Training Games
The term,” Training games” is an oxymoron. Training is supposed to be serious, requiring concentrated application of mind while games are supposed to be fun involving utilization of leisure time.
These opposites fuse together to create,” fun based learning”. The one breakthrough that the trainers and the training paradigm have gone through is that learning happens in every situation and is not limited to the class room. Rather it is linked to the intensity of an experience and the analysis thereafter.
Since training games are action oriented and there is heavy involvement of the learner, the intensity of the experience is significantly high. Hence, there is a high probability of long term learning.
This is exemplified by the experience that a trainer went through in one such training game deployment.
The op management team of a manufacturing organization was deployed for an out-bound training program focused on team building. There was a specified training need of,” Trust” and ,”Team functioning” under stressful conditions. The trainer deployed a training game titled as,” Night Trek” in a dense forest.
The team was given the task of reaching a specified point in the jungle by following a hand- made map. On the map there were clues which indicated the path that the team had to follow. Since it was a three hour activity, each tam was given resources like water, torches and fruit. The team was accompanied by the trainer, whose role was to observe the functioning of the team in conditions of stress and subsequently catalyze learning by quoting live data regarding the performance of the different team members.
There was no light or sound in the forest except for the light hearted humor of the participants.
The team functioned like a well oiled machine. The unit head became the de-facto leader. There was rampant enthusiasm and a spring in the step of the participants as they searched for clues given on the map.
After the second clue, the team lost its way. They went one way, lost track ,returned and then explored different routes, all to no avail.
The team’s energy began to sag. A large group of the participants stood around with hands on their hips and passive looks on their faces. Then one of them said,” Let’s go back .Enough of this activity”. Another participant said,” No, let’s go on.”
The first crack in the team began to show. The participation of the person, who wanted to go back declined. His criticism of the event went to go up. Some of the other team members began to pay heed to his utterances. Finally, a group of the participants were standing around doing nothing in particular.
A small group of participants was still at work. They were poring over the map and trying to decipher it.
The team was lost. It was pitch dark. Some of the participants began to lose their nerve. One of them approached the trainer and said,” I saw a snake coming down a tree. Take us back, now.”
The trainer declined to intervene. The participant got worked up about it and said,” There are senior people here. We can’t take such chances. Take us back to the camp”.
A small sub-group of the team was busy finding landmarks while this altercation was going on. This participant was surrounded by a group of participants who neither protested nor were they active participants in the game.
The team leader along with his small set of cronies , set a direction for the team. The team followed along with the argumentators straggling along. As the team went into action, the unrest subsided. The leader asked some team members to explore ahead. The stragglers stood and waited for direction. The behavior of the two sets of team members can easily be classified into two categories. One set was energetic, willing to take risks, explore ahead and provide direction. The other was busy cribbing with a,” I’ll get them when I reach camp look”.
When the team reached the camp site, there was a little bit of a pandemonium. Some participants spoke angrily to the trainer ,”What is the meaning of this?”
The team leader said,” This is how life is. It puts up its challenges. We need to take them on.It was quite an experience”. Some of the active participants added,” It was fun, I had a great time”.
On listening to these comments, the pugnacious group quietened and slowly the situation returned to normalcy. Then everybody started poking fun at each other especially the one’s who panicked during the night trek at stressful points. That is when the learning began to sink in. The performers got the kudos and respect of their fellowmen while the non-performers got clear, direct and open feedback from all the team members.
This was a classical case of team dynamics under stressful conditions. For the trainer, it was just like being in a human behavior lab. He could spot the changes in the functioning of the team as the situation went from,” Under-control” to,” Out-of-control”.
From the trainer’s vantage view point ,it is quite a phenomenon seeing the team functioning superbly when the times are good and the team falling apart at the seams when the times are bad. It only takes a few failures for individualism to emerge from the shadows to team oriented bon-homie.
As the situation deteriorated ,the veneer that the executives had developed after attending team building workshops slowly disappeared. Therefore, when the team really needed to function as one, it was segmented and divided. It is easy to talk about teams and their relevance in a class-room. It is easy to be a good team member and put up goody-goody behavior when times are good and success is at hand. It is only when times are bad that one is able to distinguish between genuine team members and others to wear the cloak of spirit de corps but actually are fence sitters who would scram at the first sign of trouble.
From the team dynamics in this training game, it becomes clear that because of numerous and omnipresent training programs on team building , executives in organizations have realized the relevance of functioning as a team.
However, the learning remains surfacial.
This brings to the fore the drawback of an over-dependence on conceptual training for developing behavioral competencies.
By: Sanjiv Narang
Director, Innovation Systems Consulting
Website: www.innovativetraining4u.com
The term,” Training games” is an oxymoron. Training is supposed to be serious, requiring concentrated application of mind while games are supposed to be fun involving utilization of leisure time.
These opposites fuse together to create,” fun based learning”. The one breakthrough that the trainers and the training paradigm have gone through is that learning happens in every situation and is not limited to the class room. Rather it is linked to the intensity of an experience and the analysis thereafter.
