Dear Trainers,
Can training games really teach? What are the advantages and disadvantages of training games? How long does the training impact remain on the participant? For example, if we take some team-building exercise, how long will it last among the team members?
Thanks in advance.
Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
17Can training games really teach? What are the advantages and disadvantages of training games? How long does the training impact remain on the participant? For example, if we take some team-building exercise, how long will it last among the team members?
Thanks in advance.
Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Manish,
Your query "Can Training Games Really Teach? What are the advantages and disadvantages of training games? How long does the training impact remain on the participant?"
My observations are that "Training Games" are useful when used appropriately. The audience's learning style is greatly influenced when training games are used to simulate a specific experience in the learning environment coupled with a 'to the point' facilitation. Normally, we would call this as level 3 facilitation - game goals, processes used to attain the goals, individual contribution, and the impact of behavior on each other. When the game is administered appropriately, and the consequent experiences are facilitated effectively, the impact can last longer.
I suggest that you consider reading David Kolb's learning styles - this could give you vital insights on how to design and administer training games, followed by facilitation.
Disadvantages of training games are:
1. Time-consuming.
2. Tends to be more about fun than learning - considered by some as a fad.
3. Not everyone likes to get involved in training games.
4. Sometimes it has been used to fill time (activity expanders).
5. The trainer's role is sometimes seen as that of ringmasters.
6. Not all trainees are serious in participating - break rules.
7. Post-training debriefing tends to take a long time or no time as participants don't really connect or respond, etc.
Largely, when used as part of the methodology judiciously, it is a great facilitator for training effectiveness.
To a great extent, the choice of games has to be appropriate to ensure training and learning effectiveness.
I am sure there are going to be a lot more contributions from other members as well.
Regards and best wishes - Sairamesh
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your query "Can Training Games Really Teach? What are the advantages and disadvantages of training games? How long does the training impact remain on the participant?"
My observations are that "Training Games" are useful when used appropriately. The audience's learning style is greatly influenced when training games are used to simulate a specific experience in the learning environment coupled with a 'to the point' facilitation. Normally, we would call this as level 3 facilitation - game goals, processes used to attain the goals, individual contribution, and the impact of behavior on each other. When the game is administered appropriately, and the consequent experiences are facilitated effectively, the impact can last longer.
I suggest that you consider reading David Kolb's learning styles - this could give you vital insights on how to design and administer training games, followed by facilitation.
Disadvantages of training games are:
1. Time-consuming.
2. Tends to be more about fun than learning - considered by some as a fad.
3. Not everyone likes to get involved in training games.
4. Sometimes it has been used to fill time (activity expanders).
5. The trainer's role is sometimes seen as that of ringmasters.
6. Not all trainees are serious in participating - break rules.
7. Post-training debriefing tends to take a long time or no time as participants don't really connect or respond, etc.
Largely, when used as part of the methodology judiciously, it is a great facilitator for training effectiveness.
To a great extent, the choice of games has to be appropriate to ensure training and learning effectiveness.
I am sure there are going to be a lot more contributions from other members as well.
Regards and best wishes - Sairamesh
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The question has been put, "Can Training Games Really Teach?" My answer is an unequivocal yes.
I've been in business for 35 years. My training experience with several multinational organizations as well as the ongoing operation of my Consultancy has been influenced by the sum total of what I've learned over the period of time I've been in business.
Whenever I gain knowledge that is useful to me either personally or professionally, I apply that knowledge in future activities. That's the best each of us can hope for with the trainees we work with, right?
Perhaps the most effective training game in which I ever participated was a prototype In-Basket exercise during Time Management training in 1977 in New York City. The second most effective training game was a team builder—the egg flying parachute we developed at Henley in the UK in 1993. The third most effective training game was the change cognition exercise I ran in Majuro, in the Republic of the Marshall Islands in 2006. Why do I remember these games? Because I learned from them...and, in one case, I learned from a training game I was running!
Let's summarize.
Do I believe that training games work? You bet.
Can training games teach useful principles and concepts? Absolutely.
Can everyone leading a group apply a training game to the principles and concepts to be learned? Absolutely not. One must pick and choose the games which will be targeted to the potential learner; the tone and setting for the training game must be correct.
I've had Senior Government Ministers, Education Administrators, Professors, C-Level Management of companies—even members of Boards of Directors—jump in, have fun, and learn from exercises and games that we developed, implemented, and used as learning tools. It seems that the higher the level of the learner, the more fun they have in participation. Perhaps it's because they sense that something of value is being presented?
Do games work? Of course they do. It depends on the presentation, the learners, the setting, and the application of the learning taken away. But then again, that's what training is all about.
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
The Guinn Consultancy Group, Inc.
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I've been in business for 35 years. My training experience with several multinational organizations as well as the ongoing operation of my Consultancy has been influenced by the sum total of what I've learned over the period of time I've been in business.
