Serendipity and Learning

The number of people giving in gyan on ISRO on a particular social media platform is more than the number of employees at ISRO itself.  Some of these worthies have the distinction of passing by ISRO (I also do), of giving a speech at ISRO, spotting a satellite in the sky or just the liberty of a platform to post whatever they feel like. So there are now leadershp principles of ISRO (not documented by ISRO) or how it is the second string of colleges that send people to ISRO (they have their own exam to enter - it is not random - it is that tier 1 students choose other opportunities). Many of these are surmises and guesswork and have much more to it than meets the eye.  One of my problems with sharing examples like this during training is that this is not a first hand experience. It is a view post event with the clarity of being disconnected. And this is true for both successes and failures. Hindsight is 20-20. And sitting outside it is easy to comment - they should have tried ...

 Until a few years back, a training could be structured like a movie. Start with some humour or entry. Share an anecdote, share some facts, quote CEOs, make a couple of discussions, encourage participation and engagement and boom you are home as a trainer.  Give or take there are many variations of this method. You can add a dash of inspiration, razzmatazz, charisma, gift-of-the-gab - none of these make the training stick. Yes, it is great engagement scores, but little more than that.  For a training to stick - the audience has to do the difficult work. And as learning facilitator, knowing well that they will go outside and forget it, you need to plan to bring them back in and practice. Many times. And then measure them on the practice or on the outcome that you expect or on the ultimate business outcome. Rinse repeat.  As you do this a few times, people in the company/cohort, realise that this is the way things are learnt, behaviour is changed and people grow and co...

In Leadership BS - this is the authors  take on what is wrong with the leadership industry. It is 1, well intentioned, values laden. 2, set of prescriptions - lots of shoulds and oughts. 3, that are mostly not representative of most people in leadership roles and 4 are recommendations that are almost certainly not implementable and may be fundamentally misguided.  In which case, what should a training program look like? 1. Assessments, observations, honest feedback (the most difficult part in my view). This is difficult because unless observations are unbiased and feedback is honest (best from peers) this cannot happen. Also leaders are leaders - people do not share honest feedback to leaders for a variety of reasons. Assessments are also expensive - so often they are the first thing that is ditched (second being the next one) 2. Lots of practice. That comees by investing in long term behaviour change (the second most difficult thing) It is difficult because of budgets and tim...

 As someone who was sceptical of Virtual Facilitation (I practically learnt it only in the post pandemic era), I have come to terms with it . And at some point, got comfortable with it .  But a hybrid session - with a few folks online and few offline is truly challenging. For one, the rooms are not built to take it. The facilitator voice has to be carried from where the facilitator walks. Two, we need to be able to treat them a group (or groups). Net result is a bit of a broken sub optimal experience. You forget to engage the virtual folks. Or if you are using a tool - a physical tool - they cant use it. Or they lose your voice and so on and so forth. We somehow managed it the last time we did a hybrid session - but yes, this is a problem that has not been solved for fully.  Some companies which have a built video conference rooms - these have mic pick ups throughout, the participants can see each other, the facilitator and the room - such places offer truly seamless hybr...

More automation means more training. Isnt this counterintuitive? This article is a very well written account from the perspective of piloting aeroplanes.  In a nutshell it is that as planes become more and more automated - in case of a failure, the risks are very high unless the pilot is skilled to that level and is able to handle an emergency. Todays pilots are those who can skillfully manage a plane. And when they are trained in automation - they know how to handle an issue. What happens in future as more and more basic tasks are taken over by the autopilot? And this might be an issue only for airplanes - no - it isnt. Years ago when I was handling a function, we faced this issue. As the project became more and more automated - we realised that exception handling was becoming more and more difficulty - because the skill levels of the incumbents were low.  This will begin to repeat across functions. And if you think about it - as the basic task becomes more and more easy, th...

 Like Cinema, Sports and possibly Restaurants,  the Learning industry thrived in getting people together under one roof. I say, was with intent.  A few years ago, 2 day and 3 day training were the norm. Over the years, it had shortened to a day or half a day. Or a somewhere in between - 6 hours. This was pre-Covid. What will learning look like in a post Covid world?  For one, all of us, virtual workshop naysayers have moved to virtual.  ( Read here ) 1. The duration of training is a maximum of 4 hours. Though I did attend a fantastic 4 day workshop ( details here ). But of late, much of the work I have done is for under 4 hours, often 2 hours. So, 8 hour workshops are dead forever.  2. More importantly, while we have started using tools like Mentimeter - the interface of these tools is still clunky - so expecting that to improve.  3. I also feel simulation led learning will be a game changer in these times. Because simulations accelerate the learning p...

