As I waited for 6 hours to pay my respect, I started thinking…
_______________________________________________________
Parks showed power of one
"Her feet were not tired. At least, no more so than usual.She always hated that legend so let us, in this, the week of her death at age 92, set the record straight. And while we're at it, let's correct another misconception: It's not precisely true that she refused to give up her seat to a white man. The seats next to her and across the aisle were empty, vacated by blacks who had heeded the bus driver's command to get up. So there were places for the white man to sit.But under the segregation statutes of Montgomery, Ala., no white man was expected to suffer the indignity of sitting next to a black woman. So driver J.F. Blake asked again. And Rosa Parks, this soft-spoken 42-year-old department store seamstress just trying to get home from work, gave him her answer again. She told him no.Her feet were not tired. Her soul was exhausted.On Dec. 1, it will be 50 years since that drama played out. Fifty years since police took her away. Fifty years since black Montgomery protested by boycotting buses. Fifty years since community leaders tapped as their leader the boyish-looking new preacher, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.That moment in Court Square was the birthplace of the 13-year epoch called the Civil Rights Movement. You could make a compelling argument it also spawned the modern world.None of which Rosa Parks could have foreseen that December evening. All she knew was that she was tired, sick of acquiescing, accommodating, accepting foolish white laws and white people who said she wasn't good enough to occupy a bus seat. Something had gotten into her that wouldn't let her go along any more, something that turned a lifetime of yes into an electric moment of no… “
(By Leonard Pitts)
_______________________________________________
Rosa decided at one point that “no” was the right answer. It was because the limit was passed. The “no” was in reality a “yes” to those values that the civil rights movement fought so hard for.
What does this have to do with trainers? In the last few years, the ethics responsibilities of business leaders have grown significantly beyond compliance to include the mandate to build ethical cultures in organizations, where trust can grow and thrive and where employees themselves become the security network for corporate ethics. Ethics is about decision. “No” is a decision we should make sometimes.
Are trainers people of integrity? A person of integrity is one who is consistent and congruent, who “does the right thing,” even when doing so is challenging. Integrity for trainers means walking the talk, maintaining a learning attitude, and standing behind every suggestion, recommendation, and prescribed action. As hype and exaggeration permeates the training industry at a disheartening level, trainers that can say no offer a steadfast resource for effectiveness.
If I look at my work, I believe the main situation when tough choices become tinged with difficult moral dilemmas is dealing with resistance in the class.
THE POWER” IN THE CLASS
According to John Heron, in any course a trainer can manage the different aspects of Programs design, Objectives, Needs Analysis, Learning Activities etc…using three modes of facilitation: The hierarchical mode, the cooperative mode and the autonomous mode.
In hierarchical mode the trainer directs the learning process, exercises power over it, does things for the group, manages group feelings, provides structures for learning.
In the cooperative mode power over the learning process is shared: the trainer enables and guides the group to become more self-directing in the various forms of learning, helping group members to decide on the program, to give meaning to experiences, to do their own confrontation, and so on. The trainer’s views, though influential, are not final but one among many.
In the autonomous mode the trainer does not do things for the group, or with them, but gives them freedom to find their own way, exercising their own judgment without any intervention on the trainer’s part. It is the subtle art of creating conditions within which people can exercise full self-determination in their learning.
A trainer should be explicit about which mode he or she is in and learn to be flexible in moving from mode to mode in light of the changing situation in the group. Regardless, we should thank the Rosa Parks in our classes! Thank God they resist!
THE “POWER OF NO” in the CLASS
Real learning takes time and effort. When training for lasting change, let’s deal with resistance in organizations with curiosity and open communication. Before trying to convince someone, let’s learn more. A great way to learn is to explore people's responses — especially the responses that strike you as resistance. Every response carries valuable information, clues about the work, the worker, the workplace or about what we are “really” trying to do to people. It can help us maybe by changing the mode we should operate.
We should actively encourage active discussion, questioning and challenging. This Socratic approach to learning makes for great explorations and for a much more thorough, stimulating and enjoyable learning experience that the learn-from-the-wise-one approach. Simply because some 'authority figure' says something is true doesn't make it so - intelligent learning requires that everything is tested and thoroughly challenged! So trainers need to encourage trainees to discuss, question, and challenge.
OTHER IDEAS TO INCREASE RESISTANCE
Let them out-number and plot against you! Consider Ken Blanchard's comment: “None of us is as smart as all of us.” The work needs to happen in learning teams in which we draw upon the skills and experiences of everyone taking part in the training. Small learning teams are friendlier, less inhibiting, and engender a higher degree of inter-personal respect. The benefits of this 'learning team' approach are quite remarkable and have to be experienced to be fully appreciated.
Learning hurts! I think we should never hide that it takes time and error to learn. Get the essentials on applying the knowledge - and you recognize the potential for further exploring each topic after the training.Leave them alone! Let them think for themselves and make their own discoveries. What's more, nothing is 'sacred'; everything is open to challenge and discussion. We need to refuse to cram hoards of people into our courses - even though doing so would be more profitable - because to do so would reduce the quality of the learning experience - and the quality of the fun the trainees will have.
Doing. Period. Learning a skill is not accumulating information. It is behavioral rather then intellectual. Trainers should respect people’s intelligence, integrity and individuality. Never talk at them or provide trainees with pre-digested ideas-to-be-absorbed. Get trainees 'hands on' with what they are learning through practical exercises, activities, reviews, and games.
So in summary: freedom to your learner is job number one. Your challenge: you may have to get out of their way, they may have to disagree with you. It looks like is bad but it is good. Really.
"Knowledge in the age of abundance" by D. Weinberger
Kindly written by David Weiberger in the run up to his keynote speech at the Online Information conference in London, 29 November 2005.
Knowledge management arose because too much information is the same thing as noise. The aim of KM became to sift through the dross, finding the genuine nuggets of value.
Thus did KM go wrong from the beginning. The main problem with this line of thought is that it fears abundance. It even gets the basic premise wrong: Too much information isn’t noise. It’s possibilities.
It sounds like noise if you take a narrow view of how we come up with ideas and make decisions. That view looks at the last step of the process, notices that only 0.000001% of the available information was useful, and thus assumes what wasn’t useful got in the way. If it’s noise, the thinking goes, then it disrupts signal.
But does our signal get disrupted? When you’re doing a search on Google, all those millions of hits that are of no use to you can count as noise. But if Google (or your search engine of choice) puts what you need in the top ten, those other hits are “silent noise.” So long as we’re finding what we need, the noise doesn’t get in our way. And we are far better at finding what we need than even Information Retrieval experts imagined ten years ago.
Nevertheless, the existence of all that irrelevant information makes problems. It’s not always easy to find what you need. So, KM imagined that we could find a special class of information, a type of “super information,” that would be to information as information is to data. This super information would be a corporate asset of tremendous value.But knowledge generally doesn’t work that way. Knowledge is not an identifiable special class of information that is a corporate asset. Assets can be identified by looking at their properties: If it’s gold, it yields when you bite it. If it’s a diamond, it scratches glass. Super information, on the other hand, only becomes super within difficult-to-predict circumstances. For example, that the game Doom 3 handles lighting better than does Half Life 2 is noise until the moment someone in the organization needs to find a way to mock up an event that depends on lighting effects. There is no way in advance to determine that the IM spat between two engineers over which game’s lighting is better is knowledge. Knowledge isn’t like a diamond. It’s more like a piece of twisted metal in a junkyard that suddenly takes on value because it happens to match the hole in your roof.