Whenever I gain knowledge that is useful to me either personally or professionally, I apply that knowledge in future activities. That's the best each of us can hope for with the trainees we work with, right?
Perhaps the most effective training game in which I ever participated was a prototype In-Basket exercise during Time Management training in 1977 in New York City. The second most effective training game was a team builder—the egg flying parachute we developed at Henley in the UK in 1993. The third most effective training game was the change cognition exercise I ran in Majuro, in the Republic of the Marshall Islands in 2006. Why do I remember these games? Because I learned from them...and, in one case, I learned from a training game I was running!
Let's summarize.
Do I believe that training games work? You bet.
Can training games teach useful principles and concepts? Absolutely.
Can everyone leading a group apply a training game to the principles and concepts to be learned? Absolutely not. One must pick and choose the games which will be targeted to the potential learner; the tone and setting for the training game must be correct.
I've had Senior Government Ministers, Education Administrators, Professors, C-Level Management of companies—even members of Boards of Directors—jump in, have fun, and learn from exercises and games that we developed, implemented, and used as learning tools. It seems that the higher the level of the learner, the more fun they have in participation. Perhaps it's because they sense that something of value is being presented?
Do games work? Of course they do. It depends on the presentation, the learners, the setting, and the application of the learning taken away. But then again, that's what training is all about.
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
The Guinn Consultancy Group, Inc.
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for your response.
I would like to share a case from my previous company. We had organized an outbound team-building program for all heads of departments. Upon returning from the program, the entire team was energized and saw themselves as stakeholders in the company. However, after a few days, one HOD resigned. Subsequently, the GM of that department questioned the benefits of the OBT program. Why did this happen when all other HODs were energized and more committed to the organization? Can we consider this a failure of the OBT, or could there be other reasons from the management side?
Regards, Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I would like to share a case from my previous company. We had organized an outbound team-building program for all heads of departments. Upon returning from the program, the entire team was energized and saw themselves as stakeholders in the company. However, after a few days, one HOD resigned. Subsequently, the GM of that department questioned the benefits of the OBT program. Why did this happen when all other HODs were energized and more committed to the organization? Can we consider this a failure of the OBT, or could there be other reasons from the management side?
Regards, Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Manish,
There are a variety of reasons this could have happened. Let's share just a few.
1) First and foremost, this manager may have been seeking to leave and just participated in the exercise due to timing issues, or to "go along with the crowd." He could have had his plans to depart made long before the exercise was scheduled.
2) Secondly, it's quite possible that he was feeling "out of the loop" with other managers and this exercise showed him how much everyone else enjoyed themselves and learned from the process—and yet, he was outside, looking in at the others who you report were energized and felt like stakeholders. It can be a very lonely world when you are out of your element.
3) It's also possible that he saw his personal opportunities limited by outstanding abilities of others—which he had not realized up until that point.
4) Although from your explanation I don't see it happening, it could also be that there was a confrontation with his supervisor and his supervisor is now looking to blame the game with the loss of a subordinate.
Lots of games get played in corporate life, and many of them are unscheduled! Offsites are very interesting in that personality challenges and unknown talents emerge in ways never suspected or expected.
My best suggestion to you would have been to simply laugh off the suggestion that the Outbound Team Training Exercise—in any way—was responsible for the loss of a manager. Too often we take comments made "off the cuff" by Senior Management too seriously.
I often think about the power of words from my early retail management days when I asked a subordinate to "run the day's deposit down to the bank." When he returned in ten minutes, completely out of breath, hot, tired, and sweaty, I asked him what had happened. He responded that nothing had happened... I had told him to "run" it to the bank, so he did. I learned very quickly the power that "off the cuff" words can have on subordinates.
If that manager was serious about a team-building exercise chasing away a HOD, I'd suggest that he needs to examine his own internal motives. By your own admission, it worked with the other heads of department; wouldn't this demonstrate to most that the process was successful?
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
The Guinn Consultancy Group, Inc.
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There are a variety of reasons this could have happened. Let's share just a few.
1) First and foremost, this manager may have been seeking to leave and just participated in the exercise due to timing issues, or to "go along with the crowd." He could have had his plans to depart made long before the exercise was scheduled.
2) Secondly, it's quite possible that he was feeling "out of the loop" with other managers and this exercise showed him how much everyone else enjoyed themselves and learned from the process—and yet, he was outside, looking in at the others who you report were energized and felt like stakeholders. It can be a very lonely world when you are out of your element.
3) It's also possible that he saw his personal opportunities limited by outstanding abilities of others—which he had not realized up until that point.
4) Although from your explanation I don't see it happening, it could also be that there was a confrontation with his supervisor and his supervisor is now looking to blame the game with the loss of a subordinate.
