the whupping. Give me equality."
Yesterday both were due at San Jose State, where a ceremony was planned to honour their protest. The school hopes to raise funds to erect a statue next year.
"What's so surprising about it is, on a positive note, it's the brainchild of a 23-year-old white student," Smith said.
Thirty-five years have passed since two sprinters made a stand, made a difference, made history.
"We still have a way to go," Carlos said, "but we can see some distance for where we were."
Los Angeles Daily News posted with permission
Evening is still coming as Tommie Smith sits on a wooden bench and looks over the Santa Monica College track, his young charges heading off for the day while the football team continues to work out.
He gives them all a long look, smiles a peaceful smile.
"None of these kids know who I am," Smith said. "They don't have the slightest idea. To them I'm just 'coach'."
In the late afternoon, John Carlos is trying to talk on the phone from Palm Springs High, but he has to keep barking out instructions to students.
Carlos, too, found few knew who he was when he arrived on campus.
"When I came here 17 years ago, they didn't particularly know," Carlos said. "A few years later a textbook came out and they happened to see my picture and name in the history book."
The defining moment that elevated Smith and Carlos beyond American sports figures and into history books happened 35 years ago yesterday in Mexico City.
It was during the 200 metres victory ceremony at the 1968 Olympics. Smith had won in world-record time; Carlos had captured the bronze.
As they stood on the victory platform and the US anthem began, they bowed their heads, and, each wearing a black glove, raised a clenched fist in a black power salute. Australia's Peter Norman, who won silver, wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge in support of the pair.
It remains one of the most vivid Olympic images - a picture once seen, never forgotten. It was a courageous, non-violent protest, benign but impassioned dissent. They meant to bring further attention to civil rights issues, to give pride to African-Americans, and they succeeded.
But the reaction was as swift as it was negative. In the US there was outrage from many white Americans. People saw heads bowed as disrespectful towards the American flag. They mistakenly saw the clenched fists as supportive of the Black Panthers.
The Associated Press report described them "in a Nazi-like salute". Chicago columnist Brent Musburger called them "black-skinned storm troopers".
The outspoken Carlos made the kind of comments that only inflamed the establishment. After the ceremony he said: "We're sort of show horses out there for the white people. They give us peanuts, pat us on the back and say, 'Boy, you did fine.' "
The International Olympic Committee demanded the US Olympic Committee ban them from the Games, but it refused. The next day the IOC said if the sprinters were not banned, the entire US track and field team would be barred from further competition. The USOC caved in.
Smith and Carlos were withdrawn from the relays and expelled from the Olympic Village. When they returned home, Smith and Carlos were ostracised. Jobs became scarce. They received death threats and their homes were attacked.
"One rock came through our front window into our living room, where we had the crib," Smith said. "It seemed like everybody hated me. I had no food. My baby was hungry. My wife had no dresses."
Even today, there are those who remain angry and full of hatred.
"There are still threats," Carlos said. "I was never concerned about those punks. I just let them know it will be remembered, that life doesn't stop when you leave this planet."
After graduating, Smith was given an honourable discharge from army service for "un-American activities" That probably did him a huge favour, since the Vietnam war was raging and the body count growing.
"I was going to 'Nam," Smith said. "I could see myself in rice paddies. I believe there's a God. Sixty-eight had its downfall, but it had its protection for me. I might not be alive."
Carlos had two brothers serving, but after his protest both were immediately discharged.
Smith borrowed money to complete his education and get his teaching qualification. He tried gridiron for a few years with the Cincinnati Bengals, then finally got a job as a track coach in Ohio. In 1978 he moved to Santa Monica College, where he has been a social science and health teacher, and coaches track and field.
Carlos had an even more trying time, working as a security guard and bouncer, among other jobs.
"I'd get minimum wage and then go to Vegas and roll the dice to get it up to something to feed my family," he said. "We had to chop up furniture, the kids' beds, to stay warm."