This was a slide I had put up in a presentation skills a few years ago. Very often, some of our sessions try to boil the ocean. This particular presentation skills was one such. They were trying to make TED speakers out of the company - and obviously - without much success. And this whole big talk thing was intimidating the employees - who had probably never stood in front of any audience ever. So, we looked at it and make it more usable to the people who attended them. We distilled the presentation skills presentation into "what would you generally do when you are called to present" and this is what we got! And we then proceeded to 'simplify' the course. And the feedback we got was fabulous. 

This is just from my personal experience. So, your experience may vary. Here are the key snippets from some of my most amazing learning experiences: Professor: Metallurgy, at college : Passion for subject, deep knowledge. Ability to transmit that passion to students. No rigid rules, but a firm belief that passionate students will get it - and by the way, most of the class did. Being far and strict as far as work was concerned. No patience with those who wanted to crack the exam, but a lot of patience with those who wanted to learn. There were a couple of other teachers - notably one in Marketing, Operations research, International Business, a couple at classes we went to who taught Calculus, Organic Chemistry. Each of them had a distinct style. But what was common was deep knowledge and an ability to get students 'hooked' onto the subject. Teacher: Martial Arts : Passion. Crazy passion. Dedication. A great performer himself - the man was amazing. He taught everybody wit...

So, what about e-learnings? The trouble with e-learnings is that they are too linear. One dimensional. Given what we saw about live trainings, e-learnings rarely offer any of them. So, how to make e-learning more interesting. The answer lies partially in the name. The level of interaction e-learning offers is quite low - as compared to an online learning or a live virtual session where the interaction is much higher. So, e-learnings can be used to up a point - which is the 10% - substitute a part of the classroom  training with an e-learning. It does not provide the interaction that a classroom does - so try and see if that can be done. The other thing an e-learning can do is to become like games - and I am not saying gamify - the question is how to make it challenging. Can an e-learning become more non-linear - give a different outcome depending on how one interacts with it? So that each time you interact with it (like a game), your outcome is slightly different and y...

Five days of live training - and then you realise why an e-learning done in the way e-learnings are traditionally done just doesnt cut it. No, it is not about interaction, engagement and all that - while that exists. It is also not about jazzy content. It is not about making people do unintellectual activities in the name of engaging the audience. And all these 5 days, there were none of those irritating energizers, no bullshit. So what makes a great live training? These are my observations: Dont get me a trainer - get me a person who has been there done that, or done research into what she has come to talk to me about. So, I get real answers, not hypothetical. Build on my knowledge - you may be an expert trainer, but do not underestimate what I bring to the table. Get groups to work, bring out collective knowledge. Use what I know and build on it. Show me something I have not seen despite all that I know - you may be an expert, but you still need to make me think and make...

Creating a course is not easy. Especially a kind of course a senior leader wants for his team.With tight deadlines. There are two ways out there. One is tried and tested. The other, to try out something different - something you think is worth a try based on the talking to experts. The first one is a possibility sometimes, when the leader wants something, very fast, instant. The second one is worth a try when the leader gives you the freedom to try. And some time. And a little patience. Once that is done, the work begins. To begin with it means understanding your audience, what they want, what they like, what makes them tick, what is their level of knowledge. It means, preparing.  It means, keeping your ears close to the ground. As it progresses, it means, working with various stakeholders and making them part of the creation process as well. It means, asking questions. It means, iteration. While delivering, it means, making the audience think. It means, respecting their i...

Over the last few weeks, while working on creation of various learning workshops, I think I am in a position to formulate the thumb rules of creating an immersive learning experience. a) Create original content b) Touch different learning styles c) Use metaphors both as examples, but also as activities d) Connect, ruthlessly and relentlessly to the work e) Bring in a 'lateral' learning experience f) Ask, ask, ask. Tell little. g) Share your passion on the subject (corollary: let your trainer have passion on the subject) h) Create a 'learning atmosphere' in the room i) Create competition j) Get people to work in groups Developing thought...

Over the last few months, I have been busy creating learning courses, attending some courses and watching people teach - this will continue to be a big part of my own learing and I strongly suspect that what I have seen so far is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. And this has led to some interesting thoughts in my head. One is that, I dont think we emphasize enough on getting content right. Content has to fine tuned every now and then to a) meet the needs of the audience b) to reflect contemporary reality and research c) updated with relevant pedagogy. I have found trainers sheltering under the argument that goes that fundamental stuff does not change, hence our course does not need to be updated. But that is a fallacious argument. The underlying content may not change, but the language has to reflect the reality. For example, if you are showing a video in which the conversation and look and feel is distinctly 1990, the language used and the settings are a distraction from...