The new abundance has its own logic, its own physics, and its own benefits. But it’s hard for KM to shake off its old impulse to manage that which is unmanaged. You can see this attitude in the comforting phrase “Delivering the right information to the right people at the right time,” a line that is used with surprising frequency by people in the KM industry. “Delivering the right pizzas to the right people at the right time” makes total sense for your local Italian restaurant. But it is highly misleading when it comes to knowledge. It actually gets it backward. For the truly difficult decisions - the ones where you need knowledge not just some facts and stats - the information that is delivered to the decision-maker does not determine the decision. Rather, in making the decision, the person decides which information counts, and how much it counts. Should you open up a new office? Should you agree to the terms of a partnership? Should you change your product focus? These are all questions that are not decided by information so much as by the decision about which information to count. A KM system can’t deliver the right information to the right person because the right person’s main value is in deciding which is the right information. The KM system does its job in part by delivering lots and lots of possibilities and open ways to explore the never-ending sea of ideas and information.
This means that in many circumstances we have to give up the idea that there is such a thing as the best information. In an age of abundance, it becomes easier to get good enough information and harder to get the best. But good information is, well, good enough. We don’t have time to get the absolute best information. Besides, with so much information available, how could we ever know that we’re getting the best information? The concept makes less and less sense.
Besides, knowledge is overrated. In a world of information abundance, much knowledge has been commoditized: Anyone can find out anything by using a search engine. Knowledge has been externalized, just as calculators externalized arithmetic.There’s still plenty to do to become smart, though. We just can no longer be smart by stuffing our heads with information, even if it’s the right information at the right time. Now that it’s so easy to lay our hands on the right information, we’re smart only if we can make sense of what we learn.
How do we do this? We can’t do it alone. We never could, and now life is so complex and there’s so much to know, that solitary smartness is quickly becoming a thing of the past. So we do what we always have: We make sense of information by talking with other people. We need rich relationships with diverse people. We need gnarly conversational networks. We need to get smart together. And talk is how we do it. That’s also how we come up with new ideas. At least as important, it’s how we quickly find out that bad ideas are bad.
Organizations succeed at getting smart through conversation not by managing conversation but by facilitating its unruly growth. You never know who is going to talk with whom and what crazy – or insanely profitable – idea is going to grow out of it.
Then the management instinct inevitably re-asserts itself. The little management devil on our shoulder suggests that we set up a system by which we can “harvest” conversations. In fact that system is already in place. Good ideas get passed around in hallways, emails, weblogs even formal memos. We together are not only the best source of ideas, we’re also the best filter for them. We’ll figure out how to surface the ones worth pursuing. If a KM system wants to give us some help publishing what makes it way through our social, conversational filter, great. But Conversation Management would be a truly counter-productive idea.
The traditional tools of KM all have their place, from advanced search engines, to taxonomies and controlled vocabularies, to skill matching systems, to conceptual analysis, and all the rest. But they are without real value if they aim first at individuals, rather than at building a culture abuzz with talk. They are of negative value if they aim at primarily limiting vision rather than opening possibilities.
Knowledge is the loam of possibility.
By D.Weinberger
Knowledge management arose because too much information is the same thing as noise. The aim of KM became to sift through the dross, finding the genuine nuggets of value.
Thus did KM go wrong from the beginning. The main problem with this line of thought is that it fears abundance. It even gets the basic premise wrong: Too much information isn’t noise. It’s possibilities.
It sounds like noise if you take a narrow view of how we come up with ideas and make decisions. That view looks at the last step of the process, notices that only 0.000001% of the available information was useful, and thus assumes what wasn’t useful got in the way. If it’s noise, the thinking goes, then it disrupts signal.
But does our signal get disrupted? When you’re doing a search on Google, all those millions of hits that are of no use to you can count as noise. But if Google (or your search engine of choice) puts what you need in the top ten, those other hits are “silent noise.” So long as we’re finding what we need, the noise doesn’t get in our way. And we are far better at finding what we need than even Information Retrieval experts imagined ten years ago.
Nevertheless, the existence of all that irrelevant information makes problems. It’s not always easy to find what you need. So, KM imagined that we could find a special class of information, a type of “super information,” that would be to information as information is to data. This super information would be a corporate asset of tremendous value.But knowledge generally doesn’t work that way. Knowledge is not an identifiable special class of information that is a corporate asset. Assets can be identified by looking at their properties: If it’s gold, it yields when you bite it. If it’s a diamond, it scratches glass. Super information, on the other hand, only becomes super within difficult-to-predict circumstances. For example, that the game Doom 3 handles lighting better than does Half Life 2 is noise until the moment someone in the organization needs to find a way to mock up an event that depends on lighting effects. There is no way in advance to determine that the IM spat between two engineers over which game’s lighting is better is knowledge. Knowledge isn’t like a diamond. It’s more like a piece of twisted metal in a junkyard that suddenly takes on value because it happens to match the hole in your roof.
The new abundance has its own logic, its own physics, and its own benefits. But it’s hard for KM to shake off its old impulse to manage that which is unmanaged. You can see this attitude in the comforting phrase “Delivering the right information to the right people at the right time,” a line that is used with surprising frequency by people in the KM industry. “Delivering the right pizzas to the right people at the right time” makes total sense for your local Italian restaurant. But it is highly misleading when it comes to knowledge. It actually gets it backward. For the truly difficult decisions - the ones where you need knowledge not just some facts and stats - the information that is delivered to the decision-maker does not determine the decision. Rather, in making the decision, the person decides which information counts, and how much it counts. Should you open up a new office? Should you agree to the terms of a partnership? Should you change your product focus? These are all questions that are not decided by information so much as by the decision about which information to count. A KM system can’t deliver the right information to the right person because the right person’s main value is in deciding which is the right information. The KM system does its job in part by delivering lots and lots of possibilities and open ways to explore the never-ending sea of ideas and information.
This means that in many circumstances we have to give up the idea that there is such a thing as the best information. In an age of abundance, it becomes easier to get good enough information and harder to get the best. But good information is, well, good enough. We don’t have time to get the absolute best information. Besides, with so much information available, how could we ever know that we’re getting the best information? The concept makes less and less sense.
Besides, knowledge is overrated. In a world of information abundance, much knowledge has been commoditized: Anyone can find out anything by using a search engine. Knowledge has been externalized, just as calculators externalized arithmetic.There’s still plenty to do to become smart, though. We just can no longer be smart by stuffing our heads with information, even if it’s the right information at the right time. Now that it’s so easy to lay our hands on the right information, we’re smart only if we can make sense of what we learn.
