Ask, Not Tell

I have had a few great learning experiences in Feb.   First, I facilitated a one-day planning workshop in Shanghai for the HR team in Mainland China.   Then, I attended a TTT class for a managerial course in Singapore.   Right before the Chinese New Year, I facilitated an offsite meeting in Hong Kong for the HK HR team.

I have learnt a lot from these.   For example, in the Singapore event, I saw my fellow facilitators from different countries in action.   They are very skilled and I learnt a great deal from them!   There are so many things I want to write about.   However, since Feb started, work became very hectic.  Got to find time…..

The first thing I want to reflect on is my ‘journey’ to become more flexible at my facilitation.  In the past 1 to 2 years, I have noticed how rigid I tend to be.  Thorough preparation is a good thing.  But sometimes I get too upset when things are not in place.  Or I can be easily disturbed when the event does not progress as I plan.

I in fact mentioned something on flexibility before in this blog e.g. see my post back to late 2008 – Preparation – the fine balance between ‘task’ and ‘people’

Anyway, back to the Feb events.  I consciously pushed myself to act flexibly.  For example, during the Singapore event, I proposed some last-minute change in my teach-back session.  Since my session was moved to after-lunch, I decided it is better to run the ‘action’ part before the ‘discussion’ part.   It worked well at the end.   And I am glad that I received positive feedback.

And in the HK event, I also made some changes and added new things on spot e.g. the way to collect participants’ feedback.   (It worked OK but I realized that it could be better if I have prepared more.)

I am glad that I am progressing on this ‘flexibility’ journey.   And reflecting on these, I think it is a balance, again.  I should prepare as much as I can.   But then on spot, I should be ready to change, including even abandon the original plan.

Let me share my learning from the rare opportunity I mentioned in my last post.   Summarizing the various feedbacks from the others, my learning in terms of action includes the followings:

Aligning Expectation

I experienced the challenges one can get into when the expectation is not aligned.   In this situation, there were a few reasons why expectation was not well aligned.   First, the learners were external.  My usual assumptions on how people behave or what they expect can easily fail me.   In addition, I understood the learners’ expectation mostly from the organizer instead of my direct contact.   On the other hand, my learners have diverse background – there were both part time trainers and full time trainers.  Moreover, some are much more senior than the others.   In short, they come with very different expectations.

Learners - I shall talk to the opinion-leader-type learners directly before the class.   I did call up the learners before the class to understand their expectation.   I however just managed to get hold of only one whom I picked randomly.   I have also sent out survey in advance.  But I should be aware of its limitation e.g. how expressive people would be in a written survey, or that some opinion leaders may not respond at all.   I should talk to more learners.  And I should find out who the opinion leaders are so that I do not miss learning from and building rapport with them.

Organizer - I shall extract more information from the organizer.   We have only chatted twice on phone.  I probably should prepare a list of specific questions to ask.  Preferably, I should have met with them in person.   For example, if I know in advance that my course was positioned as an intermediate level TTT, I would have sought to understand what the basic level TTT looks like.  It would help avoid duplication and understand better the learners’ expectation.   In addition, by communicating more thoroughly with the organizer, I could also have them managed the learners’ expectation better for me e.g. more focused nomination or more appropriate course title / description.

‘Local Culture’ – I shall understand better in advance the ‘local culture’ e.g. class discipline.  I probably should achieve this by talking to the opinion leaders and the organizer.

Preparation for ‘Conflict’

‘Conflict’ is good – Looking back at the challenge I received in the class, I think that it happened because the ‘challenger’ was ‘irritated’ by the new mindset introduced by me.   (Note that the new mindset or the controversial point is that ‘Subject Matter Expert is not necessarily a good trainer’)   Whilst ‘rejection’ is an unavoidable stage in mindset change, I shall not be surprised to receive the challenge.  Instead, I should be happy to see the challenge.

Reducing disruption – Having said that, I shall minimize the impact to the other learners.   I could contain the disagreement in the table team, and then manage from there, instead of letting it show in the big group.   More specifically, I can ask the table team to first discuss what the difference is between a SME and a good trainer.   I then walk around and observe.  In the big group, I will invite first a table team which has a conclusion favorable to the point I try to make.

Making it less controversial - I could also make the new mindset (or any possibly controversial point) more convincing.  I will avoid introducing that it is my view.  It could induce argument especially if rapport has been well built.   Instead, if possible, I will mention the research supporting this point or that it is from a reputable person.

Again, it was a great learning experience.   It is probably one of the defining moments in my training career!!

The 5-day Shanghai workshop did turn out to be a great learning experience for me.   I learnt a lot by observing my fellow facilitators in action.   In particular, I had chance to be observed and thus receive feedback on my facilitation skills.   And fortunately I did receive some encouraging feedback.