Looking back, the first thing that comes to him is basic.
"That I survived," he said. "That I still have any sanity.
"My first wife is deceased as a result. She took her life because she couldn't deal with the pressure from the results of Mexico."
Smith, one of 12 children, was born in 1944 in Clarksville, Texas, where his father was a "dirt farmer".
After the family moved to California, Smith would help in the fields for up to 10 hours a day,
even as he began to excel athletically in high school. His talent won him a scholarship at San Jose State and he was soon a world-class sprinter.
When he returned from Mexico, he went to visit his father, still working the fields. His father could not read but had heard people were angry at his son.
"He kind of looked at me, looked up and down, and said in his southern drawl: 'You know, I've been hearing a lot of things about you. Everybody been telling me you did something wrong. You stuck a hand up or hit somebody or something.'
"I said that's not truthful. He said: 'Well, you're telling me that and I'm going to believe you. You're my son.' First time I shook hands with him in my life." Carlos is from Harlem, where his father was a cobbler and his mother a nurses' aide.
"My mom and dad never saw me run a single race," Carlos said. "They were always working every weekend. They were just trying to raise us."
One of five children, Carlos lived with his family in an apartment behind his father's shoe store and across from the Savoy Ballroom, where the best big bands and jazz groups of the day played.
Carlos and his friends would help people out of cabs or sing and dance outside the club. "We were out there hustling," he said.
Then he would retreat to his apartment, where he could hear Duke Ellington lead his band or Frank Sinatra sing.
Like Smith, Carlos was a multisport star, who ultimately wound up at San Jose State.
People often assume the pair were great friends
but, in truth, they were never close. They never competed at the same time at San Jose State. They never forged some great plan should they both make the podium. At best, they are cordial to each other.
"I don't think John Carlos likes me, even now," Smith said. "I don't think Carlos likes very many people. That's just his demeanour. I'm more of a human person. I will not sit and talk to him. I talk to him on the phone."
Smith lives near Los Angeles, Carlos in Palm Springs, but they have never been to each other's home. And to this day, they disagree on exactly what happened in Mexico, whose idea the protest was.
Harry Edwards, another former San Jose State athlete, had formed the Olympic Project for Human Rights and wanted black athletes to boycott the Games. Before the team flew to Mexico, OPHR members decided to compete and protest individually.
In the 200m, Carlos - who had beaten Smith in world-record time at the trials - led early before Smith closed to win in 19.83, still a world-class time.
But a stunned Smith said he heard Carlos claim he allowed him to win because the gold was more important to him. Smith said his wife later confronted Carlos and he said it was true.
Carlos said: "Tommie can say whatever he wants. All I can say is, I respect Tommie Smith as one of the greatest sprinters in Olympic history."
The two also disagree on whose idea the podium protest was.
After the race, the two and Norman had to wait two hours in a tunnel before the ceremony. Smith said he had the gloves and was trying to determine exactly what to do with them.
"The thought process was of power or strength, and I didn't know how to do it except just hold my hands up like in church," Smith said. "I've been religious all my life. Praise God with your hands up in church, with your head bowed. I thought this would be a good thing for me to do.
"So I told John: 'This is what I'm going to do. I have another glove if you want it. You are welcomed to do, and you do what you think is necessary.' I said if you want to do it, just watch me and follow my lead."
Carlos tells it differently: "He had the gloves, I had the idea."
While Smith said his head was bowed in prayer, Carlos said his was in reflection.
"I reflected on my father, who had fought in the the First World War. I reflected on when I was seven or eight and my mother would be working a lot of nights and away from her family. I reflected on the ignorant-ass teachers sent into the urban parts of the city who had no business being there. There was much to reflect upon."
What both agree on is, despite everything, they have no regrets.
These two supposed radicals, combative outsiders, have spent their lives teaching the young. Both remain very religious.
"They wanted to build us to be arrogant, militant, unruly African-Americans," Carlos said. "Anything but individuals serious about life, serious about their country, and its responsibilities to its citizens.
