Inspiration   •   3rd January 2018

Disclaimer: some readers might find pieces of this article a bit provocative. I’m willing to take that chance if it sparks thinking, dialogue and growth.

If you’re like me, you’re always on the lookout for programs, books or other “offerings” that support your continued development. It’s a living example of Carol Dweck’s “Growth Mindset” in action. So it’s always a bit (or more) disappointing when I plunk down some cash and carve out some time on my calendar to join a webinar or teleclass or participate in a F2F program only to find it largely a one-way lecture of the most disengaging sort. It’s even more frustrating when it’s about or involves applied neuroscience (my “fastball” as a leader, facilitator and executive coach).

As professionals working with applied neuroscience, we understand the challenges and silver linings involved with the human brain. We understand how easily triggered we are and how that trigger can diminish higher level cognitive processing. We understand how energy inefficient our prefrontal cortex is, how effortful it is to concentrate, how difficult it is to be mindful, apply our “braking system” and direct/control our focus and attention in difficult or stressful situations. We understand it takes just the right mix of attention (adrenaline) and interest (dopamine) to get optimal cognitive performance (see Amy Arnsten’s work on the inverted “U”)–and that that mix may be different for each person. And we know for the brain to create long-term memories that are easily retrieved (a.k.a. learning), we need to create experiences in which people are interested, pay attention; keep paying attention; make their own connections (a.k.a. have insights); and find the ideas, concepts, and tools relevant to their real world.

What this requires is that we refine the way we design, develop and deliver our learning experiences (can we stop calling them interventions?!). It means we move from being trainers (those are for dogs) and become “facilitators of insight.”

What is the difference you ask?

If you’ll humor me, I’ll convey it based on my personal journey (which I am not claiming represents all trainers).

I was trained as a trainer back in 1988 or so. It was a good program and I learned the concepts and skills for being a professional corporate trainer. I also learned “educating” is about increasing knowledge and “training” is about changing behavior. At the time, I thought that a good trainer had the answers and, through their questions, could lead participants to the answers. I was a trainer for several years, pursued and obtained my Masters in Human Resources Management along the way, and then meandered back into management.

Fast forward over a decade when I was hired to build a training department for Time Warner Book Group. I still had the belief that training was about changing behavior and our training group created programs that helped our employees learn how to use new business programs.

Fast forward a few more years and I was introduced to the field of neuroscience as it applied to leadership. As I began learning more about the brain, certain things began making more sense. I began to understand WHY things did or didn’t work and I was able to refine and adjust my approach to maximize my results. As I continued delivering programs to help leaders, managers and coaches learn how to use brain-based coaching skills, I began to transform from a “platform trainer” to a “facilitator of insight.” This transformation came about for two main reasons:

1. I realized how critical a person’s insights are to her own learning
2. I delivered hundreds of programs in a coach-like fashion, essentially modeling the skills I was sharing (e.g., asking coaching questions rather than leading or rhetorical questions)

Over the past 10 years, I’ve seen the difference one can make when he shifts from “delivering content” to “facilitating insight.” And it begins with how we design our learning experiences.

I know look at designing a program as identifying and sharing (not teaching) essential puzzle pieces that create a web of learning. Strangely, each person will determine what the final puzzle looks like–there is no one main picture.

To do this, I think about the order in which to present these pieces (building blocks, interleaving, non-sequential) and how to maintain a single focus at a time (the PFC is a linear processor–multi-tasking impairs learning). I think about how to create and maintain attention using novelty, humor, uncertainty, and participant-generated goals. I’m less focused on “kinesthetic, auditory …” but I am heavily focused on helping participants see what I’m saying using visual language, ideas, concepts (the visual network in the brain is massive). I consider how to maximize relevance to the participants’ real worlds with self-generated scenarios and real-plays and minimize third-party examples/case studies and role-plays. I look for ways to maximize the social/emotional experience of participants by managing and feeding ALL of their social needs. I look for ways to chunk information into 7-minute stretches, create “puzzle piece activity” time, insert reflection/transition points, allow for well-timed body/brain/bio breaks, add in visual meta-processing endpoints, and build learning events as multiple short sprints, rather than all-day data dumps. And I try to create and facilitate an experience where participants can take the ideas and tools presented, figure out what makes sense to them in their own brains, create new (and solidify helpful) connections, and practice using the relevant skills in a way that broadens their web of learning. It’s also critical to create intermittent follow-on activities over 6 to 12 months to continue bringing attention back to the learning–attention changes the brain! (This is, unfortunately, where many companies still get it wrong, offering “hit-and-run” training events instead.)

If none of this sounds new and ground-breaking, congratulations! You are creating wonderful learning experiences. If, however, some of this causes you to wonder, “Am I doing that?” I’d highly encourage you to dig a little deeper and work with how the brain works.