How do we do this? We can’t do it alone. We never could, and now life is so complex and there’s so much to know, that solitary smartness is quickly becoming a thing of the past. So we do what we always have: We make sense of information by talking with other people. We need rich relationships with diverse people. We need gnarly conversational networks. We need to get smart together. And talk is how we do it. That’s also how we come up with new ideas. At least as important, it’s how we quickly find out that bad ideas are bad.
Organizations succeed at getting smart through conversation not by managing conversation but by facilitating its unruly growth. You never know who is going to talk with whom and what crazy – or insanely profitable – idea is going to grow out of it.
Then the management instinct inevitably re-asserts itself. The little management devil on our shoulder suggests that we set up a system by which we can “harvest” conversations. In fact that system is already in place. Good ideas get passed around in hallways, emails, weblogs even formal memos. We together are not only the best source of ideas, we’re also the best filter for them. We’ll figure out how to surface the ones worth pursuing. If a KM system wants to give us some help publishing what makes it way through our social, conversational filter, great. But Conversation Management would be a truly counter-productive idea.
The traditional tools of KM all have their place, from advanced search engines, to taxonomies and controlled vocabularies, to skill matching systems, to conceptual analysis, and all the rest. But they are without real value if they aim first at individuals, rather than at building a culture abuzz with talk. They are of negative value if they aim at primarily limiting vision rather than opening possibilities.
Knowledge is the loam of possibility.
By D.Weinberger
A book I am reading: "PARTICIPATORY WORKSHOPS" by Robert Chambers
Participation?
A word that we hear and see at every stage. But what does the word participation actually imply? What are these so called participatory approaches?
The main principle:every individual, poor or rich, man or woman has the capacity to analyse his/her own reality and take action based on this analysis. Away from the notion that "we" know best - the trainers - and have something to offer to "them".
The main question that had to be addressed was "Whose reality counts?" in the end. Ours or theirs?
PRA & PLA Techniques
In order to obtain a greater understanding of the reality of the people, and involve them in the entire project cycle, a set of tools known as PRA/PLA techniques was developed. (PRA = Participatory Rural Appraisal; PLA = Participatory Learning and Action)
Robert Chambers describes PRA as "a family of approaches, behaviors and methods for enabling people to do their own appraisal, analysis and planning, take their own action and do their own monitoring and evaluation." (Chambers, Participatory Workshops, 2002)
The methods are open ended, participatory, and often visual as well as verbal. PRA processes have facilitated the process of development in many contexts, rural as well as urban.
As trainers, our main role in the use of participatory approaches is that of facilitators. Good facilitation and empowering others demands action, reflection, learning and change, which are continuous.
A few important Do's and Don'ts of facilitation that have been listed by Robert Chambers in his book Participatory Workshops which are useful reminders for all of us engaged in the process of teaching adults.
A word that we hear and see at every stage. But what does the word participation actually imply? What are these so called participatory approaches?
The main principle:every individual, poor or rich, man or woman has the capacity to analyse his/her own reality and take action based on this analysis. Away from the notion that "we" know best - the trainers - and have something to offer to "them".
The main question that had to be addressed was "Whose reality counts?" in the end. Ours or theirs?
PRA & PLA Techniques
In order to obtain a greater understanding of the reality of the people, and involve them in the entire project cycle, a set of tools known as PRA/PLA techniques was developed. (PRA = Participatory Rural Appraisal; PLA = Participatory Learning and Action)
Robert Chambers describes PRA as "a family of approaches, behaviors and methods for enabling people to do their own appraisal, analysis and planning, take their own action and do their own monitoring and evaluation." (Chambers, Participatory Workshops, 2002)
The methods are open ended, participatory, and often visual as well as verbal. PRA processes have facilitated the process of development in many contexts, rural as well as urban.
As trainers, our main role in the use of participatory approaches is that of facilitators. Good facilitation and empowering others demands action, reflection, learning and change, which are continuous.
A few important Do's and Don'ts of facilitation that have been listed by Robert Chambers in his book Participatory Workshops which are useful reminders for all of us engaged in the process of teaching adults.
DON'T
rush
lecture
criticize
interrupt
dominate
sabotage
take yourself too seriously
DO
use your own best judgment at all times
introduce yourself, establish rapport
respect, be nice to people
handover the stick
watch, listen learn
embrace error, learn from mistakes
unlearn, abandon preconceptions
be self aware and self critical
be honest
innovate and invent
try new things, be bold take risks
The sad status of IT Training
Everybody around me is lost. We’ve been sitting here for five hours now. The trainer has no intention of doing anything but talking. She keeps repeating “Ok? So far so good?”
She asked us not to touch the computer while she talks. I’m stuck. What do I do? People seem to be listening. Are they mad? Am I? Not at all. Maybe they don’t know there’s a better way. In the meantime they sit here. For five hours… In silence, assumedly learning.
My mind start rambling again and this time with a hint of outrage: we’re nine professionals with little extra time on our hands and it’s being wasted. Am I oversensitive or she is insulting our intelligence? Good heavens, she just repeated, “Ok? So far so good?” I may explode.
The question someone asked earlier was answered “We’re not there yet.” Instead, I feel she is not where we are. Maybe she wasn’t given enough information about us, our level of proficiency. Maybe it’s not her fault. Is she part of the problem or part of the solution? In the meantime I need to learn these skills for my job; I try to concentrate.
Now we’re supposed to do an exercise. I don’t know which page we’re at. Shall I ask? Everyone is silent and I don’t know the name of the person sitting next to me. Here I am, feeling lonely in the middle of ten people. She said the software is a “different paradigm.” What’s a paradigm doing in our training? She talks about her work. One trainee started small talk totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I flip through the pages of the thick manual she gave us. She starts talking again. I wonder when I will learn this…Now she’s talking on the cellphone during a break. Did I hear her saying that “Training is going well?”
I keep clicking on the desktop and decide to give it a try. I manage to do something. Will it be right? Am I totally off? Maybe she really convinced me that I don’t have what it takes to learn this. Didn’t she mention earlier that she’s been using this for ten years? Or 20? Maybe 30! Maybe this class is not for my level…I forget what I should do.
She asked us to do another exercise after she talked about the best way to search. I hear her saying to someone that it will take time for us to learn this. Is this true? Then I should start as soon possible. She asked if anyone has questions. I wouldn’t know where to begin. All I’m sure about is what I’ll write on the evaluation form: “There was a person constantly talking and disrupting the class. Unfortunately, that person was the instructor.”.
She asked us not to touch the computer while she talks. I’m stuck. What do I do? People seem to be listening. Are they mad? Am I? Not at all. Maybe they don’t know there’s a better way. In the meantime they sit here. For five hours… In silence, assumedly learning.
My mind start rambling again and this time with a hint of outrage: we’re nine professionals with little extra time on our hands and it’s being wasted. Am I oversensitive or she is insulting our intelligence? Good heavens, she just repeated, “Ok? So far so good?” I may explode.
The question someone asked earlier was answered “We’re not there yet.” Instead, I feel she is not where we are. Maybe she wasn’t given enough information about us, our level of proficiency. Maybe it’s not her fault. Is she part of the problem or part of the solution? In the meantime I need to learn these skills for my job; I try to concentrate.
