Andrew Calvert posed the above mentioned question (http://www.linkedin.com/answers/management/organizational-development/MGM_ODV/416428-4161241?browseIdx=16&sik=1246779891209&goback=%2Eama) on LinkedIn, to which the note mentioned below was my response. The reference made inline refer to all the posts made by others in the same post. I have also mentioned the answer selected by Andrew as the best answer; mine was selected as a good answer Everyone should benefit!!!
________________________________________________
MY ANSWER
People are observed so that they can be given feedback... and not just feedback, but 'articulating' ways to strengthen strengths and weaken weaknesses, that is to improve upon the current state of performance. So, whether we talk about a trainer or any other profile, the basic premise remains the same. I have done some work on this area, and am going to give a brief outline of the same. The most crucial aspect is to be clear & articulate the parameters to observe. Now, for a trainer (whilst facilitating a training program), there would be some activities which would be event-based (such as setting objectives as per Bloom's taxonomy prior to the beginning of the session), and some would be ongoing (not pointing a finger at the audience). The identification & articulation of these parameters in form of observable traits is key to the whole process. One could look at breaking down 'facilitation' competencies, or one could look at ready reckoners (if any available) of observable traits. The second most important thing is to articulate the Likert scale. I have picked up the scale of proficiency from Sharon Gander's OPIS (Outcome Proficiency Indicator Scale) and created a 7 pointer scale. Each point on the scale is well articulated, and is simple. The discrepancy, when used by and untrained eye, lies at about 13%, which is OK for the time being. The next most important thing is for the observer to be trained in observing. I have noticed many (read many many many many) observers, who do not write their observations; so, even if there is a detailed set of observable traits avaialble, one still needs to write the indicators, so that the same could be used to give feedback, hence making the process non-controversial. Most observers observe and then write in hindsight, making the entire observation subjective to the extent of what I think is the best or worst component of the 'performance', and the other biggest deterrent for the entire process is the involvement of memory in the entire process. When written after the even is over, it is a matter of 'how much I remember', which is unjustified for the person being observed. This is one of the primary reasons that even after giving repeated feedback sessions, trainers are not able to maintain their proficiency scores for they focus on improving only, and lose sight of maintaing the appropriate behaviors. The next step is to give the feedback, and that is where most coaches fail. So, there are three types of feedback-providers. a) those who give 'back-feed' rather than 'feed-back'... those who just complain all the things that were not done (this includes all those who sugar-coat and give feedback); b) those who give feed-back in the way that it is supposed to be given... 'sandwhich' technique (includes those who give feed-back the 'executive coach' style), and c) the least done... not only giving feedback, but also helping out by telling as to how to improve, and even going all the way to demonstrating. The 'c' category are the ones who should be allowed while giving functional coaching (especially), and 'facilitating a training' falls under that category. The last step in the entire process is 'review'. If a review is not done, then the entire process falls through the crack, and people tend to revert to doing whatever one was doing, because imbibing new traits makes one uncomfortable, and unknowingly one tends to revert to the same, especially when there is no review mechanism available. The parameters that I had used had a huge contribution from Anand Dewan, the Likert Scale used was an excerpt from Sharon Gander's research, and the operationalising aspect of the tool was jointly done by Rajesh Krishnan and Me. The tool has been applied on ~400 trainers for atleast 6 sessions each and each session had atleast 50 observations parameters observed on the 7-point proficiency scale.
BEST ANSWER
I agree with many of the comments here, and I would add that I have found feedback is most successful when
*The observer acts as an event participant. When an observer sits or stands outside the room, walks in and out, behaves as if they are there strictly to observe, or worse yet takes over for the facilitator--it can be distracting to both facilitator and event participants. The point is to get a realistic view of the facilitator skills and help them to improve. The best way to do that is to simply take on the participant role.
*When providing feedback, be specific and give examples that support your findings. It not enough to say 'event opener', but much more impactful to say ‘using a short story to get your audience engaged was a great way to open the presentation’.
* Relate information in behavior-based terms. ‘You seemed nervous’ could come across as condescending. Rather, saying ‘I noticed you had a hard time making eye contact with participants. Was that because of nerves?’ This opens a dialogue about how to avoid nervousness.
* Include suggestions for improvement. ‘try to engage participants more often’ is more impactful when related this way: ‘during the section were you are explaining widgets, you could ask participants about their widget preferences. Asking questions is a great way to get participants involved’
*Feedback is provided immediately. The sooner feedback is given, the better it can be applied. The event and behaviors are still fresh in both the observer and facilitators minds! I hope this helps
Dawn (Mancour) Wagner
No comments:
Post a Comment