Author: Jack Shaw

Can we train every employee to be CEO one day? Of course, it would be a rare employee that ends in that lofty position, but shouldn’t it be possible?

The idea isn’t to convince workers that is their career path, but to let them feel a part of the entire operation in a way that makes them see value in the whole. Bit by bit they learn everything there is to know about the business. Certainly not in detail but in enough for workers to realize the importance of everyone who works there.

An extremely fantastic idea, I admit, but I think there are companies out there who do that do more than say their employees are sales associates and sales managers–a euphemism for sales person in most cases. There are companies that believe their people are the most important resource they have–as important as the product they produce–an idea that appeals to the romantic young.

It may be a solution to young passionate workers losing that passion. We find the older set takes over the company and keeps things exactly as they are. The younger set becomes disillusioned and leaves. Those young workers who are leaving are most likely more qualified and better educated than ever because jobs are hard to find. So, why drive them away?

It’s the economy, plain and simple. One colleague says, “…in 2007 we tried hiring a Community Development Planner entry level. We received 15 applications and had to hire a fresh out of school candidate. This year same job 200+ applications many well established in the field. Same with Civil Engineers and if we have a job that pays $40,000/year we get dozens of Juris Doctorate candidates who just can’t find work in their chose field. The few lucky college grads who get their dream job right off probably do stay… We have MBA grads doing entry level clerical work…and let’s face it filing sucks.”

It’s not re-training we need. It seems the economy is driving people to take jobs for which they are more than qualified. You can’t change the job to suit, but you can maintain the positive attitude of that the person by not making the job the dreary substitute they fear, but rather the dream job they could have some day. How do you do that?

A study reported in the Federal Times in an article titled quite simply enough, “Study: Younger Feds Happier at Work Than Older Feds.” There seems to be much truth to that, but why would it be just the Feds? I thinks that’s true with most companies–at least those we’d envision a career.

Let’s go way out and say, in general, most younger workers are happy at the start of employment. There is a honeymoon phase, then reality of the workplace; over time the worker becomes disillusioned. Most would agree that can happen anywhere and not just the Federal government. I’ve heard there are a few places where workers are happy for life, but maybe that’s an exaggeration.

If there are these “dream” jobs, then there is a solution to the problem.

If you look an organization where anyone you talk to seems to have been so happy the entire time they worked there, you’ll find it most likely had to do with the company’s exemplary training programs. They kept training these employees, starting with the young people from Day One for newer and better things. As long as they did, these employees were extremely happy with the company. They were even more pleased when the company established a “listening post” and took their needs seriously. Granted this can happen easier in people driven companies–those that derive their income from how their people interact with others as opposed to a specific product. Identifying with the company itself becomes a positive, even to outsiders.

To say you worked for Ben and Jerry’s, Disney, Pixar (owned by Disney now), or another company with positive name recognition is rewarding enough; it doesn’t matter what job you had. Everyone will think you’re so lucky to have been working in a place that cares about people. They are a business like anything else and they regard the bottom line as seriously as the next guy. To outsiders, it is just a public relations ploy, but from I have heard from talking to actual employees, these are dream jobs for precisely the reasons I have named. The difference is that these companies seem to revere the enthusiasm of youth and transfer it to their product. In fact, the company standards are quite exacting and demanding–so it’s not easy to work for them, quote the old timers. “But it’s worth it,” they add.

The more complicated question is how do we make it last longer? We need to look at what affirms and rewards passion and fresh ideas. Providing the training necessary for an employee to develop is an important part of that. Young workers in these dream companies are trained early and continually trained to provide a consistent product or service. It’s not a money thing either. These workers are not extremely well-paid, but they are treated like family. The level of training they have had is even adorning the clothes they wear. Buttons, badges and patches proudly proclaiming their level of expertise. So, training is important.

Young people as a rule are a more positive lot. They aren’t as cynical and dispassionate as their older peers, but that is something we face with the innocence of the young. Children, regardless of their lot in life, try to be happy regardless of circumstances–even the most dire. Ready with smiles for anyone who affirms that they have done something right, or even exist. Should it be any different with young workers. For those of us who have been around awhile, reality makes us more careful and thoughtful, which can be thought of as unresponsive to change and new ideas. We should smile at them more and let them know their passion is appreciated and their ideas important–and mean it. We worry about losing our jobs to our youth, but that is exactly what we want. We train when we need to train, sometimes when we need to motivate, but most often when we want productivity to go up.

Our minds seem to narrow in response to age unless we keep exercising our willingness to see the positive attributes of the new. I remember being passionate about my job, my work and it was exciting. I was doing something worthwhile. I had taken the job originally as a “roof” job–something to keep a roof over my head while I wrote the Great American novel, but I fell in love with my work. In the end before retirement, I felt the same way about my work, but I had tired of my passionate responses falling on deaf ears because someone didn’t want to bother or the system made it impossible.

This is why constant training to look at the new is important–like training every employee it be CEO is not ridiculous; it’s already being done. It’s more a matter of attitude with amazing results than intensive training. And, mentoring, a form of training, and leadership, an example of training well done is so important. Mentoring to give them the courage to continue on the path. Leadership all along the way to learn how to direct that passion and push the new ideas to a positive conclusion–and the realization being theirs (the young) if something doesn’t work.

This commentary started as a look at why young people are happier in their jobs, but somehow we have to look at keeping that passion and enthusiasm alive. It is my opinion that it is possible and that it is happening because some company is training every person who works for them as if that person could be CEO. I know I’d like to be treated like that. It’s only fair. Again, these are my ideas and you are free to disagree via comment here, on my website (the seminar detail page includes some new ballpark pricing for those who are interested), and e-mail.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy Training.

Life, choices, opportunity, and success. It all affects our work life to be. The choices we are able to make in terms of education and training, as well as our personal and professional development make us who we are. Some of us are workers, trainees, students, teachers, trainees, managers, leaders, but how did we all get there and how do we manage our future. That is the crux of the issue I want to discuss.

This is a follow-up to my previous article on Hybrid Education. Even though my focus is from a training perspective, I consider myself an educator and trainer as well as a communicator. I just reviewed a play by Willy Russell called Blood Brothers. It was a good play–an unusual musical actually that talks about what happens when twin boys are separated at birth and go on to live very different but supposedly separate lives.

“One is given away and one is kept,” in more ways than one. The play is also about class struggle or put another way obstructing the class system. One boy is offered the benefits of a good education and a sheltered home life. While he has the benefits of such, he learns little of real life except through others, while his brother learns life the hard way–through experience. Blood can’t overcome the differences, and the situation for the brothers who do meet unaware they are related and become friends–blood brothers at age seven–ends in tragedy at 25.

Enough theatre. It is all about nurture versus nature. Or is it? At one time, just because you were of noble birth, you would automatically be considered a success in life; the world would fall at your feet. Today that is not the case, but close.