Now we’re supposed to do an exercise. I don’t know which page we’re at. Shall I ask? Everyone is silent and I don’t know the name of the person sitting next to me. Here I am, feeling lonely in the middle of ten people. She said the software is a “different paradigm.” What’s a paradigm doing in our training? She talks about her work. One trainee started small talk totally unrelated to the subject at hand. I flip through the pages of the thick manual she gave us. She starts talking again. I wonder when I will learn this…Now she’s talking on the cellphone during a break. Did I hear her saying that “Training is going well?”
I keep clicking on the desktop and decide to give it a try. I manage to do something. Will it be right? Am I totally off? Maybe she really convinced me that I don’t have what it takes to learn this. Didn’t she mention earlier that she’s been using this for ten years? Or 20? Maybe 30! Maybe this class is not for my level…I forget what I should do.
She asked us to do another exercise after she talked about the best way to search. I hear her saying to someone that it will take time for us to learn this. Is this true? Then I should start as soon possible. She asked if anyone has questions. I wouldn’t know where to begin. All I’m sure about is what I’ll write on the evaluation form: “There was a person constantly talking and disrupting the class. Unfortunately, that person was the instructor.”.
Group dialogue does not just happen.
In my opinion, working with a group is a skill, something that does not come by itself. The evidence to this statement is the fact that not all communication going on during meetings is productive communication. Not all communication going on during meetings is conversation.
In a normal working day we may face conversations of type A, B or C
Type A Conversation (A stands for Antagonistic) , meaning conversations that can't seem to move beyond conflict
Type B Conversation (B stands for Banal), meaning conversations which feel oppressive, boring, or depressing, This might happen because participants are trying to avoid conflict, intimacy, or surprises, or it might just be habit. (Common examples are extreme politeness, tightly-controlled meetings, and alienated marriages.)
Type C Conversation (C stands for Creative), meaning conversations that engage people's diversity creatively to generate greater shared understanding.
Harrison Owen said once : "Dialogue is people truly listening to people truly speaking." When we all truly speak and truly listen, we can't help but generate greater shared understanding.
The one we need for a successful coalition-building effort. At that point conversation enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view rather than affirms a participant's own point of view.
We know this much: if people are involved in C type conversations problem gets solved, business gets done ! If only we could make every conversation a creative one. Would it be great ?
The Bad news is that we can not force people into participation or creativity. People are by their nature free to really listening or not, free to really talking or not. Hidden agendas get in the way……
Authentic Participation – like good friendship - can not be forced. Conversation is shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection, or possibility. Unfortunately we know that conversations do not just happen. So the full participation and the greater connection that we want to use to solve a problem turns into “the problem”.
So we end up with our original problem plus this new one: how to engage people. A problem we tackle in a group everyday on top of an agenda to accomplish and a job to get done. Often with deadlines looming.
In a normal working day we may face conversations of type A, B or C
Type A Conversation (A stands for Antagonistic) , meaning conversations that can't seem to move beyond conflict
Type B Conversation (B stands for Banal), meaning conversations which feel oppressive, boring, or depressing, This might happen because participants are trying to avoid conflict, intimacy, or surprises, or it might just be habit. (Common examples are extreme politeness, tightly-controlled meetings, and alienated marriages.)
Type C Conversation (C stands for Creative), meaning conversations that engage people's diversity creatively to generate greater shared understanding.
Harrison Owen said once : "Dialogue is people truly listening to people truly speaking." When we all truly speak and truly listen, we can't help but generate greater shared understanding.
The one we need for a successful coalition-building effort. At that point conversation enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view rather than affirms a participant's own point of view.
We know this much: if people are involved in C type conversations problem gets solved, business gets done ! If only we could make every conversation a creative one. Would it be great ?
The Bad news is that we can not force people into participation or creativity. People are by their nature free to really listening or not, free to really talking or not. Hidden agendas get in the way……
Authentic Participation – like good friendship - can not be forced. Conversation is shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection, or possibility. Unfortunately we know that conversations do not just happen. So the full participation and the greater connection that we want to use to solve a problem turns into “the problem”.
So we end up with our original problem plus this new one: how to engage people. A problem we tackle in a group everyday on top of an agenda to accomplish and a job to get done. Often with deadlines looming.
HOW TO WRITE GOOD!
I have found this on-line. It is so much fun that I would like to put it on my blog! Hope you enjoy it.
1. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
8. Be more or less specific.
9. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually)unnecessary.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's
highly superfluous.
14. One should never generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Don't use no double negatives.
17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
20. The passive voice is to be avoided.
21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words
however should be enclosed in commas.
23. Kill all exclamation points!!!
24. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earthshaking ideas.
25. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not
needed.
26. Eliminate famous quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
27. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it effectively.
28. Puns are for children, not for groan readers.
29. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
30. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
31. Who needs rhetorical questions?
32. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
And finally...
33. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
1. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
8. Be more or less specific.
9. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually)unnecessary.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's
highly superfluous.
14. One should never generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Don't use no double negatives.
17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
20. The passive voice is to be avoided.
21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words
however should be enclosed in commas.
23. Kill all exclamation points!!!
24. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earthshaking ideas.
25. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not
needed.
26. Eliminate famous quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
27. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it effectively.
28. Puns are for children, not for groan readers.
29. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
30. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
31. Who needs rhetorical questions?
32. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
And finally...
33. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Designing Change or Start Designing Conversations?
When change is designed in an organization, there is an assumption that someone somewhere knows better or more than someone else. When we design conversations, we create the space for change to emerge without directing it—it occurs as a result of ownership derived from knowledge and connection to what really matters. Change actually emerges from there. This space — not mine, not yours, but ours — is less threatening, less directive and more representative of a mutual ownership and commitment to what is required.
In an era where everybody is as intelligent as everyone else, no one anywhere knows better or more than people inside the organization. In order to create continuous learning, we need a stable platform of processing increasing complexity and ambiguity. The platform created through conversations is the foundation for organizational agility — the capability to adapt readily and willingly to rapid change and uncertainty.
In essence, the key missing ingredient in all models derived from mechanical or inorganic methods of viewing business reality, are the connections that have to occur between the component parts.
Everyone in organizations today needs to be involved in strategic conversations —conversations from and with all perspectives. The person most efficient and trained to create that conversation is a facilitator. The facilitator helps to forward the integration of personal and business reality.
To produce organic change, which is far less costly over time than top-down change, we must allow leadership (learning and teaching capabilities) to carry the weight of change through effective conversations and interactions.
The design is not about change. The design is about creating a system to carry the continuous natural adaptation — to support discontinuous change - through connected conversations around what really matters.
In an era where everybody is as intelligent as everyone else, no one anywhere knows better or more than people inside the organization. In order to create continuous learning, we need a stable platform of processing increasing complexity and ambiguity. The platform created through conversations is the foundation for organizational agility — the capability to adapt readily and willingly to rapid change and uncertainty.
