ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is a master trainer and vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

I recently led an out-of-state training session. As usual, I arrived early to make my last-minute preparations and found that this fifteen-person session was to be held in a five-hundred person auditorium! Good thing I arrived early and—despite the room coordinator’s eloquent Manifest Destiny-esque argument that people need their space—was able to change rooms.

So this month I’ve been thinking about propinquity, the property of being close together, and how it affects the learning experience. And if you’re wondering if it’s really that big a deal, the answer is “yes.” How you set up the classroom determines the amount and types of interactions and learning experiences your participants have.

For example, it’s really difficult to facilitate a class discussion that involves everyone when the room is set up classroom style—with participants seated in rows. It’s also really difficult to teach a class of twenty to twenty-five participants and involve everyone when the room is shaped more like the narrow hallway that leads up to the room than a room itself.

So yes, propinquity matters. Changing or adjusting the seating space in the class (for example, seating participants in small groups) can have a dramatic impact on the type and quality of the group’s interactions.

Steve Willis From the Road

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is a master trainer and vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

When I was boy, I frequently watched old western shows on TV. I liked them because of the rough and rowdy, shoot ‘em up action. At the time, I had most of the shows memorized word-for-word. And while I can’t remember much, one line still sticks with me: “Well boys, looks like we’re just gonna have to wait ‘em out!”

Over the years, I’ve remembered and tried to adhere to this advice—especially when it comes to training. For example, after asking a thoughtful question, I’d wait ‘em out (wait in silence for participants to respond) instead of rushing in with both guns blazing and firing off half a dozen responses. And my wait ‘em out technique served me well. That is, until I ran into Dr. Ethna Reid.

Dr. Reid is a professional educator who has dedicated her career to improving the teaching of children. After many years of study, she’s discovered teachers who increase the rate of participation among students are more effective. She also quickly discovered (and was equally quick to point out) that while I was good at waiting ‘em out, I missed the opportunity to increase participation during the wait.

Now, as I approach a discussion question, I do something a little different to increase the rate of participation. I set expectations before asking the question. For example, I say something like, “I’m going to give you about fifteen seconds to think about where and how you could use the skills we’ve discussed, and then I’ll ask some of you to share your thoughts.” Then I wait (the part I’m especially good at) and then call on people to share. I’ve found this simple approach gives people time to process the question and increases the number of people who actually process a response. It also produces more thoughtful participation from the group.

I’m always amazed at how little adjustments in my approach make such a significant difference in participation among the participants and the rate at which they internalize the principles and skills. Thanks to Ethna, I’m leaving my “Steve . . . the wait ‘em out kid” days behind.

Steve Willis From the Road

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is a master trainer and vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

So you sign up for a course—one that furthers your development plan, one that offers skills to tackle the challenges you face, or maybe just one that fulfills your learning quota. Now you’re enrolled, and your first thoughts are about the training itself. “Will it be any good? Will I like the instructor? Will I have to role play?”

Often, our satisfaction with our investment in time and money is determined by the answers to these initial questions. If the answers happen to be “yes,” “yes,” and “little-to-none,” then we immediately feel we’ve made the right choice. However, while these answers are good indicators of a participant’s experience during the class, I believe what happens after the course is actually more important. So what can you do to make sure the after isn’t neglected? Here are some ideas.

Target specific applications for the skills both during and after training. We worked with hospital managers in Florida who surveyed participants three months after the training to test whether or not they were using what they’d learned. The results indicated that while employees loved the training experience, they rarely, if ever, used the skills on work-related issues. As they probed a bit further, they found that most had only used the skills at home. Apparently, employees were clear on where and how the skills applied at home and not so familiar with application to their jobs.

So, leaders identified four specific, work-related applications. They provided employees with a “when you see, hear, or experience this . . . use your skills.” Subsequently, people started using the skills at work (go figure). Leaders also incorporated these applications during the training so participants could use them as their “acid test” while learning the skills.

Build skill evaluation into formal processes. Another group we worked with added a couple of discussion items to their formal project post mortem process. This meeting was designed to evaluate the success of their project. They simply added questions to evaluate how successfully or poorly they had used their newly-learned skills while working on the project. This evaluation forced employees to consider the degree to which they were practicing their new behaviors.

So there are a couple ideas to consider. If you’d like to explore this idea in further detail, please join me on April 30 for our next Master Trainer Live Chat. I’ll be answering questions on a wide range of topics, including (but not limited to) rollout and follow up.

Steve Willis From the Road

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is a master trainer and vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

I’m often asked how frequently I train our courses. Depending on the course, my answer is somewhere between “a lot” and “a whole heck of a lot.” My response is almost always followed by the same question: “Don’t you ever get tired of teaching the same program over and over again?” (I know that, in the back of these people’s minds, they’re thinking that even the Love Boat wasn’t as “exciting and new” as the theme song claimed during the 4th and 5th seasons).

So I reflected on my experience. Was I getting tired of teaching the same course, and if so, to what degree? To the surprise of many, including myself, I found that, while the content doesn’t change, I genuinely find the training experience fresh and new—even after so many “repeats.”

This realization got me curious. I started to wonder if others have had a similar or different experience, and what people consciously do to keep their experience fresh. One thing that I have found makes a difference is finding different ways to apply the training. For example, ask yourself the following questions: What group will I work with and what opportunities will be similar or different? How does this program relate to safety or how does it play out in project management? What are the applications to healthcare?

