In the regular classrooms the process of sitting and listening to professors becomes so boring that after a period of time, students develop defense mechanisms. Some develop the ability to sleep with their eyes open while others find it convenient to daydream.
Since, this phenomenon is rampant; it is difficult to understand why “Activity based learning” has not become central to competence development.
Management games enable learning through action. The real time impact of competency application is there for everyone to see. Hence, it is more difficult to dismiss as compared to conceptual learning.
One of the key challenges that the trainers faces is how to enable internalization of learning. Conceptual learning is comparatively simple. One needs to only get the logic of it. However during application, new issues appear which more often than not are overlooked at the concept stage. This also seems to be one of the key lacunas of our educational system - A lot of conceptual learning with little or no internalization. I remember reading the words of a Japanese expert, who was planning to set up a benchmarking institute in India, “Indian managers know a lot but it is implementation that is missing”
Why does implementation not happen?
If we know so much, why are not we able to build world class organizations?
The words of the training manager of a large public sector ring in my ears, “our managers are exposed to the very latest in management, only something earthshaking would interest them”.
This smacks of arrogance built on the basis of conceptual learning.
Training games are a key in the hands of a trainer to convert conceptual learning to emotional learning. Let’s take an example:
We all know that “Communication is critical for Team building”. Conceptually it is so easy to learn. However, when we use such statements, perhaps we don’t believe in it ourselves. We say it because others say it or it is the right thing to say. Do we say it, out of conviction?
How can the trainer catalyze conviction about a concept?
By using training games.
In order to catalyze deeper learning regarding the relevance of ‘Communication to Team Effectiveness, a trainer designed and deployed, a training game called “The Last Samurai”.
The trainer deployed the game in a Team building exercise for a team which is supposed to give high quality service to clients all over the globe.
The trainer divided the participants into two teams and gave them the task of capturing the territory of the other team while at the same time, defending their own.
Each team’s territory was ringed by five flags. The opposing team was supposed to capture all the flags.
They were given “water balloons” and “Pichkaris (water pistols)” as equipment with the rule that in case anybody gets wet due to the bursting of a water balloon or water from the water pistol, he/she is considered “dead” and removed from the game.
The teams were given time to strategize and then the action started. This was a high energy activity with heavy involvement of all team members. There was rapidity of action and change happening at different fronts.
One of the teams had divided itself into an attack team and a defense team. The attack team was killed. The defense team never came to know about it, because the attack team was out of sight. Hence, the strategy of the team did not change after the failing of the initial strategy. Thus, the team was defeated.
The leader of the team said in the Review, “I have realized the relevance of communication during action and its criticality during strategy execution.” Foolproof communication system needs to be laid down. If the team leader does not know, what is happening at different fronts, he would not be able to re-strategize and thus is bound to fail”.
This statement of the Team leader is indicative of deep learning and communication. This kind of conviction can not be achieved in a classroom.
Let’s take another example.
Conceptually, we learnt about the problem solving process during our management education in terms of generation of alternatives, selection of the best alternative and its execution.
How simple it sounds?
This learning is good enough to be vomited out during exams but it is not good enough for utilization in our day to day lives. The internalization of this learning as well as the conviction of its utility does not come that easily.
It takes failure to force us to reexamine the power of such concepts. However in real life, failure is painfully expensive. It is so easy to say in the class room,” Failure is expensive ,you know!” One only realizes how expensive, it is when the lack of utilization of this process results in the wiping out of your entire margin in a production lot. The margin that you were aspiring for and dreaming about for the last 3 months disappears. That is when it pinches and one internalizes the need of utilizing such competencies.
In order to avoid such expensive learning, Training Games are a decent alternative.
For triggering internalization of this problem solving process, a trainer deployed a training game called,” Web design and passage”.
The learning group was divided into teams. Each team was given the task of designing a web and enabling all the team members to pass through different spaces in the web without touching it. A space in the web can be used only once by a team member. In case, while passing through, a team member touches it, the entire team has to go through the web again.
One team thought of a web design and immediately started constructing it. After putting in half hour in the process of construction, they realized that their design was wrong. So, they started all over again. When the time of the game was over, they had just about managed to reconstruct it. The design of the web was still inadequate.
The second team made alternative designs of the web in order to met the requirements .They chose the most suitable one and started constructing it. Before the activity time was over, they had managed to put all the team members through it.
The power of the competency of generating alternatives and choosing the most appropriate one was visible to all. This is like Q.E.D. in maths. The potency of the requisite competency is proven. It cannot be challenged least of all by that ubiquitous statement, ”It is not practical.”
In the review the team leader of the s4econd team said,” The key reason for our success was that we generated alternative designs before choosing the most appropriate one.”
his learning from action without the risks associated with it is only possible through management games. Thus, from whichever way we look at them, training games are invaluable in the competence development process.
They trigger depth of learning per competency while breadth of learning refers to the number of competencies examined.
I am often besotted by the question, “Where can I find a relevant training game”?
Though knowing about sources of training games is important, there is a serious flow in this approach. When I have found some new training game, after the initial euphoria, I have felt a strange unease. Somehow the training game does not exactly fit the training needs of the program on which I am working.
Therefore, an additional competency is required from the trainer in addition to finding the source of training games. The trainer needs to redesign the training game, adding or deleting features or even combining two different training games together.
Then only, potency tends to appear in a training game. Whenever, a training game is picked up directly from a source and implemented in a training program, it lacks punch. It seems that the soul of the game is missing. It is only when the training game is redesigned, that it develops a life of its own and yields competence.
Back