My life, while not as dramatic as the lives represented in the play, affected how I became what I am. It could have gone another way, but I was lucky. Many of the friends I grew up with never went to college or never finished; their lives are different but not necessarily better or worse. I learned that being common only depends on my definition of it and how I feel about it–whether I regard it at all. Perhaps that’s very American, but as everyone says at one time or another: “if I only knew what I know now.” Today we are older and wiser, hopefully.

I’m going to tell a story–a short one I hope–to give some perspective to my own situation. I never went to Yale or Harvard, or Wharton, or the United States Military Academy (as a student), or even attended a private school for college prep. My parents had no money and plenty of dysfunctional issues. We all have issues, but that’s life. You can’t help who your parents are, and I am not ashamed. We may not have made much money, but they made me. I survived and learned, and I will continue learning.

Are you still with me? What does this have to do with training? A lot on the audience analysis side and a little on a very basic scale of what you need to do the job: the ABCs, Six Things You Need to Know, Tips, Tips, Tips, etc.

Education is a wonderful thing, but it all comes with catches–all of it. I was a poor kid with a lot of insecurity. I had no confidence to make it on my own anywhere. I hadn’t been anywhere. I had no support system. My life was based on what I knew at the time and only what I knew. I got lucky in high school. Grades were okay–not great; I didn’t care. Why should I? That’s what life as I knew it taught me. Later, I would discover I needed it, but four years after my enlistment in the Marines–my security blanket.

Cost is a factor for most of us. Economic social disadvantages or advantages can determine where we are able to go to school and when. In fact, I was lucky to go to college at all.

I happened to like acting and won the Best Supporting Actor award in high school, which led to a scholarship/fee waiver at the local four-year state institution wanting to develop a theatre department. It was timing. I wasn’t ready. I didn’t want to be an actor. I didn’t know anything about going to college. I had had no opportunity to learn and no reasonable chance to have the family support to go; I lied about my age and worked through high school. It was all on me to survive. I was in no position to take risks. I took a few classes and found the courses relatively easy, but I quit and joined the Marines. Four years later, after taking the College-Level Equivalency Program or CLEP test and discovering I had learned some things growing up after all, I went back to school thirty semester credits ahead with a definite exuberance for education and made straight “A”s. If I had only known the advantages I missed, had I known about student loans, and had someplace to turn for support, I “coulda been a contender.”

I was good enough as a psychology graduate student to receive a Fullbright Scholarship to the University of Sidney, but I was too afraid of survival in a totally foreign environment to accept it. Sure, people tell me now that was my ticket, but then? Instead I went back to a Midwestern university where I felt secure, missing out on all the opportunities of later success, just based on the fact I finished my education via the Fullbright. Earlier, unknown to me, the English department had put my name in to Iowa State where they have a famous writing program for a scholarship, which I was awarded, as well as a teaching assistant position. I didn’t take it–perhaps ironically because I was planning on graduate school in bio-psychology. After graduating with a Bachelors and taking graduate courses in psychology at a local university, I went into the Air Force for the security–this time at least going to officer training school.

That’s not the end of the irony. Because I was educated at a large Midwestern University and had enough undergraduate hours in English, I was offered an opportunity to teach at the United States Air Force Academy, and the great thing for me: the Air Force would pay for my graduate education to do it. It was an opportunity I could afford to take. I had the security of the military–books and tuition paid for and I was paid to go to school. I chose the University of Missouri–if anyone cares–so I could visit my daughter who lived in the area, but personal issues made that a problem. It was close to home and secure even though I had the security of the military service. Still, it was a good school. According to the Air Force, I could have chosen any school where I could gain entrance, including Ivy League schools if I had wanted to.

We all know about the publish or perish policy at most big or prestigious universities. Got to keep the alumni dollars rolling in. At regular institutions, there is an expectancy of behavior for student and faculty alike. I didn’t grow up knowing any of this. I didn’t know some professors were more equal than others. I had assumed our job was to teach, and at the Air Force Academy we sometimes train. It is perhaps ironic that I was the cadre commander for the Summer Survival Camp since I was learning about survival everyday. It seems I was late for everything. Late for education. Late to develop socially. I could date during high school–not real dates. I could get girls, but couldn’t keep relationships. I didn’t know how to behave until I saw others do it right. This happens in Blood Brothers, too. The point is that it is important to know how to talk to people for them to understand you and for you to understand them. It takes time. Now, I am a consummate observer of behavior. I also have a graduate degree in psychology and a dual interdisciplinary degree in performance criticism . It works–especially in training and communication. Sending and receiving information and interpreting it is learned.

This is not to dig at the fine service institution or any of them. All schools have a structure not unlike any organization. Education prestige focuses more on the past than the future. Professors and instructors are not promoted on merit unless merit is publishing a paper that gives the institution a boost. It is not always the best leader or teacher who runs a department, but the one with the best credentials and tenure. All based on the past.

The lesson here is not to focus on the past; it’s not efficient. Although a case could be made for competence due to the quality of education attained a the prestigious institution, but that could be argued based on the results demonstrated by students at the end of the education or training program.

Sometimes, it is a bit ridiculous. Rules make it difficult, but humans pull through anyway. At the USAF Academy, I was forced to make sure my students followed the bell curve, regardless of the fact that most of my students came from the top 5 percent of their high school classes. It was presumed the bell curve was to be expected, but teachers made the most of it by modifying the bell to suit in most cases I hope. Most teachers gave the bulk of the students a “C” range, a few in “B” range, and very few “A”s. Too many would be noticed. The students earned their grades–although some were quite a bit taken aback by their loss of academic prowess since high school. Some even flunked out, more because of attitude than anything. Students who did well, did well in the Air Force or found themselves in exclusive graduate programs. I found it interesting that in spite of science, teachers found a way to look at individuals and adapt. You just didn’t talk about it officially, or you could lose your job.

Working at a proprietary school later, I was pressured to give undeserved grades, which I wouldn’t do–but I did work harder and do extra work with these students to make it happen. Student financing rather than alumni was a motivator. Management didn’t pay me any more, but the students were served. I’d do it again because the cause was worthy. I did hate that the school was unaccredited and I had several students capable of real “university” work. All along I found I was learning character–especially as I watched these students struggle to get ahead of socio- economic barriers they faced that I had, too. I realized how lucky I was, and thus the experience became a character builder for me.

Life comes in many packages and all influence who we become. For some of us, the struggle for success takes longer because we have more learn the hard way. But as in Blood Brothers, the play, one brother becomes a “waste” on the street so hard is his struggle–most based on ignorance, while the other steeped in quality of life becomes an innocent in the ways of the world. Both needed to be taught but circumstances of class and social economics prevented it. Is it any different today as you look at members of your audience. They come from all over. They are are at different places in learning about life, their opportunities, their futures. Don’t put them down. Raise their hopes and provide them the tools to get to the next level. Everyone it seems needs help and guidance. Early guidance is best. The right kind, of course, but sometimes it isn’t readily available.

