Matthew Richter posts daily comments in LinkedIn—well, almost daily. You can follow him and join the conversation by going to http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-richter-0738b84.
For the benefit of our readers, we decide to compile and reprint some of his provocative pieces from the past. Let us know what you think.
Difficult Participants
In over 20 years of facilitating and training, I don’t think I have ever had a “bad” or “difficult” participant. Let me be clear: I am not claiming this because I am a particularly good trainer or facilitator. Nor, am I a particularly lucky one. I say this because I have followed two simple rules that keep me out of trouble.
I always trust the activity and the discussion. As long as the activity is relevant and structured, participants will play. No one ever “won’t play,” no matter how much the HR representative may profess ahead of the program that his people hate games. If the activity makes sense, they engage. Another aspect of this rule is a well-designed activity engages all. No one sits on the side just watching. And, when they participate, they are too busy doing so to complain about other things.
Every comment, reaction, concern from participants is not a complaint--it is an opportunity to further explore, debrief, and explain. Hecklers, complainers, eye-rollers are occasions to capture the quieter, more reflective nay-sayers.
The louder and more annoying, the better the opportunity. These two rules have been my guide and get me out of most trouble.
Activity-Based Learning
Sivasailam Thiagarajan (Thiagi) often talks about how all learning topics can be taught through activities. And, that all topics should be taught via activities. I happily hear people who have attended our workshops later quoting these lines, living by these lines, and teaching others to live by this value. One additional caveat he talks about is not all activities need to be debriefed. Many trainers make the mistake of debriefing every and all activity--a quiz game or an ice-breaker activity. But only activities that yield personalized outcomes and interpretations need a debrief. Others that require contextualization do, as well. Some can and should be discussed for long periods of time. Reflection is where the learning will occur. Others might only require a simple summary of what happened. And, still others, require nothing but moving on to the next module. For example, one of my favorite activities is Twisted Hands. It is a jolt. This jolt creates an experience that requires a discussion. When we conduct “The Best Of...,” a closing game, the activity is a debrief all on its own. No further discussion is required. Know when to debrief and when to just move on.
Leadership Is Good or Bad
It is also effective or ineffective. Too often we conflate these two axes. Leadership can certainly yield intended results or positive outcomes (from the leader’s and follower’s perspective). When this happens, leadership is effective. But there is a moral component to leadership, as well. A leader who influences people to perform atrocities is an effective, but bad leader. In other words, a leader’s effectiveness stems from goal attainment and the ability to influence. Whether those outcomes were moral determines good or bad. I am not speaking religiously about morality. And, more importantly, morality is indeed a highly subjective measure. Leading a group to commit genocide is definitely amoral. Leading a society to ignore the underprivileged through policy can also be amoral, but more easily debatable. Leading a group of employees to steal paper clips in the office or fudge numbers becomes more squirrelly when attributing levels of morality and significance. But, nonetheless, good leaders yield positive outcomes to the community. Effective leaders meet their objective through the mobilization of others. Sadly, one can be both effective and bad.