Lots of games get played in corporate life, and many of them are unscheduled! Offsites are very interesting in that personality challenges and unknown talents emerge in ways never suspected or expected.
My best suggestion to you would have been to simply laugh off the suggestion that the Outbound Team Training Exercise—in any way—was responsible for the loss of a manager. Too often we take comments made "off the cuff" by Senior Management too seriously.
I often think about the power of words from my early retail management days when I asked a subordinate to "run the day's deposit down to the bank." When he returned in ten minutes, completely out of breath, hot, tired, and sweaty, I asked him what had happened. He responded that nothing had happened... I had told him to "run" it to the bank, so he did. I learned very quickly the power that "off the cuff" words can have on subordinates.
If that manager was serious about a team-building exercise chasing away a HOD, I'd suggest that he needs to examine his own internal motives. By your own admission, it worked with the other heads of department; wouldn't this demonstrate to most that the process was successful?
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
The Guinn Consultancy Group, Inc.
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Training games serve as tools for a specific objective. The flip side of games is that if the debrief is weak, the entire impact is lost. By observing human behavior, the predominant behavior comes to the forefront in these simulations. A skilled facilitator can identify and draw relevance to real-time situations.
I have used the same game to draw different learnings in various forums. However, to attribute the failure of an Outward Bound Training (OBT) to retain the Head of Department (HOD) isn't fair. It also isn't fair to the trainer who executed it. In my opinion, an alternative perspective could be that the individual realized their potential exceeds what they can achieve in the current organization. Therefore, the OBT actually helped the individual. The irony lies in not establishing sustainable mechanisms to ensure return on investment (ROI) in training. I urge you to identify core issues that need addressing, establish mechanisms, and foster ownership to empower the HODs to drive success themselves.
I'm just offering constructive criticism. I hope you'll take it in the right spirit. As a facilitator myself, I am passionate about these issues. If you need any assistance, feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Jimmy
9322935970
jimmyjain@sequelconsulting.net
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Training games serve as tools for a specific objective. The flip side of games is that if the debrief is weak, the entire impact is lost. By observing human behavior, the predominant behavior comes to the forefront in these simulations. A skilled facilitator can identify and draw relevance to real-time situations.
I have used the same game to draw different learnings in various forums. However, to attribute the failure of an Outward Bound Training (OBT) to retain the Head of Department (HOD) isn't fair. It also isn't fair to the trainer who executed it. In my opinion, an alternative perspective could be that the individual realized their potential exceeds what they can achieve in the current organization. Therefore, the OBT actually helped the individual. The irony lies in not establishing sustainable mechanisms to ensure return on investment (ROI) in training. I urge you to identify core issues that need addressing, establish mechanisms, and foster ownership to empower the HODs to drive success themselves.
I'm just offering constructive criticism. I hope you'll take it in the right spirit. As a facilitator myself, I am passionate about these issues. If you need any assistance, feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Jimmy
9322935970
jimmyjain@sequelconsulting.net
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Alan Guinn I think this could be the reason. But then how to bring all the team members on same plane to get the full ROI on OBT? Regards Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Manish,
I'd guess that all the remaining team members have realized the ROI objectives for the training, although nothing you've shared necessarily leads me to that conclusion. If all the others became "stakeholders" with the exception of the one, and he left the employment of the company, I'd think that would be evident.
As to the supervisor—and his perception of the ROI gained in the exercise—that, unfortunately, becomes problematic. I'd suggest to you that if, in fact, a confrontation occurred, then the opportunity to convince the supervisor of the ROI is probably limited, at best.
If no confrontation occurred between the two, but the leaving of the Department Head was simply serendipitous, I'd probably just look at including the Department Head in all future training and development activities as a key-role participant. Through the process of participation, he/she can see the inherent value in the program.
Hope that's helpful. Let me know if I can assist further.
Best regards,
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
GCG Worldwide
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I'd guess that all the remaining team members have realized the ROI objectives for the training, although nothing you've shared necessarily leads me to that conclusion. If all the others became "stakeholders" with the exception of the one, and he left the employment of the company, I'd think that would be evident.
As to the supervisor—and his perception of the ROI gained in the exercise—that, unfortunately, becomes problematic. I'd suggest to you that if, in fact, a confrontation occurred, then the opportunity to convince the supervisor of the ROI is probably limited, at best.
If no confrontation occurred between the two, but the leaving of the Department Head was simply serendipitous, I'd probably just look at including the Department Head in all future training and development activities as a key-role participant. Through the process of participation, he/she can see the inherent value in the program.
Hope that's helpful. Let me know if I can assist further.
Best regards,
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
GCG Worldwide
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Alan Guinn, Thanks for your reply. One last help please. What are the competencies/skills required to become a trainer, HR/OD consultant? Thanks Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Manish,
Well, that's a great question. I could probably write another book on that question, but I'll keep my reply short--less than 5 pages, anyway!