In essence, the key missing ingredient in all models derived from mechanical or inorganic methods of viewing business reality, are the connections that have to occur between the component parts.
Everyone in organizations today needs to be involved in strategic conversations —conversations from and with all perspectives. The person most efficient and trained to create that conversation is a facilitator. The facilitator helps to forward the integration of personal and business reality.
To produce organic change, which is far less costly over time than top-down change, we must allow leadership (learning and teaching capabilities) to carry the weight of change through effective conversations and interactions.
The design is not about change. The design is about creating a system to carry the continuous natural adaptation — to support discontinuous change - through connected conversations around what really matters.
Is Dialogue Education subversive teaching? Yes it is!
I am reading this book and I want to share the power of it!
Almost 30 years ago, Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner wrote a book called Teaching as a Subversive Activity. This book is about subversive teaching, the conscious act of teaching with the "inquiry method". It pull heavily from Marshall McCluhan’s work around the idea that the medium is the message, and that merely labeling ideas ("Oh, this is just the discovery method") diverts our attention from the complex processes that are at work.
They explain:
In contrast to a "production" approach to teaching, the inquiry method focuses on the process, rather than the product. Thus, a good teacher is one who realizes the "answers" are not in the books, but within the learners themselves. Doing and experiencing are the key ingredients to real learning, and how and what we learn does not happen sequentially and especially does not happen for all learners in the same way at the same time.
A subversive teacher, then, is one who firmly realizes these "truths" about learning. Despite the system’s focus on product (predetermined curriculum and test scores), the subversive teacher actively attempts to redesign the structure of the classroom to focus instead on process. Some of the attitudinal characteristics of such "teachers in action" as listed by Postman & Weingartner include:
The relationship they describe between teaching and meaning seems to go at the depth of the work of every educator.
Mr. Postman, Mr Weingartner: thank you so much!
Almost 30 years ago, Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner wrote a book called Teaching as a Subversive Activity. This book is about subversive teaching, the conscious act of teaching with the "inquiry method". It pull heavily from Marshall McCluhan’s work around the idea that the medium is the message, and that merely labeling ideas ("Oh, this is just the discovery method") diverts our attention from the complex processes that are at work.
They explain:
"The inquiry method is not designed to do better what older environments try to do. It works you over in entirely different ways. It activates different senses, attitudes, and perceptions; it generates a different, bolder, and more potent kind of intelligence. Thus, it will cause teachers and their tests, and their grading systems, and their curriculum to change. It will cause college admissions requirements to change. It will cause everything to change." (1969,p. 27)
In contrast to a "production" approach to teaching, the inquiry method focuses on the process, rather than the product. Thus, a good teacher is one who realizes the "answers" are not in the books, but within the learners themselves. Doing and experiencing are the key ingredients to real learning, and how and what we learn does not happen sequentially and especially does not happen for all learners in the same way at the same time.
A subversive teacher, then, is one who firmly realizes these "truths" about learning. Despite the system’s focus on product (predetermined curriculum and test scores), the subversive teacher actively attempts to redesign the structure of the classroom to focus instead on process. Some of the attitudinal characteristics of such "teachers in action" as listed by Postman & Weingartner include:
The teacher rarely tells students what he thinks. Generally, he does not accept a single statement as an answer to a question.
He encourages student-student interaction as opposed to student-teacher interaction, generally avoids acting as a mediator or judging the quality of ideas expressed.
He rarely summarizes the positions taken by students on the learnings that occur. He recognizes that the act of summary or "closure" tends to have the effect of ending further thought.Generally, each of his lessons pose a problem for students.
His lessons develop from the responses of students and not from a previously determined "logical" structure. (Postman & Weingartner, 1969, p. 33-36)
The relationship they describe between teaching and meaning seems to go at the depth of the work of every educator.
"As soon as students realize that their lessons are about their meanings, then the entire psychological context of schools is different. Learning is no longera contest between them and something outside of them, whether the problem be a poem, a historical conclusion, a scientific theory, or anything else. There is, then, no need for the kinds of "motivation" found in the conventional Trivia content. There are few occasions for feelings of inadequacy, few threats to their sense of dignity, less reason to resist changing perspectives. In short, the meaning-maker metaphor puts the student at the center of the learning
process. It makes both possible and acceptable a plurality of meanings, for the
environment does not exist only to impose standardized meanings but rather to
help students improve their unique meaning-making capabilities. And this is the
basis of the process of learning how to learn, how to deal with the otherwise
‘meaningless,’ how to cope with change that requires new meanings to be made."
(p. 97)
Mr. Postman, Mr Weingartner: thank you so much!
Too much HOW for the WHAT!
I attended the Dialogue Education Institute conference in Chapel Hill last week where I had the privilege to embark in an exciting learning journey on Dialogue Education with a group of incredible human beings.
During those days I jotted down some memorable quotes in my journal.
On the need for teacher's integrity:
“The hurt of a teacher is more damaging than the hurt of a farmer!”
On discovering Jane’s work and finally being able to express previously intuitively held concepts: “There is language for this!”
On identity: “I am a natural learner. It comes from my own needs”
On a book to be written for teachers: “How to avoid answering an open question”
On reflection: “How do we think about what we do and whether we think it or not?”
On the difficulty in doing learning needs assessment: “How do you assess the need that is not expressed?”
On having fun when learning: “Is content an excuse to get together?”
On the work of the teacher: “All we do is unfreezing!”
On dealing with the ‘Professor’: “Ignore the teacher. It will go away!”
On the need for action: “Unless we do it, we are not doing it”
On the real work of the teacher: “We do not teach Math, we teach people”
On a possible label for Dialogue Educators: “The positive deviants”
On learning objectives set up by the ‘Professor’: “At the end of the course… you will know what this course is all about!”
On autonomy: “How can students be subject of their own learning if all we ask them to do is following our instructions?”
On Teaching and talking: "I got the privilege to be the Big Mouth"
On Peace: "If you want to be my enemy you have your work cut out for you"
On Dialogue Education: “Dialogue Education: the artful dance between flow and structure in the building of shared meaning”
During those days I jotted down some memorable quotes in my journal.
On the need for teacher's integrity:
“The hurt of a teacher is more damaging than the hurt of a farmer!”
On discovering Jane’s work and finally being able to express previously intuitively held concepts: “There is language for this!”
On identity: “I am a natural learner. It comes from my own needs”
On a book to be written for teachers: “How to avoid answering an open question”
On reflection: “How do we think about what we do and whether we think it or not?”
On the difficulty in doing learning needs assessment: “How do you assess the need that is not expressed?”
On having fun when learning: “Is content an excuse to get together?”
On the work of the teacher: “All we do is unfreezing!”
On dealing with the ‘Professor’: “Ignore the teacher. It will go away!”
On the need for action: “Unless we do it, we are not doing it”
On the real work of the teacher: “We do not teach Math, we teach people”
On a possible label for Dialogue Educators: “The positive deviants”
On learning objectives set up by the ‘Professor’: “At the end of the course… you will know what this course is all about!”
On autonomy: “How can students be subject of their own learning if all we ask them to do is following our instructions?”