The next time as a trainer you look at your audience and do the appropriate analysis to know them, know also that this is why socio-economic characteristics are part of the program. It means more than the obvious lack of money and living in the wrong neighborhood. What if you were pampered all your life and were ignorant of reality? We learn from life, the world and institutions. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all agreed to help each other? Reality can be as selfish as individuals. Only individuals know better.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

My opinion is my opinion. I hope I haven’t offended anyone. My website is now http://actingsmarts-jackshaw.com. My focus is training and communication. I coach and train. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development.

Most educators and trainers alike see the advantages of face-to-face education and training over online programs. The value of face-to-face education or training may be a given, but good things are coming, believe it or not, from hybrid or condensed programs. It seems logical for several reasons. I may be going off topic here venturing into the world of education; however, that wouldn’t be unheard of and there is precedent and application to training today.

Like most everyone in academia or in training and development, I used to believe there are far more disadvantages to online programs than face-to-face education, coaching or training in a classroom. In all fairness, the online trainers may want to comment on this post and I would appreciate any stats you have the would prove me wrong in my assessment of face-to-face learning, or show the increasing numbers of online participants.

Like it or not, online is here to stay. It’s reputation, deserved or not at this point, was ruined for a time, and today is at least hampered by the mere existence of the diploma mills. Ironically, there is probably no connection at all, but the mere fact a school didn’t have a physical campus made it suspect. I can only assume there are more diploma mills than there used to be because of the Internet; however, there are plenty of good online programs out there, if that is what you need. And, many hybrid programs these days are coming from traditional universities seeing the advantage of hybrid education as well as making up the losses by a downturn in student enrollments–therefore tuition payments, as well as corporate universities and universities that specialize in these kinds of programs.

It is argued that online programs lack discipline and allow the student too much freedom in “attending” to study. Let’s not talk about “party schools” or “frat parties” or the fact some students just don’t have to study as hard as others–period. Some online schools are credible in that they do demand the students make real attempts at learning. There’s constant evaluation. Remember classes that had a mid-term and a final, or just a paper at the end to prove you learned what you were supposed to? Those kinds of courses can be found at any major institution (at least in America).

While you shouldn’t expect to transfer credits automatically from an online or online hybrid program, the schools I’ve mentioned here are all accredited and credits should transfer. Check first, if that’s important to you. There may still be perceived disadvantages to online programs (as there are to all programs I should add), but some subjects lend themselves to that treatment better than others. Some educators will say the lack of a collegiate environment and personal contact is a distinct disadvantage. This may be true. Socialization, especially, among colleagues to be is important, but isn’t any education important on its own sake? I moved out of my college dorm because it was too social.

All things being equal, there are advantages and disadvantages to the traditional schools as well–some make sense and some don’t. So online education is not traditional; it doesn’t have some of the advantages or disadvantages of traditional education either. Just because a GED is not a high school diploma, it is better than no diploma at all.

Cost is a factor for most of us. Economic social disadvantages or advantages can determine where we are able to go to school and when. In fact, I was lucky to go to college at all.

I had the disadvantage of going to big Midwestern school, which is fine in the midwest for the most part; but I moved away. It’s all in your perspective, isn’t it? (It didn’t matter when I joined the Air Force.) Like other state schools, Mizzou tended to have strong alums that supported the local students, but their companies wouldn’t turn their nose up at an Ivy-leaguer. Ivy league and other prestigious institutions still get you in the door of the corporations that will ultimately pay the big bucks, get you noticed in applying for government and education jobs, and, if you are political, the appointment over someone from a lesser institution–all things being equal.

Ironically for me, because I went to a midwestern school, I met the USAF Academy‘s desire to have a diverse faculty. After the Air Force paid my way for a graduate education, I taught English, speech and theatre. There are advantages and disadvantages to attending and teaching there, too, but that’s for another article. Just to give you the flavor: PhD versus Masters, where you went to school (that Ivy League thing again), tenured or non-tenured, published or not, and a few you don’t see at other institutions: Regular or Reserve Commission, Academy grad or not, pilot or not. That’s just from an instructor perspective. There seems no escaping it.

Sometimes we have no choice. The money or family support isn’t there. We have to work and find a way. Online programs are what they are. As with anything, do your best and hope for the best. But if you have an opportunity to take classes (even night classes at an institution of some note) will give you an advantage in the end.

All this probably makes you think I’m going to unload on online programs like Capella University, but I’m not. I still believe (and there is evidence) that face-to-face works best. Hybrid programs like at DeVry University, Phoenix University, and even well-known major universities like the University of Houston make the most of technology and the student population that needs the flexibility the programs offer. I was hired to teach a hybrid course in public speaking. I can tell you that my interview teaching a hybrid online class was more rigorous than others. I had to be technologically and subject-matter proficient. Fortunately I host and write a blog on training and development as well as other blogs on literary and theatrical criticism. That meant I could talk to students online in a natural way.

Online schools simply are not regarded well unless you already have a job and the advanced degree can fill the square employers need to promote you. Don’t assume it’s a panacea or a guarantee of success. I helped my admin assistant who wanted to be promoted after she got her bachelors degree part-time, and she took another government job–a GS-5/7/9 management track position unlike an administrative track (she was on the same grade sequence) one that she already had–and lasted a week. I don’t think it was the fact that she had a degree that she had earned a “non-traditional” way, but that she felt it entitled her. She no longer wanted to be an admin assistant once she had the degree, but she wasn’t ready for the new job either just because she had it.

However, in this economy, hybrid classes are getting more popular, and I hope gaining more acceptance. At least here you have the benefit of in-class work to do those face-to-face things important in teaching. Also, the technology-based trends are taking hold in all schools, elementary to university, and so the stigma is not so great. I should point out that not all online programs that have a classroom period at the beginning and end of the term can rightly be called a true hybrid online program. They start with people and face-to-face and end that way, but along the way, there is still the notion that face-to-face learning is best, and I think it better when it is repeated more than twice.

As for online schools that offer graduate programs being more acceptable, that is entirely possible. But I think among those who really care, where it matters most–in academia, in science, in the arts it’s laughable to them. It looks nice on letterhead and may bring a few customers in like many letters following a name. CPA, CSA, LLC, ESQ are a few letters that come to mind as well as letters signifying certification based on having attended a training course touted as professional. Mine would be: MA, MA, MSP… Really? But we do it.

It’s all out there as a means of establishing credibility. Do I trust an MBA from Wharton over an MBA from Phoenix University (online)? Maybe. An online PhD versus one from any accredited State University or a more prestigious higher learning institution? I would accept it because it shows tremendous work regardless; however, that doesn’t mean the others are more widely accepted at first glance. If you have an online graduate degree, I have to look to see if I recognize the name. If I don’t, I have to look it up. If I have to look it up when I have candidates for a position with ones I don’t have to look up… I think you get the gist.