"People looked at us like we were subversive. We were like birds busting out of a cage."
Smith said: "I was always an advocate of equal rights. Not that I wanted to whup the white man, or get whupped by the white man, because I saw that happened to my father. I wanted to be equal to the man doing the whupping. Give me equality."
Yesterday both were due at San Jose State, where a ceremony was planned to honour their protest. The school hopes to raise funds to erect a statue next year.
"What's so surprising about it is, on a positive note, it's the brainchild of a 23-year-old white student," Smith said.
Thirty-five years have passed since two sprinters made a stand, made a difference, made history.
"We still have a way to go," Carlos said, "but we can see some distance for where we were."
Los Angeles Daily News posted with permission
FORZA PRODI! BERLUSCONI A CASA! a.k.a. 2006 Italian elections
Luigi Barzini, scriveva, quarant'anni di fa, per spiegare il fascino dell'Italia nel mondo e la «pacifica invasione» dei turisti:
«L'arte di vivere, quest'arte screditata creata dagli italiani per sconfiggere l'angoscia e la noia, sta diventando una guida inestimabile per la sopravvivenza di molte persone».
E' ancora così.
L'Italia quotidiana - soprattutto se uno non ci deve lavorare - piace e convince. Nel nostro Paese tutti si sentono qualcuno; e, giustamente, reclamano attenzione.
Permettimi di citare un passaggio dal mio «La testa degli italiani» (negli Usa, «La Bella Figura. A Field-Guide to the Italian Mind», out Aug 15). Scrivo, verso la fine:
«Un negoziante amichevole sotto casa compensa una notizia spiacevole in televisione. Ecco perché nelle classifiche sulla qualità della vita precediamo Paesi come gli Stati Uniti, la Francia o la Germania: perché le consolazioni artigianali valgono quanto le organizzazioni industriali. Certo, nel prodotto interno lordo non risultano: ma nella contabilità personale si vedono eccome. (...) In Italia conosciamo il piacere della conversazione, e il gusto dell'osservazione personale: l'apprezzamento su un abito è gradito, altrove sarebbe sospetto. In Italia le famiglie difendono il rito dei pasti; e i ragazzi stanno riscoprendo quello, non altrettanto fondamentale, dell'aperitivo. In Italia chi lavora è riuscito a trasformare in una cerimonia anche l'abitudine più breve: il caffè espresso bevuto in piedi in un bar».
Secondo te, queste cose non sono importanti? Secondo me, sì. Certo, se fossero abbinate ad affidabilità, onestà e organizzazione sarebbe meglio: in questo caso, diventeremmo una sorta di paradiso in terra. Invece siamo un purgatorio colorato, pieno di interessanti anime in pena.
By Luigi Severgnini
«L'arte di vivere, quest'arte screditata creata dagli italiani per sconfiggere l'angoscia e la noia, sta diventando una guida inestimabile per la sopravvivenza di molte persone».
E' ancora così.
L'Italia quotidiana - soprattutto se uno non ci deve lavorare - piace e convince. Nel nostro Paese tutti si sentono qualcuno; e, giustamente, reclamano attenzione.
Permettimi di citare un passaggio dal mio «La testa degli italiani» (negli Usa, «La Bella Figura. A Field-Guide to the Italian Mind», out Aug 15). Scrivo, verso la fine:
«Un negoziante amichevole sotto casa compensa una notizia spiacevole in televisione. Ecco perché nelle classifiche sulla qualità della vita precediamo Paesi come gli Stati Uniti, la Francia o la Germania: perché le consolazioni artigianali valgono quanto le organizzazioni industriali. Certo, nel prodotto interno lordo non risultano: ma nella contabilità personale si vedono eccome. (...) In Italia conosciamo il piacere della conversazione, e il gusto dell'osservazione personale: l'apprezzamento su un abito è gradito, altrove sarebbe sospetto. In Italia le famiglie difendono il rito dei pasti; e i ragazzi stanno riscoprendo quello, non altrettanto fondamentale, dell'aperitivo. In Italia chi lavora è riuscito a trasformare in una cerimonia anche l'abitudine più breve: il caffè espresso bevuto in piedi in un bar».