On Teaching and talking: "I got the privilege to be the Big Mouth"
On Peace: "If you want to be my enemy you have your work cut out for you"
On Dialogue Education: “Dialogue Education: the artful dance between flow and structure in the building of shared meaning”
CONSENSO e PARTECIPAZIONE: conversazione con un amico
Carissimi,
Per quanto riguarda il moderatore esterno io lascerei perdere, soprattutto se gli altri non si sono ancora dichiarati favorevoli.
Credo che l'intrusione di un esterno possa inibire o rendere ancora meno partecipata la discussione, che secondo me deve restare a livello di una chiacchierata fra amici. Le opinioni sul che fare(?) devono fluire spontanee e appassionate, devono dare la misura della differenza e divergenza, nonche' delle possibili convergenze.
Solo cosi' infatti si potrebbe riuscire a costruire qualcosa di valido e partecipativo, ma non deve essere un dramma se tutte queste chiacchiere si dovessero concludere con un nulla di fatto: amici come prima, anzi piu' di prima.
E' per questo che penso che il moderatore deve essere uno di noi e xxxxxx resta il mio candidato. Gli suggerisco di organizzare gia' le domande in maniera evolutiva concedendo un tempo preciso e limitato per le risposte (compresa la sua).
Dovra' inoltre proibire ed evitare le interruzioni, evitare o tenere a freno gli eccessi verbali dei piu' agitati e tenere conto dell'evoluzione del dibattito per 60 minuti.
Le valutazioni circa le possibilita' di giungere ad una conclusione unitaria, come sulla possibilita' di giungere alla costruzione di un gruppo omogeneo che lavora insieme su un progetto comune non possono essere delegate o lasciate ad un moderatore esterno, come non possono essere lasciate solo a xxxxxxx.
Buona notte a tutti.
LA MIA REPLICA
Spontanee e appassionate? Come l'altra volta? Ma si, una bella chiacchierata tra amici. Porto io i tarallucci e il vino...
"L'intrusione di un esterno possa inibire" ? In che senso? I piu' agitati? Il facilitatore non e' un maestro di scuola che fa la lista dei buoni e dei cattivi ma un professionista che crea le condizioni migliori per aumentare la partecipazione. Ti posso consigliare di leggere qualche articolo da questo sito? http://www.iaf-world.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1
Il gruppo non sta preparando una chiacchierata fra amici. Guarda che per la maggior parte dei partecipanti - me incluso - gli altri membri sono qualsi estranei, visti una volta o due. Forse parli per te. E gli altri?
"XXXXXX resta il mio candidato": quando non siamo d'accordo - perche e' evidente che non lo siamo - scatta subito il meccanismo del voto invece di quello della ricerca del consenso. Perche? Non so se ho ragione e credo che ognuno abbia un pezzo di verita'. Io non sono interessato ad avere ragione, solo ad esplorare insieme quale sia la cosa piu' giusta.
Ho fiducia. Ma devo dirti che trovo ridicolo - a 3000 km di distanza - continuare questo modello "conflittuale" a colpi di mozioni e di "votazioni - muro contro muro" con lo spettro dello scioglimento, visto che metti sempre in dubbio "la possibilita' di giungere ad una conclusione unitaria".
Io sono per il dialogo. Un gruppo di 10 persone che condividono la stesse idee politiche che vivono a Washington, che hanno un minimo di buon senso e di buona educazione, possono mettersi d'accordo.
XXXXXX e' il mio candidato? Credevo fosse una conversazione... tra amici. Ma non c'e bisogno del voto: visto che XXXXXX si e' offeso, il facilitatore non l'ho piu' chiamato.
Adriano Pianesi
CONTRO REPLICA
Caro Adriano,
voglio rispondere alla tua "provocazione" non solo per la piccola divergenza d'opinione sul moderatore/facilitatore, ma soprattuto per informarti che ho recepito il tuo messaggio, nonche' per darti il segnale piu' chiaro possibile che ho capito benissimo la tua decisione e volonta' di fare del tutto per far funzionare il nostro gruppo.
Tuttavia, credo che il facilitatore non possa fare molto per favorire l'amicizia e per far maturare il consenso, soprattutto se qualcuno ritenesse che non e' il caso di accettare mediazioni e compromessi.
Al nostro livello il consenso deve arrivare spontaneo. Inoltre, ognuno e' libero pensare e decidere su cosa vuole fare. E, noi, soprattutto in questo caso, dovremmo rispettare chi non vuole o non se la sente di aderire ad un'iniziativa di cui non e' convinto.
Un abbraccio.
RISPOSTA ALLA CONTRO REPLICA
Carissimo;
Grazie della tua mail. Si, la pensiamo diversamente. Hai visitato il sito che ti ho mandato?
Il facilitatore non ha il compito di "favorire l'amicizia" (ma a mio avviso l'amicizia in un meeting non c'entra. E' come fare un business con un amico: o finisce l'amicizia o il business!).
A mio pare il consenso non e' dato una volta per tutte. Io credo che chiarendo le ipotesi e i fatti, le esperienze di ognuno sia possibile arrivare - se non a cambiare opinione - a capire le prospettive di chi non la pensa come me. Credo che questo crea le condizioni per trovare un accordo.
"Al nostro livello il consenso deve arrivare spontaneo." Questo io non l'ho mai sperimentato nella mia vita. Mi piacerebbe saperne di piu' della tua esperienza di CONSENSO SPONTANEO.
Nel nostro gruppo ho notato che tutti hanno un’opinione su tutto - prima di cominciare a parlare - che ritengono la piu’ giusta. Un'altro modo di chiamarlo e' PREGIUDIZIO. Ho notato pure molta diffidenza.
Il rispetto di chi vuole uscire o la liberta' di farlo non e' mai stato in dubbio. Lo e' il "come" creare le condizioni perche' questo non succeda:
A tuo parere non abbiamo modo di influire ed il risultato puo’ essere l’uscita di alcuni.
A mio parere invece si puo’ evitare l’uscita attraverso lavoro di gruppo produttivo e strutturato che mantenga il paradosso della maggiore struttura possibile per creare ...spontaneita'.
Scusami per la lunga mail.
In spirito di collaborazione
Adriano Pianesi
Per quanto riguarda il moderatore esterno io lascerei perdere, soprattutto se gli altri non si sono ancora dichiarati favorevoli.
Credo che l'intrusione di un esterno possa inibire o rendere ancora meno partecipata la discussione, che secondo me deve restare a livello di una chiacchierata fra amici. Le opinioni sul che fare(?) devono fluire spontanee e appassionate, devono dare la misura della differenza e divergenza, nonche' delle possibili convergenze.
Solo cosi' infatti si potrebbe riuscire a costruire qualcosa di valido e partecipativo, ma non deve essere un dramma se tutte queste chiacchiere si dovessero concludere con un nulla di fatto: amici come prima, anzi piu' di prima.
E' per questo che penso che il moderatore deve essere uno di noi e xxxxxx resta il mio candidato. Gli suggerisco di organizzare gia' le domande in maniera evolutiva concedendo un tempo preciso e limitato per le risposte (compresa la sua).