Share your experiences and ideas for keeping it fresh.

Steve Willis From the Road

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is a master trainer and vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

During my last trip to the United Kingdom, I found myself struggling to respond to what seemed like a simple question, “Blooming brass monkey weather isn’t it?” Even though the person addressing this question was speaking English, and even though I understood each individual word, I was completely oblivious to what he asked. Even when the conversation continued, I was stuck on that phrase—struggling to figure out the meaning.

After this conversation ended, I sat down to prep for my class. As I reviewed my material, I saw a lot of phrases and expressions that had the potential to create the kind of confusion I had just experienced. So this month, I wanted to talk about teaching VitalSmarts material to culturally diverse groups.

I’ve found the best thing to do in these situations is to translate. I try to identify jargon and VitalSpeak—phrases and expressions we use to name skills or describe ideas—before the class starts so I can be prepared to translate them during the session. For example, when training abroad and talking about a Sucker’s Choice, I might say something like, “We’re now going to look at a Sucker’s Choice, a perceived choice between two options that are both bad,” and follow that with an example. At other times translating is simpler. In Influencer, one of the videos mentions Chex Mix. Before this video plays, I say, “Dr. Wansink is going to mention something called Chex Mix. Chex Mix is a snack made of dry cereal and nuts.”

Then during the class, I’ve also found it very useful to have participants turn to a partner and summarize the main idea of what they’ve just learned. This helps them internalize the idea, and allows the trainer to clarify any misunderstandings. I’ve also had a lot of fun identifying local expressions and phrases for the terms in the material.

So good luck with your trainings, wherever you may be holding them, and always remember to “Eat what you can with your Grandfather’s fork.” Don’t ask me what that means.

Steve Willis From the Road

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is a master trainer and vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

I recently delivered an extended speech to a group of doctors. But this was no ordinary group of doctors—it was a group of emergency room doctors who absolutely, positively would not tolerate any fluff-laden presentation. The organizers told me up front that this group wouldn’t tolerate any pair and share exercises, videos that were not 100 percent healthcare related, and without exception—at the peril of mass walk-outs—this group would not tolerate role plays or ANYTHING that even resembles practice.

Over the years, I’ve learned to distinguish the difference between a presentation that really resonates with a group and one that falls flat. And while it might seem counterintuitive, I’ve noticed that when I cut out the fluff (i.e., the practice-related activities), the group usually indicates that the presentation was lacking.

With this in mind, I worked with the organizers to create some space for practice, which they eventually (and reluctantly) consented to. And even though they had given me “permission” to do some practice exercises, I saw them wince at the mere hint of the word during the session.

The wincing soon ceased as the organizers saw the doctors really engage in the practice. They even willingly worked through practice sessions for longer than two and a half minutes—which was apparently a new record for them. By the end, the session organizers were convinced. In fact, one leader even said, “Wow, I guess we were wrong. We should have trusted you a little more. Who would have known that it even works with doctors?”

So, next time someone tells you practice isn’t necessary, ask them if they’d prefer a presentation that falls short or one that can engage even the most skeptical audience.

Steve Willis From the Road

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is a master trainer and vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

Put yourself in this situation. You’re in front of a class, scanning the group carefully. All eyes are fixed on you. You’ve just asked a question of the group, and now you’re waiting each other out. Who will respond first? Who will break the uncomfortable silence? Waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting.

In my experience, whoever speaks first in this situation sets the tone for the session. When a participant breaks the silence first, it establishes a shared expectation that the session should and will be interactive. When the presenter speaks first—and this happens all too often—it establishes a different expectation that all the participants have to do is sit back and listen.

So here’s how I tell people to navigate this crucial moment: give ‘em the ol’ ask and wait. That’s right. This old standby always seems to do the trick. You ask a question and then—here’s the tricky part—wait . . . for at least 10 seconds. And while those 10 seconds will seem like an eternity, remember that you typically only have to wait them out once before the audience starts to respond and participate.

Don’t answer your own questions. Give ‘em the ol’ ask and wait and draw upon the wisdom that resides in the group’s collective experience.

Steve Willis From the Road

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Steve Willis is vice president of professional services at VitalSmarts.
READ MORE

Hardly a training goes by that a participant doesn’t invoke the training version of the Vegas rule: What happens in training, stays in training. Let me explain.

Too often, trainers think the beginning of their course is the beginning of their participant’s learning experience. But if you think about it, the learning experience begins way before 8:00 a.m. on the first day of class (or 8:20, if your classes are like mine). When participants reach the class, they’re actually in the middle of their learning experience. They are bringing with them scenarios, frustrations, and context from past failures. And likewise, the end of the class shouldn’t be considered the end of their learning experience. Good trainers hope and expect that a person acquires much of their learning in the process of doing—of practicing the skills and approaches in real-life situations.

So how does the Vegas rule impede learning? I remember one participant, Angela, who parted with her learning as the training ended. I ran into her a couple of days later and found that although she’d rated the skills as “very useful” on the course evaluation, she was scoring low on her “actually applied the skills” score. What she learned in training had stayed in training—end of story.

So, what are you doing during training to make sure the learning continues outside the classroom? What’s worked and what hasn’t worked? Post your comment below and let me know. Angela needs help!

Steve Willis From the Road