Secondo te, queste cose non sono importanti? Secondo me, sì. Certo, se fossero abbinate ad affidabilità, onestà e organizzazione sarebbe meglio: in questo caso, diventeremmo una sorta di paradiso in terra. Invece siamo un purgatorio colorato, pieno di interessanti anime in pena.
By Luigi Severgnini
The Danger of sliding on the Learning Curve!
While training becomes more and more critical for people and organizations, it is increasingly turning up in the headlines of daily news as a failed solution to problems, as a big solution for big problems or as a justification to do something controversial.
Here are a few examples I have collected in the last months from newspapers, the internet and in general public discourse to explain what I mean.
Training is often seen as the failed solution to many problems.
"Poor training" is said to be the cause of failed expensive software implementations across federal agencies, "Lack of training of the intervention personnel" is indicated as the reason for weak responses to natural disasters. Perpetrators of human rights abuses on prisoners have been defined as "…staff lacking training on the guidelines against torture". Do we need a "Training anti-defamation league" to respond to these allegations?
Training is also seen as the "silver bullet" for solving big problems.
"Better training for teachers", is the solution to the nation's failing public schools system. "Increased funds for training" should solve high unemployment rates and poor GDP growth. Surprise: "Training" is also the solution for abuse from caregivers in nursing homes. It makes you feel mighty as a trainer, doesn’t it?
Training is often the justification for doing something controversial.
"Training purposes" justify no respect for the privacy of your call to a customer service center as "your phone call may be recorded". "Poor training, supervision" justifies the acquittal of officials on trial in brutality cases. Lately I‘ve ever heard that the reason for the war in Iraq was to "bring effective training to the Iraqi". A workshop would have been obviously cheaper!
The lesson learned here is that you need to be careful with training: you are dealing with work that is highly controversial, highly visible and often not fully understood.
In fact unreasonable expectations, lack of accountability or clear definition of boundaries of training responsibilities can kill the best training work before it even starts.
What can you do to prevent or limit all this from happening in your training initiative?
How can we design training and play it "safer"?
Here are a few examples I have collected in the last months from newspapers, the internet and in general public discourse to explain what I mean.
Training is often seen as the failed solution to many problems.
"Poor training" is said to be the cause of failed expensive software implementations across federal agencies, "Lack of training of the intervention personnel" is indicated as the reason for weak responses to natural disasters. Perpetrators of human rights abuses on prisoners have been defined as "…staff lacking training on the guidelines against torture". Do we need a "Training anti-defamation league" to respond to these allegations?
Training is also seen as the "silver bullet" for solving big problems.
"Better training for teachers", is the solution to the nation's failing public schools system. "Increased funds for training" should solve high unemployment rates and poor GDP growth. Surprise: "Training" is also the solution for abuse from caregivers in nursing homes. It makes you feel mighty as a trainer, doesn’t it?
Training is often the justification for doing something controversial.
"Training purposes" justify no respect for the privacy of your call to a customer service center as "your phone call may be recorded". "Poor training, supervision" justifies the acquittal of officials on trial in brutality cases. Lately I‘ve ever heard that the reason for the war in Iraq was to "bring effective training to the Iraqi". A workshop would have been obviously cheaper!
The lesson learned here is that you need to be careful with training: you are dealing with work that is highly controversial, highly visible and often not fully understood.
In fact unreasonable expectations, lack of accountability or clear definition of boundaries of training responsibilities can kill the best training work before it even starts.
What can you do to prevent or limit all this from happening in your training initiative?
How can we design training and play it "safer"?