The skills to be a good trainer, in my opinion, differ somewhat from those required to be a good HR/OD Consultant.
Let's consider a trainer, first.
A good trainer is one that is not afraid to share information; one who does not "preach" at others, does not direct or manage, does not force information-- and one that is not afraid to share.
Many people could be good trainers, but they simply don't feel comfortable in the role. How can you tell if you'd be a good trainer? Ask yourself that question--are you comfortable sharing information with others?
Training is a role where definitive leadership skills must play a part; how you present yourself to the world can help distinguish if you have the skills to create a climate where others are drawn to you for your knowledge and expertise--you can, of course, have those skills and not be able to make the best use of them. You can also lack those skills, but learn techniques which allow you to maximize attributes of leadership.
My opinion is that the best trainers are those that share with others.
I've developed national sales programs for about a dozen companies here in the USA, and in each case, I developed their unique programs from a "sharing" perspective. Why? A variety of reasons. First and foremost, it's not confrontational, it's coming from a position that is easily accepted, and it connotes value to your position, no matter what position you hold. I've probably read 50% of the "selling skills" books in the marketplace--even some written by "experts" in their craft--and found them seriously lacking.
For you to have the most impact on learners as a trainer, you must create a climate where they are comfortable learning. In so doing, you ease aside the barriers to learning--and let's be honest--there are many barriers that a trainer has to minimize. I see them every day when I do in-person seminars, and I hear them in voices and questions when I do webinars. When I come from a "sharing" perspective, however, many of them are reduced to simple questions that can be readily answered.
So I'd say, first, learn how to share with others.
Secondly, as a trainer, you must be able to communicate. Learn the best communication skills you can--whether they are written or oral. If what you say or write is not what the other person hears or reads, you've got a problem. No matter how skillful you are in your craft, no matter how much knowledge you have or how much experience you attain, you won't be able to share it with a learner. What good is knowledge to a trainer that can't be shared with a trainee?
Third--I'd say, focus on the needs of your learners. Ted Lapidus, in his book High Impact Training stated the obvious--and I'm paraphrasing here, but one of his key lessons was to learn who your audience is, and teach what they need.
So often, as trainers, we find that what we are teaching--although it's what the client requested--is not what the trainees need. I've stood in front of groups 60 minutes into a five-hour presentation and thought to myself, "Why am I even talking about this? This group hasn't a clue where we're going and when they get there, they won't even recognize they've been there and left!" In every presentation now, I check the level of the audience. If the lowest level of the audience doesn't grasp the basics, I've lost them before I start. That's where the share concept comes into play. If you have to use it to bring a group to a level to accept what you're saying, you can do so.
Fourth, I'm a firm believer in the classical three-step format; tell them what you're going to say, say it, then tell them what you just said. This works very well with the "share" concept...in that the trainees hear, they see, they aren't afraid to offer feedback, and they learn.
As to the skills to be a good HR/OD Consultant, let me simply itemize them.
1) Be willing to listen to anyone, anywhere, anytime.
2) Be willing to look at the macro-environment and gain knowledge as a function of your examination of the world around you.
3) Understand that every participant in a discussion has a vested interest in the outcome of the discussion.
4) Always look at the positive attributes of the people involved in any issue; recognize it takes two to develop an argument; two can negotiate but roles must be defined.
5) Find strengths where others find weaknesses.
6) Involve as many as possible in decision-making processes because very few have ever lost their jobs over consensus decisions.
7) Keep your own counsel about issues you feel strongly about; your attitudes and outlook may or may not be positive factors in conflict resolution or development opportunities.
8) Listen more than you talk. Let others talk more than you. Learn from the mistakes of others.
9) Be pleasant to others. Smile frequently, even if the situation doesn't always demand it.
10) Never stop learning. Recognize that you can learn as much or more from the actions, directions, responses, and attributes of others than you know now. Why not take advantage of the benefit of learning?
Manish, I hope that is helpful to you. Good luck in your quest.
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
GCG Worldwide
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Well, that's a great question. I could probably write another book on that question, but I'll keep my reply short--less than 5 pages, anyway!
The skills to be a good trainer, in my opinion, differ somewhat from those required to be a good HR/OD Consultant.
Let's consider a trainer, first.
A good trainer is one that is not afraid to share information; one who does not "preach" at others, does not direct or manage, does not force information-- and one that is not afraid to share.
Many people could be good trainers, but they simply don't feel comfortable in the role. How can you tell if you'd be a good trainer? Ask yourself that question--are you comfortable sharing information with others?
Training is a role where definitive leadership skills must play a part; how you present yourself to the world can help distinguish if you have the skills to create a climate where others are drawn to you for your knowledge and expertise--you can, of course, have those skills and not be able to make the best use of them. You can also lack those skills, but learn techniques which allow you to maximize attributes of leadership.