A final word. Although we have different definitions for training and education, there are some gray areas, areas that overlap, areas that give rise to new techniques and learning. How we learn, we took from education…or did we? What we do know is that it is evolving process. As I always say, my ideas are my own with the help of mental stimulation offered by others. Check out my website for more of What I Say. I know I’m not always right, but I try to be honest and fair. Feel free to comment, either here or on my site. Happy training (and educating). For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

The topics of Training and Development, and Communication are so intricately entwined that I can’t help myself talking about it.

I argue that the basic communication process is not simple, but in concept it is really–and those who get the Primer embedded have the easiest time adding the complicated parts. Never say, “in other words.” Never say never. If what I just said sounded like a bunch of gobbledygook, let me clarify.

I have been at this communication business a long time as an actor, speaker, trainer and writer, but also as a father, a husband, a student, an employee, a person of the world. We are unique among species on this planet in that we can communicate complex information, sometimes beautifully in a variety of media (some call it art)–that we can transfer ideas and not just distress calls, territorial warnings, or send sexual signals for perpetuating our species. Naturally we do do those other things and more, but we forget how special each and everyone of us is. We have differences. We don’t operate on instinct, but on learning as well. We learn, teach, promote, propagandize, analyze, dissect, clarify, obfuscate and can use a hundred million other words that address how we can manipulate language to our own purposes. Those purposes are why we speak.

Stop taking communication for granted. I see too many trainers either take it for granted or are too focused on the information and expected results than knowing if their message is truly received.

Believe it or not some trainers are actually afraid of speaking, but it is nothing to be ashamed of. They are subject-matter experts who need to understand communicating that information is not about who knows it best. That’s a difficult concept for managers to believe as well. And, the debate goes on. This writer believes the subject can be presented in such a way by a trainer (communicator) without apology if done right. If the subject and object of the training is to transmit complex information the audience will readily and anxiously absorb, then by all means have a subject matter expert present and a communicator to assist with the communication aspects: organization, facilitation, and message as needed.

If you are afraid of speaking, it most likely has to do with how you see yourself in the equation, how you fit in. If you are speaking well and no one seems interested, maybe you haven’t taken your audience into account as much as your message. It’s simple: care about them, address their concerns, and they’ll care about you. There’s no guarantee they’ll buy your product, but they won’t be able to say a bad thing about you and they’re more like to remember and pass on what you say.

Knowing the subject is important, but unless someone is transcribing every word, it’s not necessary or preferable to be a know-it-all. You own the stage on behalf of the people in the audience, give them what they need to know, and the means and desire to find the rest if you can. Your efforts make you a leader, more of a fountain of information, which is better than faucet that shoots out information.

Be honest and genuine. Self-deprecating humor is funny; it means you’re human. Do not make fun of your audience. Instead build them up (within reason) and treat them like thinking adults and they will respond. Too much love and they will dismiss you. It seems disingenuous even if “the love” is totally sincere. Knowing the difference between your audience and yourself is important in how you convey that information: respectfully, humorously, flippantly, scientifically, politically correct, etc.

If the message we are sending is not received, it may as well not be sent. Communication must be understood as intended or again our purpose in sending the information is a waste of time. My mantra of know your audience, know your subject, and know yourself places communication at a very basic level. You have to know these things or you will not be able to communicate effectively. You may be able to present or speak beautifully, but if your audience doesn’t “give a damn,” you’ve achieved nothing–unless the act of speaking as some perverse form of entertainment was your purpose. Unless, of course, your audience was all set to hear your lovely voice, listen to the pattern of your words and sit there patiently until you finished. It happens. People are polite, but while that is nice, we want our messages heard. Don’t worry I haven’t forgotten the times we do speak to entertain, motivate or inspire. If any speaker or trainer is more concerned about his or her audience, it is then.

So what are the basic ABCs of presenting?

• Know your audience, know your subject and know yourself. Remember to never hold yourself higher than your audience. You may own the stage and were asked to be there because you have great know, but it is your audience you are there to serve and you owe it to them. If you do see yourself in higher regard than the audience, then restrain yourself and read my post on Character Training.
• In developing your presentation (or modifying a standard product to fit) customize it to the point you don’t have to explain why this presentation isn’t for every audience member. It pretty much should be and you should ask enough before, after and during the presentation to make sure your message was heard loud and clear.
• Don’t stumble where your knowledge is concerned. If you need to write it down so you get it exactly correct, don’t worry about apologizing to your audience that your going to read a small important excerpt. I emphasize small. Give them a link or reference if they want or need more. Unless you are the source and your session is taking more the form of a college lecture, keep it short and to the point. We’ve all heard of KISS. Keep your presentation Short and Simple. As I tell essay students: don’t write more than you have to get your point across. Follow the basic rule of telling ’em what you’re going to tell ’em, tell ’em, and tell them what you told them.
• Bring the “you” into your presentation (it is an essay, too). Without you in the presentation, anyone can give the information. With you in the presentation, it is unique and becomes part of the message. You flavor the information with your point of view. Information is one thing; message is another. It’s one thing to know something. For example, everyone knows how to communicate; we just forget some aspects and not do it well all the time. For those of us whose job it is to communicate, the message is all important, which is what we add to it. A rule of thumb for me as I bring in a point is to relate it in some way to my audience via example, illustration, anecdote, statistic–anything that brings it closer to them. We add the spice and make it memorable to our audience. It is our gift. Make it a valuable one.

Final words.

If you are reading this, you are a gift to me. People who care. The words above are my opinion and I know some communication professionals may not agree or have other pointers. One of the things I like to do when I do a presentation on presenting is to stick to the basic rule again of saying more than you show, and handing out more than you say. I provide a series of handouts or links at the end of my presentation that contains other points of view and other expressions of some of the same subjects. As a theatre director, one thing is always clear, not everyone gets every word you say. I can explain a concept one way and another person can use a different approach.

My bottom line: I don’t care how my audience gets the information. I’m there as an authority but my ego can handle the fact that if I weren’t there some “other” authority would be. By handing out information that agrees with me I enhance my credibility, and by handing out information that takes another view I make myself a person open to other views, therefore a leader. I can live with that.

So much for short and simple. Must I control that passion to write 1500 words? Yes, if I don’t want to lose readers who read the first paragraph only. As a teacher, I have a tendency to go long with explanation to make sure I have communicated well with everyone. As a coach I feel my best communication is realized in person, I also understand time is rare and with the current media tools available it is possible to look at coaching from a distance via Skype or similar tools, via DVD, or even via phone. I also apply skills in training development and training for companies as well. Enough of a promo. Check out my website for more blogs and information on my philosophies of coaching and training. Meanwhile, I appreciate and will continue using this as a vehicle to express my ideas and concerns in the area of training and development; I hope you continue to join me, RSS, or sign up for regular blogs. I try to do two a week, sometime three, and I welcome guest bloggers. Check out the link at the top. Next time, more on presentation development.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

“We talk about innovation constantly, but step outside the chain of command and you get your hand slapped with the reminder that ‘You can’t understand the politics involved.’ The key to innovation is really believing that everyone has a worthwhile perspective — not saying it, but meaning it.”