Dovra' inoltre proibire ed evitare le interruzioni, evitare o tenere a freno gli eccessi verbali dei piu' agitati e tenere conto dell'evoluzione del dibattito per 60 minuti.
Le valutazioni circa le possibilita' di giungere ad una conclusione unitaria, come sulla possibilita' di giungere alla costruzione di un gruppo omogeneo che lavora insieme su un progetto comune non possono essere delegate o lasciate ad un moderatore esterno, come non possono essere lasciate solo a xxxxxxx.
Buona notte a tutti.
LA MIA REPLICA
Spontanee e appassionate? Come l'altra volta? Ma si, una bella chiacchierata tra amici. Porto io i tarallucci e il vino...
"L'intrusione di un esterno possa inibire" ? In che senso? I piu' agitati? Il facilitatore non e' un maestro di scuola che fa la lista dei buoni e dei cattivi ma un professionista che crea le condizioni migliori per aumentare la partecipazione. Ti posso consigliare di leggere qualche articolo da questo sito? http://www.iaf-world.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1
Il gruppo non sta preparando una chiacchierata fra amici. Guarda che per la maggior parte dei partecipanti - me incluso - gli altri membri sono qualsi estranei, visti una volta o due. Forse parli per te. E gli altri?
"XXXXXX resta il mio candidato": quando non siamo d'accordo - perche e' evidente che non lo siamo - scatta subito il meccanismo del voto invece di quello della ricerca del consenso. Perche? Non so se ho ragione e credo che ognuno abbia un pezzo di verita'. Io non sono interessato ad avere ragione, solo ad esplorare insieme quale sia la cosa piu' giusta.
Ho fiducia. Ma devo dirti che trovo ridicolo - a 3000 km di distanza - continuare questo modello "conflittuale" a colpi di mozioni e di "votazioni - muro contro muro" con lo spettro dello scioglimento, visto che metti sempre in dubbio "la possibilita' di giungere ad una conclusione unitaria".
Io sono per il dialogo. Un gruppo di 10 persone che condividono la stesse idee politiche che vivono a Washington, che hanno un minimo di buon senso e di buona educazione, possono mettersi d'accordo.
XXXXXX e' il mio candidato? Credevo fosse una conversazione... tra amici. Ma non c'e bisogno del voto: visto che XXXXXX si e' offeso, il facilitatore non l'ho piu' chiamato.
Adriano Pianesi
CONTRO REPLICA
Caro Adriano,
voglio rispondere alla tua "provocazione" non solo per la piccola divergenza d'opinione sul moderatore/facilitatore, ma soprattuto per informarti che ho recepito il tuo messaggio, nonche' per darti il segnale piu' chiaro possibile che ho capito benissimo la tua decisione e volonta' di fare del tutto per far funzionare il nostro gruppo.
Tuttavia, credo che il facilitatore non possa fare molto per favorire l'amicizia e per far maturare il consenso, soprattutto se qualcuno ritenesse che non e' il caso di accettare mediazioni e compromessi.
Al nostro livello il consenso deve arrivare spontaneo. Inoltre, ognuno e' libero pensare e decidere su cosa vuole fare. E, noi, soprattutto in questo caso, dovremmo rispettare chi non vuole o non se la sente di aderire ad un'iniziativa di cui non e' convinto.
Un abbraccio.
RISPOSTA ALLA CONTRO REPLICA
Carissimo;
Grazie della tua mail. Si, la pensiamo diversamente. Hai visitato il sito che ti ho mandato?
Il facilitatore non ha il compito di "favorire l'amicizia" (ma a mio avviso l'amicizia in un meeting non c'entra. E' come fare un business con un amico: o finisce l'amicizia o il business!).
A mio pare il consenso non e' dato una volta per tutte. Io credo che chiarendo le ipotesi e i fatti, le esperienze di ognuno sia possibile arrivare - se non a cambiare opinione - a capire le prospettive di chi non la pensa come me. Credo che questo crea le condizioni per trovare un accordo.
"Al nostro livello il consenso deve arrivare spontaneo." Questo io non l'ho mai sperimentato nella mia vita. Mi piacerebbe saperne di piu' della tua esperienza di CONSENSO SPONTANEO.
Nel nostro gruppo ho notato che tutti hanno un’opinione su tutto - prima di cominciare a parlare - che ritengono la piu’ giusta. Un'altro modo di chiamarlo e' PREGIUDIZIO. Ho notato pure molta diffidenza.
Il rispetto di chi vuole uscire o la liberta' di farlo non e' mai stato in dubbio. Lo e' il "come" creare le condizioni perche' questo non succeda:
A tuo parere non abbiamo modo di influire ed il risultato puo’ essere l’uscita di alcuni.
A mio parere invece si puo’ evitare l’uscita attraverso lavoro di gruppo produttivo e strutturato che mantenga il paradosso della maggiore struttura possibile per creare ...spontaneita'.
Scusami per la lunga mail.
In spirito di collaborazione
Adriano Pianesi
Friends, Mafia and Values a.k.a. You are wrong!
What is the utimate test of character? When things are fine and when they are not? What is really worth sacrifice? Are we alone or we belong? Are we to search meaning or happiness, or what? Here is a story for you, my friend! Hope it helps you figure it out.
Will is the marshall of a small western town in 1870. He’s just retired and he is waiting for the new marshall to get into town. He has been waiting for a week now but no news has come from the district office of Abilene about when Dan, the new marshall, will get in town.
Will is getting married to Amy. They are planning to move to another town, open a small store and have a family.
In the middle of their wedding party, word comes that Mitch - a killer Will sent to jail - has been pardoned by Judge Roy and is due to arrive in town on the train at noon.
Amy is a quaker and hates violence. She wants her husband to leave town with her before the killer arrives. “You should think about what is at stake here, Will” she said to Will in her wedding gown. “I can not help you: it is against my religion to use violence”
Bob, the city mayor is advicing against the decision to create a posse to defend the town: “They are only after Will. If he leaves town no blood will be shed and we will be safe. Will, this is the new marshall problem’s not yours”.
“I believe I will be leaving town as a precautionary measure” said Judge Roy hearing that the killer was to be in town.
Will asked Frank, his closest friend to help him. “There will be no shame in leaving” said Frank, “You have already turned your badge last week. This is the best advice I can give and the best I can do. I have a family.”
It’s 10:40 a.m. The train platform is deserted except for some of the killer’s cohorts, who are waiting for him to arrive. Together they plan to kill the marshall. Will has no chance, and there is no one left in town to help.
In case he gets killed, how would you rank the responsibility of all the characters in this story?
Will is the marshall of a small western town in 1870. He’s just retired and he is waiting for the new marshall to get into town. He has been waiting for a week now but no news has come from the district office of Abilene about when Dan, the new marshall, will get in town.
Will is getting married to Amy. They are planning to move to another town, open a small store and have a family.
In the middle of their wedding party, word comes that Mitch - a killer Will sent to jail - has been pardoned by Judge Roy and is due to arrive in town on the train at noon.