My opinion is that the best trainers are those that share with others.
I've developed national sales programs for about a dozen companies here in the USA, and in each case, I developed their unique programs from a "sharing" perspective. Why? A variety of reasons. First and foremost, it's not confrontational, it's coming from a position that is easily accepted, and it connotes value to your position, no matter what position you hold. I've probably read 50% of the "selling skills" books in the marketplace--even some written by "experts" in their craft--and found them seriously lacking.
For you to have the most impact on learners as a trainer, you must create a climate where they are comfortable learning. In so doing, you ease aside the barriers to learning--and let's be honest--there are many barriers that a trainer has to minimize. I see them every day when I do in-person seminars, and I hear them in voices and questions when I do webinars. When I come from a "sharing" perspective, however, many of them are reduced to simple questions that can be readily answered.
So I'd say, first, learn how to share with others.
Secondly, as a trainer, you must be able to communicate. Learn the best communication skills you can--whether they are written or oral. If what you say or write is not what the other person hears or reads, you've got a problem. No matter how skillful you are in your craft, no matter how much knowledge you have or how much experience you attain, you won't be able to share it with a learner. What good is knowledge to a trainer that can't be shared with a trainee?
Third--I'd say, focus on the needs of your learners. Ted Lapidus, in his book High Impact Training stated the obvious--and I'm paraphrasing here, but one of his key lessons was to learn who your audience is, and teach what they need.
So often, as trainers, we find that what we are teaching--although it's what the client requested--is not what the trainees need. I've stood in front of groups 60 minutes into a five-hour presentation and thought to myself, "Why am I even talking about this? This group hasn't a clue where we're going and when they get there, they won't even recognize they've been there and left!" In every presentation now, I check the level of the audience. If the lowest level of the audience doesn't grasp the basics, I've lost them before I start. That's where the share concept comes into play. If you have to use it to bring a group to a level to accept what you're saying, you can do so.
Fourth, I'm a firm believer in the classical three-step format; tell them what you're going to say, say it, then tell them what you just said. This works very well with the "share" concept...in that the trainees hear, they see, they aren't afraid to offer feedback, and they learn.
As to the skills to be a good HR/OD Consultant, let me simply itemize them.
1) Be willing to listen to anyone, anywhere, anytime.
2) Be willing to look at the macro-environment and gain knowledge as a function of your examination of the world around you.
3) Understand that every participant in a discussion has a vested interest in the outcome of the discussion.
4) Always look at the positive attributes of the people involved in any issue; recognize it takes two to develop an argument; two can negotiate but roles must be defined.
5) Find strengths where others find weaknesses.
6) Involve as many as possible in decision-making processes because very few have ever lost their jobs over consensus decisions.
7) Keep your own counsel about issues you feel strongly about; your attitudes and outlook may or may not be positive factors in conflict resolution or development opportunities.
8) Listen more than you talk. Let others talk more than you. Learn from the mistakes of others.
9) Be pleasant to others. Smile frequently, even if the situation doesn't always demand it.
10) Never stop learning. Recognize that you can learn as much or more from the actions, directions, responses, and attributes of others than you know now. Why not take advantage of the benefit of learning?
Manish, I hope that is helpful to you. Good luck in your quest.
Alan Guinn, Managing Director
GCG Worldwide
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Alan Guinn,
Thanks for sharing. I would like to know some games that can be played with a mixed audience during an induction program. Although we play games like tower building, time management-related activities, and communication exercises, I would appreciate it if you could suggest some more games along with their stated objectives.
Regards,
Niti
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for sharing. I would like to know some games that can be played with a mixed audience during an induction program. Although we play games like tower building, time management-related activities, and communication exercises, I would appreciate it if you could suggest some more games along with their stated objectives.
Regards,
Niti
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I am not very sure whether training games really help in teaching. However, they are of great help in making a person aware. While playing any game, a person comes to know her as well as others' strengths and weaknesses. She would actually experience it herself instead of anyone telling her. The other reason is that games are used for fun and making the atmosphere lighter. Overall, training games are effective in training.
Regards,
Surbhi
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am not very sure whether training games really help in teaching. However, they are of great help in making a person aware. While playing any game, a person comes to know her as well as others' strengths and weaknesses. She would actually experience it herself instead of anyone telling her. The other reason is that games are used for fun and making the atmosphere lighter. Overall, training games are effective in training.
Regards,
Surbhi
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Niti,
I'm happy to help. Tell me just a bit more about your induction process; what will these individuals be doing? What range of ages? Will they be in customer-facing roles or in support functions? Will they be involved in service or product roles? All of these things impact the key roles that we want the games to address.
Share just a bit more information, if you would, and I'll be happy to respond.