The quote above from a member of Gov Loop begins my second part of Defining, Accepting and Training “Innovation.” I agree with the quote above in it seems we give the idea–especially the part about allowing others to be innovative–lip service. Is it self-preservation or simply being careful or being cautious about change? One thing about innovation: it doesn’t occur with “careful,” and “cautious” people tend not to innovate very often. It takes a lot of nerve and risk to innovate.

Anyway, here’s more on this topic, whether you call it change in the workplace or innovation.

Can we teach others to be innovative? Is that what we really need? Here’s one view:

“If you’re looking to teach people to “be innovative,” odds are you will be sorely disappointed in the end. This is not intended as a slight. I believe we are all creative, yet innovation is a type of creativity that comes naturally to people willing to challenge the status quo, defy the odds, experiment, improvise and to take risks. Can people be taught these talents? Sure, yet for those who don’t gravitate to these talents naturally, they will revert to old ways, and you’ll be back at square one.

Perhaps a better target for innovation is not towards teaching people to “be innovative,” but instead teach leaders to create organizations with safe environments for experimentation, risk-taking, and exploring alternatives, and attracting people with these natural talents. Adding support for innovation as a performance appraisal evaluation area for key leaders helps.”

The biggest problem anywhere with innovation and creativity is getting the status quo to give it a chance. Too often we find people are protecting fiefdoms and there is resistance to doing anything different. Innovation comes with a price, not a reward unless “speaking off topic” is welcomed. I find it mouthed at the top. I have seen innovative ideas offered. The people offering not high enough in rank or in the in-crowd, and so they were ignored. Then a committee was setup so it could come up with the same ideas and get credit. Look how creative we’re being as an organization!

Sometimes the achieving innovation is as simple as saying, “Here’s what needs to be accomplished. I don’t care how you do it, but let me know when you have some ideas.”

That’s the freedom to operate and use your brain. Identify those folks who have initiative and let them fly. There will be some who sit at their desks and do nothing. If showing initiative is a required part of their job descriptions, things can change. Reward and encourage demonstrations of leadership and innovation. I do agree they need a safe environment to operate in. Without that…

For some who need to find the “safe” environment to express themselves may turn to outside the office to demonstrate leadership and innovation. When the primary job becomes secondary and the freedom to express yourself outside the office makes you more happy. Quitting or retirement is often the consequence in any job.

Although each organization is different, higher headquarters wants to control rather than bond with regional offices, or lower divisions or departments–so afraid are they that something may happen that is unexpected. Unfortunately, true innovation is unexpected. Just as I think due credit should be given for training as a plus factor on evaluations, so should creativity and innovation.

I don’t mean have a contest to save the government money. Only people with time on their hands bother. Management won’t say: If you can’t measure results and take credit for it, let’s wait until we find something that works that way. Problem is actions speak louder than words. Another way seems to be to have a blog, which for all purposes is supervised and hardly anonymous. Who will risk their jobs for an opinion they wish to express–no matter how good it is? Meanwhile, the appearance is that we innovative and soliciting feedback. The last two items are in the category of “saying it, not meaning it.”

The government doesn’t really promote on merit–not across the board; it promotes by job series in a system manipulated by those at the top that discourages deviation from the norm. I have been told not to give some project to an employee who worked for me because it would give them a reason to ask for or earn a promotion. That kind of control stifles creativity and desire, and destroys morale as well. As long as we have a system that allows that kind of behavior rather than reward individuals, in spite of “unhelpful” supervisors for whatever reason, we’re stuck in mediocrity in some circles. That may be true of any very large organization, but I think it is a leadership training problem as well as a character one in some circumstances.

One Gov Loop member said “I believe that innovation is the real world game for survival. But let’s not get stress out by trying to teach innovation. In today’s society everything around us keeps changing by the minute, especially technology, and when we can’t keep up we get stress and the 3-4 cups of caffeine each day can no longer keep you going any more.”

This is so true.

Who does the training? Most definitely a third party. It has been my experience that the offices I have worked for are afraid of innovation unless its pre-approved. A contractor will take the chance. Outside businesses face survival issues everyday, and without innovation many close their doors. Innovation means change, but a lot of other factors make it work. Environment, acceptance, leadership.

Ed Bernacke, who works outside the United States in Australia and Canada mostly, has done this and gives his recommendations:

Stop using the term ‘innovation’ and focus on the idea of creating a capacity to innovate. There is too much jargon and baggage linked to the concept of innovation (e.g., it is about technology and it takes risks).

Focus on what people do everyday – they solve problems, create new initiatives, make decisions and deal with change. As such, focus on the skills for doing this more effectively.

Consider people development from two perspectives:

Skills: I wrote a guide on the innovative thinking to help launch a national public sector innovative thinking skills program in Singapore that was designed to build the capacity of the public sector to innovate. At the time, you could take 2-3 day training programs in the perspectives, tools and techniques of each of these skill areas:

• Generating new insights and ideas – using tools and processes to create new ideas
• Developing these ideas – expanding the idea into a full opportunity
• Judging (or evaluating) ideas – using tools to know when an idea is ready for action
• Communicating ideas – getting buy-in and support
• Turning ideas into actions – defining implementation strategies and tactics
• Team collaboration – how to work together more effectively

Cognitive style – Do all people think alike? No. Do we manage our organizations ‘as if’ all people think alike? I suggest we do. Many groups use MBTI or Kirton Adaption-Innovation assessments to prompt a more sophisticated understanding to recognize that people with different thinking style will generate different types of ideas. Our goal is to learn how to collaborate with people who do not think like us. It is also about seeing the differences in the way people think as a form of expertise.

The goal is not to tolerate these differences – it is harness them and use them. As such, someone who is more adaptive and structured should be focused on finding solutions to a problem that needs to be fixed or improved. An idea to do it better may solve the problem. In other cases, you may find a new, different and innovative idea to solve the problem. This takes someone who is more innovative in their style of thinking. The best idea is whatever solves the problem best.

I suggest this is a pretty good place to start. You want some effort to go into the equivalent of a public sector “R&D” team to look at new service models and concepts. You want also want all staff to engage shaping a more innovative department.

If you want a two page overview of the skills model email Ed Bernacki at info@wowgreatidea.com. Also you can download a very good guide and overview of public sector innovation from the Australia federal government ‘innovation’ department – See “Empowering Change.”