But I have to say that I was not satisfied with my performance, especially for the result on Day 1.  I felt unsure.  I felt a bit strange.  I felt like something important was missing, and this made me feel that I was not good enough.   But I was not sure what it was.   I have comprehended the content reasonably well.  I have designed and conducted a relevant ice-breaker… what did I miss?

I thought about it a lot in the last few days after the workshop was over.   And subsequently I realised what the missing piece was.   It is about the learners.  During the workshop, I did not have the comfort that I know the learners well enough, and thus more importantly I was not sure about the WIIFM.  I felt lost without these.

Read more

I facilitated a team building activity earlier for a group of 90 people in a business conference in Shanghai.    Right after the event, I feel quite unhappy with the result.   I should have done better but I did not.

The activity went well – clear instruction, smooth process and lot of energy in the room.   The problem was the debrief session.     I found it too short and not deep enough.  Basically, I had a few questions for them to discuss in small groups and invited them to share in the big group.  There were only a few responses during the big group discussion.   After attempting a few more questions with lukewarm response, I could only end the session.  Of course, there were inherent challenges e.g. a big group and crowded environment.    Still, I blamed myself for under-estimating the challenges.  I under-estimated how outspoken the participants would be.

I was angry about myself for such negligence!

Done is done.  Time to move on.  I reflected on what happened and here are my learning:

Assign Responsibility – I would have more sharing from the floor if I have instructed each small team to select 1 person to speak up.   Nobody will do anything if everybody is asked to do it.

Idenify the ‘Pioneer’ – I should scout for those who are more willing to speak up before the debrief sessions starts.   I should walk around, observe and invite them personally to speak up afterward.

Ask Specific Questions – I should avoid asking questions like ‘How is your insight from the activity similar to challenges you met at work?’     Questions like this are too broad (or scary) for the participants to answer.     I should avoid this especially in the beginning.  I should have asked easier questions e.g. closed end questions in the beginning to kick start the participation.   Examples of more appropriate questions are:

‘Mr XXX, is the result in your team as what you all expected?   If not, what would be the reason behind?’

‘Did you have a leader in your team?   If yes, how did he / she establish to be a leader?’

In short, I got to prepare.  I need to prepare a lot of questions so that I will run out of them on stage.     I should think through the process.  Preparation is key, always!

I have written quite a number of posts on preparation (link) before.   I strongly believe in preparation.  “Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance.”   I called it PPPPP in short form.

I always require the room to be set up the day before.  I am passionate to have ticks in all the boxes on the material list the day before.  I always arrive at the training site at least 1 hour before the official start.  When the others e.g. room administrator is involved, I will push very hard to get things ready.  I would send out emails listing out very clearly who to do what.  And I set clear deadline.  If the others miss it, I would put them under spotlight.  

I however realize some changes in my behavior recently.   This happened in Beijing, in where I was writing this post.   I ran 2 days of big-scale learning-related program here.   There were around 40 people on each day.   I arrived at the site the day before.  Unfortunately, the room administrator failed to get the room ready even at 7pm the day before the program.   The video cable was not long enough to put the facilitator table at the designated position.   The audio cable simply did not work.   And worse, after we set up the tables and chairs, another group of colleagues went in to use the room.   Set up got messed up!

I would probably have shown my emotion about all these, but I was not this time.   Somehow, I realized that being upset was of no use.   Some people have been working on this.  I got to tell myself that things will be alright.  More importantly, I got to let the others feel the same way (well… provided that they are already working hard to fix the problems.)

I guess I learnt these from the KL experience.   Before the program started, there were still a lot of ‘missing pieces’.   Instead of complaining against the organizers, the lead facilitator tried hard to keep everyone in good spirit.   Reflecting on the whole process, I realized better the fine balance between ‘task’ and ‘people’.  You are not wrong in pushing hard for the ‘task’.  But when you push too hard, you pay the price on the ‘people’ issue.  Others may feel upset and seamless cooperation becomes impossible.

After all, organizing an event is a team sport!!

In my previous post on ‘Presenter vs Trainer vs Facilitator’, I discussed about the difference between these 3 roles. I want to zoom in more between Trainer and Facilitator. As mentioned in the last post, trainer should also perform the role of facilitator in the class sometimes, instead of just uni-directional delivery. But the next question is Read more

I attended a lot of presentations on a regular basis. They include presentations by participants in my training class, product briefing by sales professionals, speeches in conferences, proposal presentations in business meeting, and so on…. There are good and not-so-good presentations. In the latter type, the presenters would mostly do the followings (yes, to my surprise, even some public speakers):

(after finishing one visual aid, most likely being a PPT slide….)