Alan
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I'm happy to help. Tell me just a bit more about your induction process; what will these individuals be doing? What range of ages? Will they be in customer-facing roles or in support functions? Will they be involved in service or product roles? All of these things impact the key roles that we want the games to address.
Share just a bit more information, if you would, and I'll be happy to respond.
Alan
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Alan,
I am into software development at a company. Our induction consists of personnel from all departments and groups. Actually, what happens is whoever joins our company has to undergo a 2-day training program covering all necessary information, such as company products, finance, administration, and company quality policy. To make all this more interesting, I have added some games and activities that take place on each day of the induction program. However, they are limited to only 2-4 activities/games.
The targeted audience here is from all departments, including finance, administration, support personnel, and development teams, most of whom have at least one year of experience or more. The activities and games that I cover mainly focus on time management, communication, and team building.
Kind regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am into software development at a company. Our induction consists of personnel from all departments and groups. Actually, what happens is whoever joins our company has to undergo a 2-day training program covering all necessary information, such as company products, finance, administration, and company quality policy. To make all this more interesting, I have added some games and activities that take place on each day of the induction program. However, they are limited to only 2-4 activities/games.
The targeted audience here is from all departments, including finance, administration, support personnel, and development teams, most of whom have at least one year of experience or more. The activities and games that I cover mainly focus on time management, communication, and team building.
Kind regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
[Hi All, I have recently joined a company and given an task to conduct Team meeting comprising of some funny discussions followed by games. I am confussed.please help me on this issue. Thank you.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Nbhr,
I'd suggest that you look at games that do not necessarily focus on specific areas of expertise, but on skills which will be of immense assistance in work life - team building, for instance. Some form of the "Parachute Egg" game brings together a variety of materials and, from within the team environment, allows those with strong skills to emerge as leaders - and those with lesser leadership skills to apply technology or working knowledge to build participatory opportunities in the group. It's a win-win for you.
Don't look for games that are based on finance for financial people; look for games that will help them to reason and will demonstrate logical thought. Hope that's helpful.
Alan
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I'd suggest that you look at games that do not necessarily focus on specific areas of expertise, but on skills which will be of immense assistance in work life - team building, for instance. Some form of the "Parachute Egg" game brings together a variety of materials and, from within the team environment, allows those with strong skills to emerge as leaders - and those with lesser leadership skills to apply technology or working knowledge to build participatory opportunities in the group. It's a win-win for you.
Don't look for games that are based on finance for financial people; look for games that will help them to reason and will demonstrate logical thought. Hope that's helpful.
Alan
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Alan Guinn,
I have a question for you.
My company had arranged a one-month training program before I joined as an HR for the employees who are salesmen in an IT showroom. There are around 20 of them. I heard they had timings from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, and I have gone through the material; it is slightly complicated.
My question to you is: do you think they would have acquired the skills by now as most of them are not from a sales background but from an IT background? They are basically from the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Syria, and Egypt. However, I don't see any good sales skills in them.
Do you think it is hectic for the guys to have sales training continuously for so many days? Can I have a short training program where I can train them on basic etiquettes and approach to customers?
Thanks,
Shahed
HR, Qatar
From Qatar, Doha
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have a question for you.
My company had arranged a one-month training program before I joined as an HR for the employees who are salesmen in an IT showroom. There are around 20 of them. I heard they had timings from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, and I have gone through the material; it is slightly complicated.
My question to you is: do you think they would have acquired the skills by now as most of them are not from a sales background but from an IT background? They are basically from the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Syria, and Egypt. However, I don't see any good sales skills in them.
Do you think it is hectic for the guys to have sales training continuously for so many days? Can I have a short training program where I can train them on basic etiquettes and approach to customers?
Thanks,
Shahed
HR, Qatar
From Qatar, Doha
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Shahed,
First off, it's nice to hear from you and thanks for your question.
I could not imagine being put through a training program, spending a full 30 days, from 9-5, learning sales skills. What is even more frightening is that you don't see good sales skills in the incumbents after this length of time!
I understand that it is difficult for some people, but from your comment, I understand that all these incumbents had IT backgrounds, so let's assume that they've spent two weeks learning changes in the IT world which they now represent, and two weeks learning most, if not all, of the sales techniques ever taught!
Shahed, I think you can have a short training program on etiquette and customer approach--and I would bet that they would welcome the change and the distraction!
Let me share with you that in all the training studies I've seen, the highest level of retention of both technique and specific sales skills was acquired in a staggered training environment; in this scenario, you would train one week, then have them off two weeks to demonstrate the technique that has been learned, and have them work with a senior staffer that acts as a mentor; have them train for another week, then another two-four weeks off, then a training week, etc. In this way, you lengthen the training program out to 3-6 months, but the retention of the material learned tests out at least 60% higher and the techniques employed generally generate between 38 and 47% more in sales achieved per incumbent!
