{"id":115,"date":"2014-04-14T08:45:30","date_gmt":"2014-04-14T08:45:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/?p=115"},"modified":"2021-06-08T08:45:51","modified_gmt":"2021-06-08T08:45:51","slug":"de-briefing-animals-drummers-and-shakespeare","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/2014\/04\/14\/de-briefing-animals-drummers-and-shakespeare\/","title":{"rendered":"De-briefing animals, drummers and Shakespeare"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

W. C. Fields said, \u201cNever work with Children or animals\u201d. Is this a brilliant aphorism, or did it just indicate he didn\u2019t have the best skill set for such situations? More importantly, how applicable is this to learning methodologies?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my last blog post<\/a>, where I described how to get the best out of the use of actors as a learning methodology, one of the points I covered was the importance of the de-brief and how to structure it in order to maximise the learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The de-brief itself is too often seen as not being particularly important. This is evident from events I have attended where it has been implemented poorly. This results in reduced learning, varying degrees of frustration for the learners and ultimately a failure to gain the benefit from the financial and time investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have seen horses, drums and Shakespeare used to name just three methodologies \u2013 and in cases where these have been used, I have seen some poor quality de-briefs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These interventions are \u201cLow reality, high process content\u201d learning methodologies. In other words, the \u201cLow reality\u201d indicates that the methodology has little or no relevance to the knowledge or skills of the participants (e.g. shop managers working with horses, office managers learning to play drums). This means that the individuals feel little or no group pressure to succeed in front of colleagues as they are not situations they would face in the workplace. It also means that there is a level playing field in that there is no workplace knowledge or skills required in order to take part. These factors also make the methodology \u201chigh process content\u201d. This means that the methodology can lead to a rich seam of learning due to the removal of the described pressures \u2013 the result being relaxed participants whose inhibitions have been removed. The participants immerse themselves in the task. This type of methodology is particularly powerful in terms of self-development and team development, and will often focus on attitudes and behaviours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of actors to assist the same managers to be more effective when conducting interviews or running team meetings (as described in the previous post<\/a>) would be an example of the opposite methodology \u2013 \u201cHigh reality, low process content\u201d. The reality is high, because the situations are tailored to the managers\u2019 work situations through, for example, context and language. The process content in these situations is low as they are predominantly about knowledge, understanding and skills \u2013 how to complete the task more effectively. There is less potential for profound self-development and less likelihood of a person changing their awareness of themselves due to participants generally being less relaxed and a little more inhibited \u2013 because they know their peers may well be assessing their workplace competence, and the intended focus is around a workplace activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both methodologies are powerful; but for different reasons, and the correct type needs to be chosen. And as previously mentioned, it\u2019s the de-brief that is the key \u2013 and one type is generally a lot easier to debrief than the other \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cHigh reality, low process content\u201d tends to be the easier to debrief. This is because there is a script, probably some models or theories to include, and it can be predicted to some degree as to the potential outcomes and learning points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Little of this anticipated de-brief content is available for the \u201cLow reality, high process content\u201d methodology \u2013 if de-briefed effectively. The facilitator or de-briefer has to work with the \u2018live data\u2019 generated \u2013 and this is where many of the providers of this type of activity fall down. They often plan on what they expect to come out of the activity and even have their learning points ready prepared \u2013 thus making what happened in the activity fit within their debrief. This can devalue the methodology, and confuse the learners as it doesn\u2019t fit with their experience \u2013 thus making any learning less meaningful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Abraham Maslow pointed out, \u201clf you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why does this happen?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1)      The facilitator is concerned that perhaps no \u2018live data\u2019 will be generated, or they will not be able to make the duration of the de-brief worthwhile \u2013 which leads to them deciding on the strands for the de-brief or creating the learning points beforehand. As a consequence they do not listen to or see what is really happening during the activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2)      The facilitator has a situationally dysfunctional mind-set. They approach the methodology with an \u201cI need to handle\u201d or \u201cI must handle\u201d mind-set. This leads to them adopting the approach described in point 1 above. In order to de-brief it well, the facilitator requires the skills and confidence to enable them to have the \u201cI can handle\u201d mind-set. This leads to the intrapersonal discussion that there will be \u2018live data\u2019 and they will be able to de-brief great learning, thus meaning that they don\u2019t script themselves. They approach the de-brief objectively and with an open-mind, using only data generated. And they usually end up having to decide what not to include \u2013 rather than worrying about how much there will be to de-brief \u2013 as there are so many potential learning points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps in the acting world, Fields was correct \u2013 certainly for situations where there is a strict script. There is, however, a strong case for using methodologies which generate unpredictable learning \u2013 but the time, place and facilitator need to be right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next time someone offers you a wonderfully innovative methodology, don\u2019t get carried away by the methodology itself. Spend time checking on the skills of the person who will de-brief it \u2013 then you will find out whether it has the potential to be a wonderful methodology or just a frustratingly wasted investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

W. C. Fields said, \u201cNever work with Children or animals\u201d. Is this a brilliant aphorism, or did it just indicate he didn\u2019t have the best skill set for such situations? More importantly, how applicable is this to learning methodologies? In my last blog post, where I described how to get the best out of the use […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4,5,8,22,31],"tags":[138,139,137,140],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":116,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115\/revisions\/116"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/breathe-pod.org.uk\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}