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.
Engagement
We all agree that engagement is key to learning. But, what does that explicitly mean? Too often the word is used synonymously with fun. This is a huge mistake. Engagement can be fun, but there are myriad of other ways to engage the participants. I have discussed them elsewhere on LinkedIn. Today, I want to talk about why we insist on fun. Here is my unreliable and probably invalid hypothesis: Fun correlates to higher ratings on smiley sheets. I think it is that simple. Fun leads to a trainer being perceived as good. Fun means people didn’t find the training tedious or a waste of time. Fun tends to influence the participants to recommend the training rather than more objective assessments of their direct learning. Fun, for all intents and purposes, is a marketing tool. What fun is not, is an indicator that learning was effective. Let me be clear. Fun does not mean learning did not occur (a horrible double negative. Sorry). It surely could. But it is not a necessary component. In fact, fun can distract from learning if it is too much. We want to engage. In other words, we want participants to think, feel, act, do, and reflect. They can feel challenged, annoyed, sad, frustrated, and enjoyable. But fun is just one way to engage.
Games
I like games. In fact, I love games, which is why finding Thiagi and learning and working with him over the years has been the luckiest and best career break I could have hoped for as a kid (a little over 20 years now). The temptation to focus on the game is always present. Of course, over the years I have several games I prefer to play with the participants and default to them when possible. The trick is the game actually is less important than the objective. I have to clearly identify the training goal before playing the game. The game should contribute to the objective. In other words, training games without a training purpose are just games— sans a learning function. Be careful not to play for the sake of playing, and certainly be sure you integrate your game to a specific learning outcome. Otherwise, change careers and become an entertainer.
Innovation
I believe in being innovative. I believe in being creative. When the situation calls for it. More and more I see companies strive for innovation when a more simple, already proven technique would solve the problem. The preference for newer and shinier doesn’t always lead to better and more effective. I am not saying that innovation cannot or should not. In other words, we focus on being innovative as the goal rather than innovate to solve a problem. We needn’t default to innovation for the sake of innovating.
Innovation can lead to untested outputs with little foresight into the consequences.
Innovation can needlessly ignore, dismiss, or undermine highly productive workers with many years of productivity left to contribute.
Innovation can cost a lot.
Innovation isn’t really innovative— sometimes regurgitating what has already been done before.
Innovation takes energy that may be applied elsewhere like process improvement and creating more amenable work environments.
Innovation is great. It’s fun, and I love the tech products I get to play with each year, appreciate the medical advances, and thrive on so much more I cannot even fathom. I am just saying... we should be aware of the flip side.