You don't mention the average sale to be achieved by these incumbents, but, let's just look at one example--if they are selling hardware, and the average sale is, say, $5K--all they have to do is one additional sale by using the skills they have learned, been mentored in, and demonstrated in an ongoing manner, and the additional time in training has more than paid for itself.
I'm a strong believer in being able to generate ROI for training efforts expended. Many will argue that point with me, and say that training is a pure science and should not be subject to ROI, but if I am able to show a client how he/she receives a higher level Return on Investment, I am much more likely to achieve buy-in on recommended programs, don't you think?
There is an old saying that the mind can only absorb as much as the seat of the pants can withstand. When we exceed those limits, we are not only NOT teaching additional skills and helping our employees find knowledge and additional personal and professional growth and opportunity, but we are actually being counter-productive in our training, and wasting money that could otherwise go to more profitable pursuits.
I hope that is helpful to you, Shahed. Let me know if I can assist you further, and please write back and let me know how your short training program is received.
All the best.
Alan Guinn
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First off, it's nice to hear from you and thanks for your question.
I could not imagine being put through a training program, spending a full 30 days, from 9-5, learning sales skills. What is even more frightening is that you don't see good sales skills in the incumbents after this length of time!
I understand that it is difficult for some people, but from your comment, I understand that all these incumbents had IT backgrounds, so let's assume that they've spent two weeks learning changes in the IT world which they now represent, and two weeks learning most, if not all, of the sales techniques ever taught!
Shahed, I think you can have a short training program on etiquette and customer approach--and I would bet that they would welcome the change and the distraction!
Let me share with you that in all the training studies I've seen, the highest level of retention of both technique and specific sales skills was acquired in a staggered training environment; in this scenario, you would train one week, then have them off two weeks to demonstrate the technique that has been learned, and have them work with a senior staffer that acts as a mentor; have them train for another week, then another two-four weeks off, then a training week, etc. In this way, you lengthen the training program out to 3-6 months, but the retention of the material learned tests out at least 60% higher and the techniques employed generally generate between 38 and 47% more in sales achieved per incumbent!
You don't mention the average sale to be achieved by these incumbents, but, let's just look at one example--if they are selling hardware, and the average sale is, say, $5K--all they have to do is one additional sale by using the skills they have learned, been mentored in, and demonstrated in an ongoing manner, and the additional time in training has more than paid for itself.
I'm a strong believer in being able to generate ROI for training efforts expended. Many will argue that point with me, and say that training is a pure science and should not be subject to ROI, but if I am able to show a client how he/she receives a higher level Return on Investment, I am much more likely to achieve buy-in on recommended programs, don't you think?
There is an old saying that the mind can only absorb as much as the seat of the pants can withstand. When we exceed those limits, we are not only NOT teaching additional skills and helping our employees find knowledge and additional personal and professional growth and opportunity, but we are actually being counter-productive in our training, and wasting money that could otherwise go to more profitable pursuits.
I hope that is helpful to you, Shahed. Let me know if I can assist you further, and please write back and let me know how your short training program is received.
All the best.
Alan Guinn
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Alan,
Thank you for responding. As I am not in HR but rather on the technical side, I don't have much idea about this. Please let me know if any other games can be included in such meetings.
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Thank you.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for responding. As I am not in HR but rather on the technical side, I don't have much idea about this. Please let me know if any other games can be included in such meetings.
Eagerly waiting for your reply.
Thank you.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Rakhi,
It's nice to hear from you. Thanks for your post.
Of course, many different kinds of games can be included in meeting formats, depending on the objectives of the meeting.
There are several keys to determining what types of games should be included; let me itemize a few of them for you.
You should always plan a meeting. The overall plan doesn't need to include every detail, of course, because spontaneity in a meeting environment can be essential to both meeting success and an eventual positive outcome for the group. However, you must develop a sense of the purpose for the meeting. Each attendee, in being invited, will probably ask him/herself, "Why am I here?" Be sure that YOU know why they are there.
If a group is being brought together, how do we determine the purpose?
Often, a supervisor or member of management will dictate that a meeting be held to communicate a central thought or theme. "Sales are down; you better get those people fired up!" would be a definitive topic for a meeting. Another might be "Pull your group together and decide how you're going to meet this production target," or "we've decided that we're moving the business to -----. Better tell your people."
Another principal reason might be to communicate new thoughts or information required by a group. Training falls within this framework.
If I'm to deliver, for example, a Seminar to a group on Purposes and Skills Required for Effective Negotiation, we start the meeting by doing what I call "setting the stage." If we start with a game, we generally play a game that helps to "break the ice" and also offers the participants some insight into what is to come.
I generally have attendees at meetings from a broad brush of different backgrounds and industries, so getting the group to "rally" is a bit more difficult than if all of them work in one area, one company, one department--but the diversity of attendees offers significantly compelling opportunities for input across a broad range of experience.