This is in continuation to the previous post. Ask anyone in the Indian software industry - who are nowadays in middle or senior management about their entry in their first project ever or second. Or better still, ask them about their early success? They will all tell you that their success came with a great learning. This was in the days before IT companies discovered training. Prior to organized IT, there was a term in vogue for many IT companies - Bodyshopping. In the early years, both bodyshoppers and IT companies had something in common - that was training - rather the lack of it. And this is also something some training companies cashed in on - but that is not the point of this post. Most of these people were thrown into projects - when their knowledge was barely anything. Or they signed up to take up projects without knowing what they might run into. Most of these companies provided very little organized training - and most of the training they provided was rudimentary. After...

A few weeks ago, me and my colleague got an opportunity to put together something for a particular group. I will be hazy on the details, for very obvious reasons, but as you will see that is not necessarily important for this post. When we started off, we really had no clue what we were going after. We read up a bit, met people and put out a few drafts of what the program would look like. We, were obviously, not very satisfied at how that turned out, but we persisted. For a week or so, the presentation went back and forth, but with very little forward movement. As we made progress, we reached a point of self doubt and started looking for back up options. It reflected our own lack of self confidence than anything else. But the back up options that we saw seemed to be no better. Then, a breakthrough happened. While tossing ideas back and forth, something happened that made us re-imagine the entire way we had conceived the program. And at that point, we did not want to take the new...

So, the course, I mentioned did happen . And I tried a different approach this time. The last time I had a 50 slide presentation for 4 hours. But when I saw the same slide deck now, I found myself cringing. So, this time, I tried to bring out the learning from the attendees. So, I used a series of videos to bring out the learning. And now, that they had observed the right way to present, the solution to how they could present came from themselves. And I found the audience feeling very comfortable as it went on. 4 hours went away so fast, I could not imagine. There was a lot of peer to peer learning and discussion - I barely had to talk. So, was the experiment successful - yes, I think so. But there is still some refinement that can happen as I figured out in this session. But the big message that I wanted to give the audience was 'Be yourself'. And this is something we dont often do. The few train the trainers I have attended often want you to make so many changes to your...

One of the most asked for, repeated and perhaps most pedestrian of all trainings is the Presentation skills. In terms of numbers it is possibly the most delivered session across the service industry. And yet, it remains one of the trainings that can be continuously re-imagined. Those two words, Presentation skills are more two words - they are a world of stuff to do there. There are many who deliver it using theatre, art and many more technology oriented modes - while there are others who help it the traditional way - including the Toastmasters. So, this is also not an easy session to deliver since the audience knows a lot of things anyway. The last time I did this was a few years back. As I went through the slides of that time now, I found myself cringing at the quality of the presentation. And that is the beauty of presentation skills - each time there is scope for it to be made more contemporary. So, this time around, I put some thought to it and am thinking how to make it more...

When you train under a pro, the way they teach you is different. Especially, if you are going to learn something as a pro that you have already played as an amateur. If you are learning for the first time, there is no unlearning or what you typically want to call as instinctive.But if you have played the game before, a long time goes off in erasing those bad habits and learning the new way. The new way, or coach way you will observe in most of the games is all about technique. Each day you have to go through a warm up, a few routines, learn a few things and then try it out and see if you can bring it all together. They key here is learning those techniques and replacing those old methods with these new methods until it becomes "instinct". At that point, you will always, no matter what, not run to pick the shuttle in the court, but take steps. You will, no matter what, keep your guard up, not down. Your footwork will, no matter what, never let you down. How does that happ...

Recently, I had to chance to attend a session on "Strategy" by two people. Let us call them Professor and Trainer.  (No, the ending is not what you think it is) The Professor had a lively interactive discussion - as did the Trainer. The Professor spoke for the same time as the trainer - but the Trainer was more interactive, had exercises for us to complete and had reading material. The Professor spoke about experiences from his work and around the world including historical examples- the Trainer spoke about data points around the world. The Professor was not the most suave, articulate - the Trainer got all his accents right and could speak like a dream. So, whose talk do you think we enjoyed? If you thought that we enjoyed the Trainer, you got it wrong. The Professor beat the Trainer by a wide wide margin. And therein lies an important lesson for me. That is about understanding the audience. Sometimes, we focus on making trainings interactive, lively, fill it up...

A significant part of my job goes around answering the question, "How does one increase domain knowledge?" There are no easy answers to this, but there is a short answer and that answer is experience. Now experience, does not mean standing the non-strikers end in a cricket match all day long- though that too is undoubtedly experience. Experience means, real, solid, experience of doing things. In short practice. There is no shortcut. Read that again. There is no shortcut except putting in real solid hours of practice. Read this story of 2 pilots and how a simple error made things go catastrophically wrong. Reading through the entire thing will only make you realize that the pilots, a) disregarded some common protocol and b) substituted it with the wrong protocol and c) failed to identify checkpoints and take appropriate action. Why did that happen? Because, they were never exposed to a particular situation. Now they are flying planes - that carry people - so their trai...