A passage I like from "Trust" by Jack Gibb
Cosmic humor and light-heartedness. Sometimes I think I have consciously developed a humorous side as an effect to balance my inner heaviness. I see this polarity between the tragic and the comedic in many people, certainly in myself. Even in my heaviest grief I often see the comedy being played out. Whether it seems to come to us from the outside or from inner sources, humor can be healing, restorative, and inductive of wellness.
My speech professor in college used to say, often, that "whenever someone laughs there is someone hurting and in pain." He was aware of the hostile side of humor. I am too. But there is a gentle, warm, and caring aspect to comedy that is divine and healing. In the past, it has sometimes been difficult for me to see the lightheartedness in pain and tragedy, particularly in relation to myself. Ability to see the restorative qualities of humor is increased by the ability to make a perceptual shift, to create a new perspective.
Sacredness and purity. I sometimes find myself caught up in a deep anger towards people who seem to be evil in intent and action, and, at the same time, feel a deep compassion for people who are hurting so bad inside that they feel they must punish the world in some way.
I have a vivid memory of a scene on the beach at Laguna Hills in California. On one windy afternoon, on my "coffee break" from a workshop I was conducting nearby, I saw a small boy of about four years of age, walking along and sobbing at the cold wind, and complaining to his father. His father turned around, saying something about "men don't cry," and slapped his son's face very hard several times, finally knocking the boy to the ground.
Understanding the father's righteous anger at his unmanly child, and his inner need to punish when seeing the world as he did, I still found it very difficult to keep from going up and protecting the child, perhaps hitting the parent, who seemed to me, from the way I saw the world, to be doing an outrageous thing. I felt incapacitated by my awareness of the dilemma in me, my strong polar feelings, and my caughtness in the midst of my own unresolved beliefs. Empathy and non-action. Rooted in polarity.
......I get caught up in this dilemma and polarity when I read about child abuse, preparation for war, active discrimination against women and blacks, the helplessness of the unemployed, and a variety of other "evils" that exist in our world. About equally, I have an "understanding" of the reactive defensiveness and pain in people that are led to murder or punish. I feel a strong compassion for these people that is at least as strong as my compassion for the people who are abused.
My speech professor in college used to say, often, that "whenever someone laughs there is someone hurting and in pain." He was aware of the hostile side of humor. I am too. But there is a gentle, warm, and caring aspect to comedy that is divine and healing. In the past, it has sometimes been difficult for me to see the lightheartedness in pain and tragedy, particularly in relation to myself. Ability to see the restorative qualities of humor is increased by the ability to make a perceptual shift, to create a new perspective.
Sacredness and purity. I sometimes find myself caught up in a deep anger towards people who seem to be evil in intent and action, and, at the same time, feel a deep compassion for people who are hurting so bad inside that they feel they must punish the world in some way.
I have a vivid memory of a scene on the beach at Laguna Hills in California. On one windy afternoon, on my "coffee break" from a workshop I was conducting nearby, I saw a small boy of about four years of age, walking along and sobbing at the cold wind, and complaining to his father. His father turned around, saying something about "men don't cry," and slapped his son's face very hard several times, finally knocking the boy to the ground.
Understanding the father's righteous anger at his unmanly child, and his inner need to punish when seeing the world as he did, I still found it very difficult to keep from going up and protecting the child, perhaps hitting the parent, who seemed to me, from the way I saw the world, to be doing an outrageous thing. I felt incapacitated by my awareness of the dilemma in me, my strong polar feelings, and my caughtness in the midst of my own unresolved beliefs. Empathy and non-action. Rooted in polarity.
......I get caught up in this dilemma and polarity when I read about child abuse, preparation for war, active discrimination against women and blacks, the helplessness of the unemployed, and a variety of other "evils" that exist in our world. About equally, I have an "understanding" of the reactive defensiveness and pain in people that are led to murder or punish. I feel a strong compassion for these people that is at least as strong as my compassion for the people who are abused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