Amy is a quaker and hates violence. She wants her husband to leave town with her before the killer arrives. “You should think about what is at stake here, Will” she said to Will in her wedding gown. “I can not help you: it is against my religion to use violence”
Bob, the city mayor is advicing against the decision to create a posse to defend the town: “They are only after Will. If he leaves town no blood will be shed and we will be safe. Will, this is the new marshall problem’s not yours”.
“I believe I will be leaving town as a precautionary measure” said Judge Roy hearing that the killer was to be in town.
Will asked Frank, his closest friend to help him. “There will be no shame in leaving” said Frank, “You have already turned your badge last week. This is the best advice I can give and the best I can do. I have a family.”
It’s 10:40 a.m. The train platform is deserted except for some of the killer’s cohorts, who are waiting for him to arrive. Together they plan to kill the marshall. Will has no chance, and there is no one left in town to help.
In case he gets killed, how would you rank the responsibility of all the characters in this story?
Audience Analysis
In the training company where I used to work, at the beginning of a three-day class we asked participants to put themselves in one of three
categories—a prisoner, a vacationer, or a learner, based on how they view themselves relative to the session.
A prisoner is someone who has been sent by management and personally doesn’t see the need to attend.
A vacationer is the person who says, “I can chill out in this class! I really don’t need to work. I’ll just come to the workshop and do other
work.”
A learner, on the other hand, is someone who truly desires to gain new skills and knowledge and grow personally and professionally.
It happens sometimes that all the participants are prisoners and do not want to be there (sounds familiar?).
Here are a few points that can help you manage a class of “prisoners”:
§ What may have caused the workshop participants to all feel like prisoners?
§ What could you have done earlier in the workshop to get people to be willing to engage?
§ What do you need to make clear to others so that they can choose whether or not to engage in a training session?
When you have a resistant audience you need to name what’s going on in the room and tell the truth about how you are experiencing it.
You also need to give people choices. In my experience, when given a choice about applying themselves, most people are “willing to work”because they want to do what’s right.
categories—a prisoner, a vacationer, or a learner, based on how they view themselves relative to the session.
A prisoner is someone who has been sent by management and personally doesn’t see the need to attend.
A vacationer is the person who says, “I can chill out in this class! I really don’t need to work. I’ll just come to the workshop and do other
work.”
A learner, on the other hand, is someone who truly desires to gain new skills and knowledge and grow personally and professionally.
It happens sometimes that all the participants are prisoners and do not want to be there (sounds familiar?).
Here are a few points that can help you manage a class of “prisoners”:
§ What may have caused the workshop participants to all feel like prisoners?
§ What could you have done earlier in the workshop to get people to be willing to engage?
§ What do you need to make clear to others so that they can choose whether or not to engage in a training session?
When you have a resistant audience you need to name what’s going on in the room and tell the truth about how you are experiencing it.
You also need to give people choices. In my experience, when given a choice about applying themselves, most people are “willing to work”because they want to do what’s right.
Training Checklist
TRAINER’S CHECKLIST
o Informed Manager about training initiative.
o Identified how many people need training.
o Decided how we are giving them training (Classroom session, Small groups Demo, One-on-One, Selfinstruction, etc…).
o Selected Lab exercises to teach.
o Send an e-mail to all people attending the training to inform them of the session’s time/place.
o Collect Labs booklets needed for session.
o Reserved room for classroom session or set up space for one-on-one (pulling one chair may not be
enough!).
o Verified User ID to use in the training.
o Tested links and user ID in the room before class (possibly not the same day of training).
o Brought markers, posters and training materials in the class.
o Prepared poster for questions I am not able to answer.
o Left “controlling” attitude behind and shifted into a “giving” attitude.
o Informed Manager about training initiative.
o Identified how many people need training.
o Decided how we are giving them training (Classroom session, Small groups Demo, One-on-One, Selfinstruction, etc…).
o Selected Lab exercises to teach.
o Send an e-mail to all people attending the training to inform them of the session’s time/place.
o Collect Labs booklets needed for session.
o Reserved room for classroom session or set up space for one-on-one (pulling one chair may not be
enough!).
o Verified User ID to use in the training.
o Tested links and user ID in the room before class (possibly not the same day of training).
o Brought markers, posters and training materials in the class.
o Prepared poster for questions I am not able to answer.
o Left “controlling” attitude behind and shifted into a “giving” attitude.
Talking ain't Training
Which of the two scenarios will you follow when you train for Systems Training
in your office?
In one image, an instructor using a PowerPoint presentation focuses on the overhead,
reading it verbatim and adding a few personal comments. With military precision he repeats
the drill, proceeding to the next overhead -- about 50 times.
As half of the 20 participant's eyes glaze over, the presenter rambles on. He seems to be
addressing his projector -- not us. A book – you would say, give me a book or some good
documentation to read, I would learn as much as I am getting from this.
In the other image, a smiling instructor energizes the group with simple, open questions
that stimulate thought and generate generous discussion.
In opening a topic she asks, "What does this word, (or concept) mean to you?" "Why is this
subject important to you?" She ends segments with "How can you use this information back
at work?" Relevant, interactive, engaging -- these are a few of the comments we write in our
post-course evaluations.
Both presenters are obviously intelligent. They know their subjects cold.
Caring people, they seem driven by a passion to share their knowledge with
us. Clearly, both have spent long hours preparing their materials.
Trouble is -- the first presenter does not reach his audience. Good intentions
are buried under a stack of carefully-worded PowerPoint slides. "Teachingoriented"
is to "tell" the class what the teacher knows.
In the second scenario, "Learning-oriented", the instructor leads learners on
the first leg of a journey. She helps her audience identify their personal
relationship to the subject -- identify "what is in it for me." Or how can I use
this information in my work?
in your office?
In one image, an instructor using a PowerPoint presentation focuses on the overhead,
reading it verbatim and adding a few personal comments. With military precision he repeats
the drill, proceeding to the next overhead -- about 50 times.
As half of the 20 participant's eyes glaze over, the presenter rambles on. He seems to be
addressing his projector -- not us. A book – you would say, give me a book or some good
documentation to read, I would learn as much as I am getting from this.
In the other image, a smiling instructor energizes the group with simple, open questions
that stimulate thought and generate generous discussion.
In opening a topic she asks, "What does this word, (or concept) mean to you?" "Why is this
subject important to you?" She ends segments with "How can you use this information back
at work?" Relevant, interactive, engaging -- these are a few of the comments we write in our
post-course evaluations.
Both presenters are obviously intelligent. They know their subjects cold.
Caring people, they seem driven by a passion to share their knowledge with
us. Clearly, both have spent long hours preparing their materials.
Trouble is -- the first presenter does not reach his audience. Good intentions
are buried under a stack of carefully-worded PowerPoint slides. "Teachingoriented"
is to "tell" the class what the teacher knows.
In the second scenario, "Learning-oriented", the instructor leads learners on
the first leg of a journey. She helps her audience identify their personal
relationship to the subject -- identify "what is in it for me." Or how can I use
this information in my work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
