Front of the Room – Brian Lange
Sometimes the shocking solution clears the deck for learning
I’m kind of a car nut. I’ve always been able to visually identify car makes and models — even recognize certain cars simply by hearing them.
While perusing a car forum on the internet, I read a thread about the different processes people use to clean their cars. The subject of waterless car washing (using a spray detailing product—but no water) came up and I had a fairly visceral reaction: “And risk scratching the paint by pushing around dirt without lots of soapy water to carry away the grime??? Noooo waaaaaay!!!”
Upon later reflection, I realized there is an aspect of training in which I have vocalized a seemingly unconventional point-of-view — and I further realized that it often sparks in others the same visceral reaction I had to the idea of waterless car washing: “No Way! I’ve always done it THIS way!”
No Time
My “controversial” point-of-view is that I believe trainers should consider removing the times (e.g., 10-11:15AM; 11:15-12:00PM, etc.) from the agendas they provide to their learners. What’s actually kind of amusing to me is that among the many, many aspects of facilitation I explore, this is the item that generates the most consternation.
Here’s my case:
The No. 1 reason given by trainers when asked why they place times on agendas for participants is, “We’ve always done it that way!” In my book, that answer alone should make my case. By itself. But, I’ll provide more.
How does listing specific times help the learner? Seems they need to be present for the whole experience, anyway — no “optional” sections, usually — so why the need for specific times? A common response to this question is, “Well, they need to know what to expect.”
OK, fair statement. But, how about providing the topic headings as an overview, but omitting the times? Might this help the learners be more “present” and engaged, by not knowing specifically what is supposed to be happening this minute or the next?
If the learner realizes at a certain point that they “get” the content, then flip to the agenda and see they also have deep knowledge on the next item, scheduled to be dissected for 30 minutes, what does that leave the learner with? Perhaps a sense of, “Oh, great, I’ve got nothing to learn for the next 45 minutes or so.”
Time Shift
Another potential downside of learners knowing specific agenda times is that they can assess whether the trainer is “behind” — and perhaps make unfair judgments (“She’s lost control” or, “Yep, allows too many questions and he’s falling behind. Must be new at this.”).
It is the trainer’s job to manage time and make the dozens of little decisions throughout the delivery that ensure all content gets covered. Maybe use an alternative processing method here; invest a bit more class discussion on an apparent need there; or reduce the number of items a table-team reports back to the class on an activity (“pick the most surprising or unexpected item from your team’s list to share”).
I may not convert to waterless car washing (I have embraced ceramic coating that eliminates the need for a sponge), but overall, I find that the drawbacks of listing specific times outweigh the potential benefits.
Maybe — if you find your reasoning for defending the use of times on agendas muddies the water a bit — you’ll consider going timeless on your participant agendas.
Brian Lange is with Perim Consulting and serves as lead facilitator for LTEN PrimeTime! For Trainers Core and Masters Workshops. Email Brian at blange@perim.com.