1. They click to show the next visual aid;
2. They then read the visual aid themselves, as a reminder (worse version – with their back now facing the audience)
3. They then elaborate the visual aid (worse version – they just read out whatever on the PPT)

Better still, the presenters should:(after finishing one visual aid, most likely being a PPT slide….)

1. They block the screen so that they get the audience’s attention on themselves;
2. They talk about the next message, which may or may not be illustrated by the next visual aid;
3. For those message with visual aid, they just talk it through;
4. For those with the visual aid, they will show the visual aid after a brief outline about the message;
5. They shut up for a while so that the audience can have a free mind to read a bit the slide first;
6. They then elaborate the visual aid. If the slide content is not detailed, they even just block the screen to gain full attention.

How is the second method better than the first one?

First, you avoid burden the audience with too much information. Most people cannot read and listen at the same time. If they are forced to do so, they will get less than if they just listen or just read. This is especially the case in case of long meetings / conferences. People are tired.

Second, delivering the message without the visual aid raises your creditability. The audience would think ‘Hey, this guy knows the stuff. He does not need the slides to remind himself about the content.’ The worst is reading straight from the slide. The audience would think ‘I can read myself. Why do I have to be here at all?’

Third, people love watching a human being presenting rather than a slide. The second method guides the audience’s eyeball to focus on the presenters most of the time. The visual aid is just an aid. With this method, your eye contact and body language can work to a greater effect to help you deliver the message

Of course, there is a price to pay in order to present in the second way. You need to really know the content. More importantly, you need to memorize the flow of your presentation. Most presenters use the visual aid as the presentation note because they have not comprehended the presentation flow. (Realty here…. most do not have enough time to memorize and rehearse…) Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!! It is preparation again….

[I once thought to put this post as a Presentation Quick Fix. I decide not to at the end because I do not think it to be a quick fix by nature. Simply, it takes time for all of us to stop using the visual aid as the speaking note.....]

**Click here to subscribe to this blog**

One of the most common internal presentation made in our industry is product briefing.  The briefing could be an overview on a product set or introduction to a new product. In the current deregulating China market, there are plenty of the latter. Common contents these days include revamped functionalities of Internet banking, new wealth management products or innovative packaged financing arrangement for small-to-medium enterprises.

Most colleagues (at least those in my classes) consider product briefing to be a more difficult type of presentation. They reasoned that product briefing contains a lot of dry fact (e.g. detailed system constraint for cash concentration solution) which is NOT exciting by nature. It is unlike those motivational speeches delivered by senior leaders, as claimed by my participants. And indeed, product briefings in the banks I worked for turned to be quite boring sometimes…..

I agree that product briefing type of presentation is more difficult to deliver, but I do not agree that it has to be boring. To be exact, I believe that there are much more we can do to make product briefing more exciting. And here is an example how product briefing can be exciting. This short video was about Steve Jobs introducing iPod to the world the first time in 2001.

In this product briefing, Steve faced the same presentation difficulties our product people faced at work. For example, he has to outline the product features e.g. size, battery length, price, weight, downloading speed – something which are normally considered to be dry fact. But his presentation did not sound boring, right? And why? Or more importantly, what can we learn and apply back to the banking product briefing?

WIIFM – He did not just dump product features. He talked about the features from the perspective of the audience (note that the event was called ‘Apple Music Event’.) He has WIIFM answered.

This actually relates to my another thought about the thing we called ‘dry fact’. From the technical perspective, yes, there is dry fact. But from the persuasion perspective, there should not be such thing. For example, technically ‘battery life of 10 hours’ is a piece of dry fact. But from the persuasion perspective, we should think what it means to the target audience. Longer battery life should be presented as ‘less hassle in having to charge your music player’. In the sales literatures, we will call this either ‘Advantage’ or ‘Benefit’. Yes, iPod is an exceptionally-popular product to most people. But your product should also contain its own ‘Advantage’ or ‘Benefit’ to your target audience. Well, otherwise, there is not much point to conduct the briefing in the very first place.

Visual Aid – His visual aid was simple. In fact, most slides contained just a few words or a simple diagram. No slide is full of words – which is quite common in the current business presentation. Remember ‘Less is More’? His visual aid was reinforcing but not diluting his message (well… that’s why we call it visual AID!!)

In addition, he had himself as the lead actor, rather than the slides. People like to connect with people rather than slides / machines Steve stood upfron on the stage and had a lot of eye contact. Be himself.

Preparation – He knew the stuff well, and more importantly, he knew what he had planned to present well. He was very conversational and at ease on the movie clip. Whilst Steve is a natural public speaker, his confident performance would not come without preparation like rehearsal. In the banking environment, it is not difficult to find presenters simply reading slides by slides, mainly because of lack of preparation.

So, how would you conduct your next product briefing differently?