That is one of the great attributes offered by games played in a meeting format.
I find that the broader the experiences of the group attending the meeting, the more important that it is to drive home the point of the game, let the group enjoy the game, and then drive home the point, yet again.
Games are excellent for effectively communicating information in a way which the player will "comprehend without being told what to think."
One game that I play in several different seminars is a game where teams of two get to "know" each other through ongoing verbal discussion, but the key is that the detailed appearance of one changes from one session to another to yet another. The other person isn't in on the "game." The subtlety of the changes eventually becomes evident and by the end of the time allocated has been reached, I generally find that the entire group is more in tune with the changes and has become sensitized to minute changes in the other participants. This game works exceptionally well when you are illustrating how subtle changes can impact the work environment, or when you are illustrating how important non-verbal communication can be--or even if you are illustrating that what is not said can impact the development of relationships at least as much as what is verbally communicated.
An entire range of outcomes can be achieved, and it becomes contingent upon the moderator/facilitator to verbalize the objectives and to offer time for the participants to verbalize their learning "take-away."
As you look for games to play with your group, Rakhi, don't simply look at games which illustrate one key point---recognize that an entire range of outcomes can be achieved with only one exercise, and be open to that type of a learning experience for your meeting attendees.
Most of all, don't be afraid to use your imagination, and don't be afraid that you're going to make a mistake. The more imagination that you use in creating your meeting environment---generally speaking---the more effective your meetings can be.
Relax, have fun, enjoy, learn. Points made and taken away in a less threatening environment generally have a higher rate of understanding and retention, and can be used most effectively in changing desired outcomes.
Let me know if I can help you further.
Alan
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It's nice to hear from you. Thanks for your post.
Of course, many different kinds of games can be included in meeting formats, depending on the objectives of the meeting.
There are several keys to determining what types of games should be included; let me itemize a few of them for you.
You should always plan a meeting. The overall plan doesn't need to include every detail, of course, because spontaneity in a meeting environment can be essential to both meeting success and an eventual positive outcome for the group. However, you must develop a sense of the purpose for the meeting. Each attendee, in being invited, will probably ask him/herself, "Why am I here?" Be sure that YOU know why they are there.
If a group is being brought together, how do we determine the purpose?
Often, a supervisor or member of management will dictate that a meeting be held to communicate a central thought or theme. "Sales are down; you better get those people fired up!" would be a definitive topic for a meeting. Another might be "Pull your group together and decide how you're going to meet this production target," or "we've decided that we're moving the business to -----. Better tell your people."
Another principal reason might be to communicate new thoughts or information required by a group. Training falls within this framework.
If I'm to deliver, for example, a Seminar to a group on Purposes and Skills Required for Effective Negotiation, we start the meeting by doing what I call "setting the stage." If we start with a game, we generally play a game that helps to "break the ice" and also offers the participants some insight into what is to come.
I generally have attendees at meetings from a broad brush of different backgrounds and industries, so getting the group to "rally" is a bit more difficult than if all of them work in one area, one company, one department--but the diversity of attendees offers significantly compelling opportunities for input across a broad range of experience.
That is one of the great attributes offered by games played in a meeting format.
I find that the broader the experiences of the group attending the meeting, the more important that it is to drive home the point of the game, let the group enjoy the game, and then drive home the point, yet again.
Games are excellent for effectively communicating information in a way which the player will "comprehend without being told what to think."
One game that I play in several different seminars is a game where teams of two get to "know" each other through ongoing verbal discussion, but the key is that the detailed appearance of one changes from one session to another to yet another. The other person isn't in on the "game." The subtlety of the changes eventually becomes evident and by the end of the time allocated has been reached, I generally find that the entire group is more in tune with the changes and has become sensitized to minute changes in the other participants. This game works exceptionally well when you are illustrating how subtle changes can impact the work environment, or when you are illustrating how important non-verbal communication can be--or even if you are illustrating that what is not said can impact the development of relationships at least as much as what is verbally communicated.
An entire range of outcomes can be achieved, and it becomes contingent upon the moderator/facilitator to verbalize the objectives and to offer time for the participants to verbalize their learning "take-away."
As you look for games to play with your group, Rakhi, don't simply look at games which illustrate one key point---recognize that an entire range of outcomes can be achieved with only one exercise, and be open to that type of a learning experience for your meeting attendees.
Most of all, don't be afraid to use your imagination, and don't be afraid that you're going to make a mistake. The more imagination that you use in creating your meeting environment---generally speaking---the more effective your meetings can be.
Relax, have fun, enjoy, learn. Points made and taken away in a less threatening environment generally have a higher rate of understanding and retention, and can be used most effectively in changing desired outcomes.
Let me know if I can help you further.
Alan
From United States, Bluff City
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Training Games.pdf
Training Games.ppt