So, that’s it. I hope I presented a perspective of definitions, acceptance or lack of acceptance. While I have retired from my Federal government job, I come away with having learned much, and I’m not done yet. I started early with the military and made the shift to Federal civil service later. In between I was my own boss and worked as a consultant and trainer. In my “spare” time I was something of an actor–at times even getting paid for it. I now put that experience all together in my company, which has been in operation somewhat part-time because of my full-time obligation.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

I hold myself responsible for the above comments and opinions, especially my own. Please comment as you will, suggest, encourage, and feel free to disagree. I am totally available for consultation, public speaking engagements, training development, training presentation, coaching, and more. Please check out my website. It’s not about acting at all or it is everything about acting, depending on how you look at it. I am happy to discuss any proposition. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

On my last day of working for the Federal government in a direct capacity I am going to focus on government for a change and look at innovation in a two-part article.

There is simply too much good information to cover–even without getting terribly technical. This piece is mostly thanks to the folks at Gov Loop, one of those professional social networking sites, inside which I found invaluable and stimulating ideas that I want to share.

Three main questions were asked in a Gov Loop forum all relating to the subject of innovation:

How does your office define “innovation?” If you trained people on innovation, what did you do? And finally, how successful has that training been?

Now I’m not going to have time to cover all three questions, but I do want to focus on an element related to all three and that, besides definition, is acceptance of innovation, and training innovation in any government organization. I hope you’ll get a good taste of it all and some good ideas to you stay with us.

The people on Gov Loop come from all over, even outside the U.S. and include contractors and retired folks. There are some 45,000 members. The ones I have dealt with so far seem genuinely interested in improving government practices and seem dedicated to do so. The passion present is admirable.

To give us a definition, let’s look at some quotes given by a very helpful and “innovative” person. Again, I’m sharing from the group.

• Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower – Steve Jobs
• Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow – William Pollard
• Without change there is no innovation, creativity, or incentive for improvement. Those who initiate change will have a better opportunity to manage the change that is inevitable – William Pollard
• Innovation is fostered by information gathered from new connections; from insights gained by journeys into other disciplines or places; from active, collegial networks and fluid, open boundaries. Innovation arises from ongoing circles of exchange, where information is not just accumulated or stored, but created. Knowledge is generated anew from connections that weren’t there before – Margaret J. Wheatley
• Innovation is the process of turning ideas into manufacturable and marketable form – Watts Humphrey

Often an organization has a group made up of volunteers (sometimes those same folks looking for visibility and don’t contribute much), but it is an effort to brainstorm new ideas to improve the organization. Who can complain about that? At these meetings subjects and potential are give a cursory look-see, and if deemed worthy, given to a sub-committee to explore further.

We’ve done the above in my organization–only to find the process stalls soon after implementation begins and interest dies out, or staff is diverted to a new hot initiative put forth by newly appointed administrator determined to make a mark. Too bad that isn’t the “innovation” we were working on; for all purposes, we’re starting over. It’s political, but not caring where it comes from–it is “innovation.” It’s new anyway. Change can be good. Change can be innovative.

One point that is made over and over again in the discussion is the need for the group looking at innovation to be diverse in its make-up. Another member: “We have a tendency to align ourselves with people ‘like’ us, but innovation is best fostered in centres of diversity (not just cultural diversity as the word is commonly applied). So how do we ‘step out into the traffic’ of really getting interested in those people who don’t agree with us and creating spaces where those diversities can challenge each other (productively) and ultimately work together?”

That means people coming from all levels of the organization and from a variety of positions. I’m all for departments or divisions being left out if they have no interest. Why encourage or invite them? They’ll come because it is politically correct, but may only care about how they as an organization looks. Keep the people who really care about change. If they need to they’ll approach the non-participating organizations. Perhaps, confronted with a good idea, they’ll come out of the box that houses them.

The government seems reluctant to encourage creativity beyond box-checking. The words are said because higher management wants it, but we stick to the work plan and cannot deviate from that. I’m sure it’s not that way elsewhere, but in my case, I was really tied down by my work plan and not much else counted to my supervisor unless I could sneak it in. Ironically, it seems over the years, I was responsible for some innovation in my position. Once in place and it works, it’s hard to dismiss. Initially it’ll face scrutiny like all good first or untried ideas.

One the the Gov Loop members said, “We talk about innovation constantly, but step outside the chain of command and you get your hand slapped with the reminder that ‘You can’t understand the politics involved.’ The key to innovation is really believing that everyone has a worthwhile perspective — not saying it, but meaning it.”

Hopefully, I whetted your appetite for more. Part Two will post in a few days and should contain more interesting ideas as well as possible solutions. As always, these opinions and those I’ve placed here by others are my responsibility. You can find other ideas on my website, and please feel free to make comments, ask questions, make suggestions. Happy training until next time. In the mean time, be INNOVATIVE!

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

These are my words and opinions. Please feel free to disagree and comment, or contact me. If you’re interested in more of my points of view–my Cave Man way of looking at things, I have a website where you can find other items I have written. For more information on my peculiar take on training, check out my best selling The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development, and for a look at a world that truly needs a reality check, see my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality! Meanwhile, Happy Training.

I’m not talking about political views on education and training, but rather eye movement as it relates to learning. Believe it or not, Liberals see gaze cues much differently than Conservatives do.

As reported in Science Daily (Dec. 9, 2010) — “It goes without saying that conservatives and liberals don’t see the world in the same way. Now, research from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln suggests that is exactly, and quite literally, the case.”

What does this have to do with training and development? Read on.

In that UNL study, researchers measured a person’s tendency to shift attention in a direction consistent with another person’s eye movements, even if it’s irrelevant to their current task. Any surprise that there was a big differences between the two groups? It also reported that “Liberals responded strongly to the prompts, consistently moving their attention in the direction suggested to them by a face on a computer screen. Conservatives, on the other hand, did not.”

Why? It appeared participant values on personal autonomy might make them less likely to be influenced by others, and therefore less responsive to the visual prompts. To those conducting the study, they thought political “temperament” might moderate the magnitude, but didn’t expect the conservatives to be completely immune to the cues, while the liberals tended to follow the “gaze cues.”

So, what does this mean for the training world. There are one or more aspects to consider in analyzing our audience. Knowing the political inclinations can affect the willingness of the student or trainee to learn, or to even attend to what we say. It seems to indicated the liberals are more open, which means more of a sell to the conservatives especially on “what it means to me.”

Remember it is the obvious we usually look at. We don’t often think of the cognitive aspects. We know about impressions we make on an audience and vice versa. We can’t exactly go out and ask members our audience their political affiliations; I would suggest making such inquiries quite discreet, if necessary, or asked with a touch of humor. I doubt if it is absolutely necessary although if we make sure we put in enough connections of what the training or subject matter means to our participants we’ll have a positive training result regardless.

This brings to mind other cognitive differences or behavioral nuances that can be considered. Clothing stereotypes have been shown to determine that people may or may not be the “people” they portray through their clothes. Perception of others can often be based on clothing choices alone. I did two studies, one in undergrad psychology and one in graduate school where I showed individuals pictures of clothing and asked them to assign character traits–even political and religious affiliation. The results in both studies were conclusive that people do stereotype based on clothing alone.