Since training games are action oriented and there is heavy involvement of the learner, the intensity of the experience is significantly high. Hence, there is a high probability of long term learning.
This is exemplified by the experience that a trainer went through in one such training game deployment.
The op management team of a manufacturing organization was deployed for an out-bound training program focused on team building. There was a specified training need of,” Trust” and ,”Team functioning” under stressful conditions. The trainer deployed a training game titled as,” Night Trek” in a dense forest.
The team was given the task of reaching a specified point in the jungle by following a hand- made map. On the map there were clues which indicated the path that the team had to follow. Since it was a three hour activity, each tam was given resources like water, torches and fruit. The team was accompanied by the trainer, whose role was to observe the functioning of the team in conditions of stress and subsequently catalyze learning by quoting live data regarding the performance of the different team members.
There was no light or sound in the forest except for the light hearted humor of the participants.
The team functioned like a well oiled machine. The unit head became the de-facto leader. There was rampant enthusiasm and a spring in the step of the participants as they searched for clues given on the map.
After the second clue, the team lost its way. They went one way, lost track ,returned and then explored different routes, all to no avail.
The team’s energy began to sag. A large group of the participants stood around with hands on their hips and passive looks on their faces. Then one of them said,” Let’s go back .Enough of this activity”. Another participant said,” No, let’s go on.”
The first crack in the team began to show. The participation of the person, who wanted to go back declined. His criticism of the event went to go up. Some of the other team members began to pay heed to his utterances. Finally, a group of the participants were standing around doing nothing in particular.
A small group of participants was still at work. They were poring over the map and trying to decipher it.
The team was lost. It was pitch dark. Some of the participants began to lose their nerve. One of them approached the trainer and said,” I saw a snake coming down a tree. Take us back, now.”
The trainer declined to intervene. The participant got worked up about it and said,” There are senior people here. We can’t take such chances. Take us back to the camp”.
A small sub-group of the team was busy finding landmarks while this altercation was going on. This participant was surrounded by a group of participants who neither protested nor were they active participants in the game.
The team leader along with his small set of cronies , set a direction for the team. The team followed along with the argumentators straggling along. As the team went into action, the unrest subsided. The leader asked some team members to explore ahead. The stragglers stood and waited for direction. The behavior of the two sets of team members can easily be classified into two categories. One set was energetic, willing to take risks, explore ahead and provide direction. The other was busy cribbing with a,” I’ll get them when I reach camp look”.
When the team reached the camp site, there was a little bit of a pandemonium. Some participants spoke angrily to the trainer ,”What is the meaning of this?”
The team leader said,” This is how life is. It puts up its challenges. We need to take them on.It was quite an experience”. Some of the active participants added,” It was fun, I had a great time”.
On listening to these comments, the pugnacious group quietened and slowly the situation returned to normalcy. Then everybody started poking fun at each other especially the one’s who panicked during the night trek at stressful points. That is when the learning began to sink in. The performers got the kudos and respect of their fellowmen while the non-performers got clear, direct and open feedback from all the team members.
This was a classical case of team dynamics under stressful conditions. For the trainer, it was just like being in a human behavior lab. He could spot the changes in the functioning of the team as the situation went from,” Under-control” to,” Out-of-control”.
From the trainer’s vantage view point ,it is quite a phenomenon seeing the team functioning superbly when the times are good and the team falling apart at the seams when the times are bad. It only takes a few failures for individualism to emerge from the shadows to team oriented bon-homie.
As the situation deteriorated ,the veneer that the executives had developed after attending team building workshops slowly disappeared. Therefore, when the team really needed to function as one, it was segmented and divided. It is easy to talk about teams and their relevance in a class-room. It is easy to be a good team member and put up goody-goody behavior when times are good and success is at hand. It is only when times are bad that one is able to distinguish between genuine team members and others to wear the cloak of spirit de corps but actually are fence sitters who would scram at the first sign of trouble.
From the team dynamics in this training game, it becomes clear that because of numerous and omnipresent training programs on team building , executives in organizations have realized the relevance of functioning as a team.
However, the learning remains surfacial.
This brings to the fore the drawback of an over-dependence on conceptual training for developing behavioral competencies.
By: Sanjiv Narang
Director, Innovation Systems Consulting
Website: www.innovativetraining4u.com
Training Games Catagories
Ice Breakers Training Games
Team Building Training Games
Leadership Training Games
Communication Training Games
Sales Training Games
More Training Games and Trining Tools
Corporate Retreats in Asia
Advenced Train the Trainer Course
Recommended Training Games and Training Tools
Management Training Tools
- CBC Cards
Leadership Development Tools
- Environment Dolls
Communication Training Tools
- Choudhury mind maze
Coaching Tools
- World of Work Map
Communication Training Games
- Colored Glasses
Management Development Tools
- Human Drivers Challenge
The Brain Book for Trainers
- CBC Field Manual