Maybe we all watch too much television, but we know a “pimp” when we see one. Just kidding, but I think you get my point. How our audience perceives us based on our clothing relates to how they will listen to us. After all, they think they know something about us; hence, the necessity for conservative professional business attire when appropriate or something close to what our audience is wearing. We will be perceived as we appear. Bios can affect that perception, but you know what they about first impressions being the lasting ones. Of course, there is the obvious. Do our own political views affect our approach in training an audience of opposing views or similar views, and should it? It is perhaps just as important to acknowledge our personal differences if only to ourselves and be aware of who we are and how that may affect our training audience.

For me, knowing my audience is number one, knowing my subject, number two and knowing myself, last. Each of these aspects in communicating with an audience is essential. Without these elements, I think your training or speaking engagement can never be the best, most honest, or the most effective it can be.

For more on gazing: I wrote an article on it recently called the Power of Gazing in Training, Love and Other Matters that touched on the basics. Just so you know, the reviews expressed here are my own and you should feel free to disagree and express yourself. I love opposing views especially if you can provide more information on a subject. Also, if this topic or another is your particular expertise, we can always use guest writers. Check the link at the top for the form and fill it out for us. For more on Jack Shaw, see my website for more articles on training, communication and theatre.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Please check out my website. It’s not about acting at all or it is everything about acting, depending on how you look at it. I am happy to discuss any proposition. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

The notion of using mobile technologies in education and training is an interesting one. I, for one, would like to see all public and private schools use computer tablets not only for carrying the textbooks but I see a wide range of exercise and homework possibilities.

Today students and parents can be in constant touch with a teacher who is well-versed in the current technology, although some still lag behind using the archaic means of communication like the phone and office visits.

There are still benefits to the technology for parents like checking grades, homework and attendance from home. Kids can also check their homework schedules, email homework, etc., although it is rather amusing that those technology savvy parents are frustrated by a teacher (who has a life outside of school) they cannot contact immediately. Their children–the students themselves are more in touch with the technology–sometimes even more than we are. I learned to type on a manual typewriter and my kids use a computer keyboard. They also know their way around the computer; they didn’t have typing in school; they had a technology class in elementary school–that included keyboarding. This is how they communicate and learn, and it will become more sophisticated as it also becomes more routine.

How does this relate to Training and Development. Easily. What the schools do now and will do in the future will affect adult learning–even if today we don’t use all the technology available to us. We better be willing to learn how to use it.

My advice to trainers and training companies: don’t be stuck in the past, but look to the future. It gives continuous learning for us a new focus: staying ahead or at least keeping up with technological curve. Beware if school teachers are using this technology before us, because they are setting the standard on how our students expect to learn. Who ever thought teachers could teach trainers anything? I’m kidding, of course. We owe it all to teachers. Most of us would not be where we are without a teacher who inspired us to learn something we found absolutely boring and ended up loving. Mobile products are one (CDs, DVDs, Podcasts, Computer or online training), and using mobile devices in training are another; we need to be proficient in using both, understanding limitations and advantages.

My goal is always to approach a training client and offer first the best way a trainee or a student may learn the subject; then, we move on to the next best and most-cost-effective tools. While I believe, most often face-to-face is best for nearly all training, it is sometimes not convenient or cost-effective to the client. On the other hand, I’ll lose a customer if I don’t take into account his needs, and ignore the new technology as a way of getting my message across effectively–if at all. Just remember your teenage son or daughter, who communicated with you only through text messages, and the trouble you had with the text shorthand. I remember this with amusement. Trust me, this not only affects learning but whether you are attended to at all. Our job is not complain, but to see the value and to use the best tools available to do the job.

Jason Novosel said it previously in his article all Using Mobile Technologies in Education and Training, and I thank him for his contribution in this forum. I know I am echoing some of his sentiments, but wanted to add my thoughts to the mix.

I take responsibility for what you see on this site. I hope you find it useful and come back often. Let me know what you want to explore and maybe I can help. Guest writers are welcome. We prefer you fill out the form at the top and tells about your subject, etc. Sometimes I see an article that strikes my fancy or I find areas I want to disagree with or discuss. Then I guess I’m on my own. I always try to give credit where it is due.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

My own website contains links to these articles as well as links to articles in theatre criticism and communication commentary. All in all, I learn from each article I write–be it on training and development, on theatre or on communication in general. It is part my continuous learning process. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

While I host this Training and Development blog and use the occasional guest blogger, it is my hope that you will appreciate the other point of views.

The article below by Jason Novosel, Novo Horizons Management Training, a company from Down Under, spells out the idea of using mobile technologies in education and training quite plainly. And, today, I share it with you.

“It has been my experience as a professional educator that the teaching and training industry can be an inconsistent one. The industry is certainly dynamic – but the education/study boards, committees, government departments, etc. are constantly re-writing the basic philosophies of teaching and learning, based on the current “fashionable” research. Despite the “advances” in curriculum development and delivery, it is quite a challenge for teachers to actually keep up. Concerns have been, and are now being, raised by the teaching fraternity that a large percentage of educators do not feel well supported when it comes to implementing curriculum and pedagogical changes. Now, throw the latest technology into the equation, and…

“It is difficult to immediately deal with the pre-existing culture of education. The transition from rote learning to self-directed exploring of concepts is a slow one. Will technology aid this process? Will the educational philosophy and focus change to, once again, embrace the retro views of previous decades? What effects, if any, do mobile technologies have on handwriting, spelling, language and extension concepts? These are the questions that should be at the forefront of any investigation into using mobile technologies in the classroom. Unfortunately, there are no definitive answers as yet. Research into this area is still new and has not yet resolved into conclusions that educators can base solid plans on. Of course, progressive education and innovation demands the incorporation of technology and ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) into all areas of the curriculum. However, with quality of education in mind, I go back to asking the above questions.

“In addition to philosophies of learning comes the issue of staffing classrooms with quality personnel. Without teachers who can explore concepts and motivate learners, stocking classrooms with the latest devices will have very little impact. Without teachers who can themselves spell and use language in a grammatically correct manner, communication will suffer regardless of the device used.

“The Australian National Curriculum (ANC) has been written to commence language and number concepts in Early Years (also called Prep). What used to be Grade One (Age 5-6) material should now be covered at Age 4-5, according to the ANC document, and similarly throughout all the years of Early Phase of Learning. This, to me, is a recognition of and response to the generation of teachers who have not had the benefit of a solid grounding in language and number, based in a stable, consistent curriculum. The overt focus (which commenced 5-8 years ago in Australia) on the embedding of ICTs into every subject’s curriculum may have been the catalyst for the degrading of the classical ‘three Rs’. It seems education systems in Australia have recognised this and are taking steps to ensure the next generation of teachers can spell, add and be creative in using applicable technology. Australia is finally following trends that have already played out internationally. Traditionally, Australian education ideologies have been 5 years behind those of the US and UK.

“So far it has sounded as if mobile technologies should not be used in the classroom right? Well, here comes the “but”…

“I love technology! I use it every day. I actually create and help develop apps for use on iPad, iPhone and iPod. I also love education and training. I have been a teacher all my professional life – right up to the present day. Technology is the way of the future. It is inevitable that it will impact upon every facet of business, education, training and networking. However, users should, and must, be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of mobile technologies.

“Advantages:

• Mobile learning and training can improve the service you offer to your clients/learners. For example training can more readily be conducted on site or from the home, rather than learners/employees travelling to a training venue.
• More powerful solutions can link directly into office or work-based networks making the training experience very relevant to the learner’s role.
• Greater flexibility in working and training. For example, training might still be able to take place while a learner is travelling, or even at home.
• Users are able to connect to other learners around the globe increasing discussion, interaction and perspective.

“Disadvantages:

• In Australia, there is a lack of network coverage in rural and some regional areas. This severely limits the use of mobile devices.
• Some learners lack technological “know-how” or are more apprehensive about technology when undertaking study or training.
• There are costs involved in setting up the equipment and training required to make use of mobile devices, as well as ongoing costs for upgrades.
• Mobile devices can expose valuable data to unauthorised people if proper precautions are not taken or followed.

“Decades ago educators were sceptical at how the desktop computer would play a role in education. Now tablet computers and smart phones have become the dominant communication devices. Social networks are accelerating contact, networking and information to a wide and varied audience faster than ever. It is up to trainers and educators to navigate these networks and to find appropriate, creative and mature levels of thinking and questioning which facilitate the use of mobile devices, rather than have mobile devices dominate education and training.”

Jason Novosel
Novo Horizons Management Training

*********************************************************************************************

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

While I support the caveman theory of learning (the art of learning to survive anyway you can), I fully understand why the Greek and Roman philosophers and humanists of later years are given credit for at least the philosophy-based learning theory. And, the rest is important to see how we got where we are today.

In 2001, Linda-Darling Hammond, Kim Austin, Suzanne Orcutt, and Jim Rosso developed a telecourse for Teachers Education and Development at Stanford. The course was called How People Learn: An Introduction to Learning Theories. It is from their work that I draw my focus and brief synopsis here.

As philosophy began to accept the body and mind theories prevalent in later times, we began to see psychological approach to learning, which began with Edward Thorndyke (also big in animal learning) and B.F. Skinner in his study of stimulus/response (who used animals in his studies). Further advances were made by Jean Piaget in child development who understood learning to be most effective when it was delivered and how. Piaget recognized rote learning and activities were important in the student making connections and learning on his own. Lev Vygotsky added to Piaget’s learning theories that there was social culture affect–thus environment.

The progressive theories that began most likely with Vygotsky continue today, with John Dewey, who agreed with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (philosopher) that education should not be separated from life itself, but should be managed by a teacher who understood his subject and the development of the mind and help the student “uncover” or discover the curriculum needed in life. Horace Mann took away the “external boss and dictator” and put in his or her place a leader and organizer of activities. Maria Montessori made the student the leader in his or her own learning and incorporated play as an important part of learning. Jerome Bruner took idea that if complex ideas were broken down into simpler ideas and built upon in a curriculum, we have learning taking place. The last ones, beginning with Vigotsky are the Progressives, which, by the way, are among those still pretty much shaping how we view the learning environment today.

Not bad for a quick history of learning theory. I apologize in advance for leaving out a significant portion, but my space and time is limited. I think I can still make my point–so here goes:

We’ve come a long way from the caveman who sought knowledge and how-to experience as a means of survival. We know how to speak and teach those theories, and hopefully make good use of them as trainers and, of course, as teachers.

Without learning theories we’d be out rooting from grubs and killing game. Why it’d be every man, woman and child on their own. Well, it wasn’t. We stuck together. We learned from each other, and probably before the written word. The culture we lived in directed how we would teach others. That is not to say I am not grateful to the work of the philosophers, psychologists and educators who communicated those theories, but they were the first to be able to communicate how we learn. And that is the basis for everything we do in this complicated society of immensely diverse cultures of today. It’s not just how to get on socially, how to do business, how to preserve the peace… Or is it? It has always been that way.

What did we get from these great men and women above? What we know about learning. Documented, scientific evidence that is bound to increase volumes as we go on. There’s a body of knowledge, growing exponentially. No one, no matter what he says, can know it all.

So what do we know about how we learn? Put simply, since this is a short article–a blog:

1. The brain plays a role
2. The Learning environment makes a difference
3. Learning is based on associations
4. Learning occurs in cultural and social contexts
5. People learn in different ways
6. People think about their own learning and what they feel matters

All are important everyone involved in learning, be it education or training. It is the last point, I think gets overlooked the most. I think educators are more directly connected to their students and are more likely to acknowledge and address feelings as a matter of course. Trainers, on the other hand, can be in and out quickly, processing and training. We aren’t as connected I’m sorry to say. Hopefully, we try.

Feelings matter. Emotions affect how we learn or even if we want to. Our authors, Linda-Darling Hammond, Kim Austin, Suzanne Orcutt, and Jim Rosso:

Both thoughts and emotions shape the learning process. Metacognitive skills—being able to think about and monitor one’s own thinking — enable learners to manage their learning process, to learn difficult new concepts, and to problem-solve effectively. Good metacognitive thinkers are also good intentional learners; they are able to redirect the normal frustration that occurs when things are confusing or not initially productive into further learning. Emotions also play a role; students who are fearful, anxious, depressed, or distracted cannot focus to process information. Positive emotions –feelings of confidence and willingness to exert effort – help students to think, perform a learning task, and process new knowledge. Emotional intelligence – the ability to recognize and manage one’s emotions, to solve conflicts, to motivate oneself, and to persevere in the face of difficulty – can also be taught.

Although just a caveman at heart, these philosophers, psychologists, educators, teachers and trainers are my heroes. I feel lucky to be able to do what I do, blessed with the knowledge and insight they have given the world. Through them, we have the six simple points that every teacher and trainer should know. With those simple points we can train the world no matter how big or complex it becomes.

As always, my ideas are my own–no matter how strange. I have a website where I write other ideas about theatre and communication.

A final thought. We all know the brain is an amazing tool. I can hardly believe that in one weekend, my own brain (and of course the brains of many others) took in and processed the award-winning play Angels in America, Part One: Millennium Approaches and Part Two: Perestroika on Thursday and Friday and I wrote in-depth reviews on each. On Saturday afternoon I took in the obscure Wonderland! (Not the one that lasted 60 days on Broadway) and reviewed it as well. It’s amazing to me that learning took place each day by me and all who experienced these plays. Hopefully, it doesn’t seem strange when you see me write on training and development one time and the next review a play. It’s all about conveying information to an audience and convincing that audience to learn something. It is truly about feelings and people–and learning.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.