I've Been Working With Some Top Models Recently

How To Use Theories And Models In Your Training

I've been working with some top models recently - Kolb's model of learning, Covey's model for managing your time, John Adair's model of leadership...

Yes, I know it's a corny joke but it's been a long week.

Seriously, though, like many trainers I use a range of models on my courses to illustrate points. I even make some up myself. But how useful are they? And how can you make sure you use them successfully?

First of all, what do I mean by a model? I mean something like Kolb's Learning Cycle, the 4 stages - Experience, Analyse, Conclude, Plan. Or John Adair's model of leadership tasks, which is a Venn diagram with 3 circles overlapping named Task, Team, Individual.

Why do people invent these models?

They are ways to summarise and illustrate key points or ideas. They are often visual and may include some other element to aid memory, such as alliteration - the 4 P's model for presentations ( or 5 Ps, or 6 Ps, depending on which model you've come across ).

They are also often proprietary, which means they belong to the person who invented them. They are, in effect, a trademark, a way of linking that person to that theory or approach.

So why use them on training courses?

Well, as I've said, they illustrate and summarise an approach which can add value to training. They can spark off discussion, raise people's awareness, challenge their previous ways of looking at things.

They can also add a certain " borrowed credibility ". You are saying," These aren't just my ideas, these are from someone important, a published authority, a " guru " even.

So what are the possible problems with using these models?

Firstly, the same ones tend to be used regularly by trainers who run certain types of courses. The ones I've mentioned above are good examples - Kolb, Covey, Adair, these are very common and there's a good chance some people will have come across them before. You don't want to be thought of as hawking around the same, tired old models.

Having said that, the reason people still use many of these is that they are still valid, they work. So you can get around this problem by asking whether anyone has come across the model before. If they have, see if they can help to explain it or at least which parts they can remember.

You can acknowledge the fact that this is a popular model and say, " I know this may not be new to some of you, but I think this is still a really good way to approach this topic..." Be positive about it, don't apologise, but recognise that some people might think, " I've heard this before. "

If anyone actually says that, ask them what they think of the model or how they have tried to put it into practice. If they have come across it before, what have they done with it? How well has it worked for them?

Another potential problem is that they can seem a little artificial or imposed on the discussion.

For example, you are having a good group discussion about time management and you suddenly unveil the Covey quadrant for comparing Urgency and Importance.

You need to be careful how you do this. It can seem a bit
" clunky ", not so much blending seamlessly into the discussion so much as slamming like a boulder into the middle of it.

Again, positioning is important. Don't reveal the model as if it's the answer to everything, which you've been hiding up your sleeve, just waiting for the right moment. Offer it as a helpful addition to the debate, something which can add another viewpoint or a different angle perhaps. Then let people think about it and accept or reject various parts of it.

It's more a question of saying, " Speaking of time management, here's one way of looking at it which you might consider. Can you see ways in which you might be able to use this approach? "

You want to avoid an implicit suggestion that you are saying, " We've been talking about this for a while now, here's the right answer. "

This is also linked to the issue of " guru syndrome " - the tendency for some people to latch onto the latest book or theory as if it reveals the mysteries of life.

Whether it's The Da Vinci Code or Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, they carry a well - thumbed copy everywhere, waiting for the chance to corner some poor victim and change their life forever with their startling secrets.

There is an associated problem where participants on courses react against any perceived " guru " because they tend to think any model ( especially if it comes from America ) is likely to be unrealistic, too simple, divorced from their own lives.

Often this is not correct. It can just be a reflection of some people's negativity and reluctance to accept new ideas. But it can also be a reaction the some over - enthusiastic trainers offering a particular model as " the answer ". You can avoid this by, as I've said, offering it as just another approach for discussion, a different way of looking at things.

You can also make sure that you give time for people to consider exactly how the model does relate to their own lives. You can say, " This is a model based on research involving thousands of people. It is based on their experiences and their problems. Now you might think that your situation is different to theirs, and that may be true.

But I think, if you look at this, you will find ways to use this approach which can help you. Your challenge is to find ways to apply this to your own work. "

Then give people time to reflect, discuss and challenge if necessary.

This also helps to overcome the final problem I want to mention, which is that some people just won't like models in principle. This is because models don't suit all learning styles.

Going back to Honey and Mumford's model of Learning Styles, based on Kolb's model of the Learning Cycle ( hey, 2 models for the price of one! ), some learners are Activists. They like getting involved in activities, doing things. They aren't so keen on discussing ideas and theories.

Similarly, some people are Pragmatists. They are interested in what works, They don't mind discussing ideas so long as they are relevant and they can be applied in practice. But they don't like things which are too abstract or divorced from their own experiences.

The other two types, Reflectors and Theorists, are more relaxed about ideas and models, in fact they may prefer discussing these to actually doing anything ( I know I do ).

So some people will have an in - built aversion to models. They will need extra work from you in order to see the relevance of any model you introduce and to accept that it might offer them something valuable.

One approach you could take as part of any discussion is to ask people to come up with their own models. You could use an established one as an example, then ask individuals or groups to devise their own model, based on their discussions, which they could take back to their workplace and use to help others to tackle common problems.

This should appeal to Activists and Pragmatists as well as Theorists and Reflectors.

So I do think that using models can be a valuable part of any training, and I certainly do it myself, but you need to be aware of potential pitfalls which could undermine their usefulness.

You can avoid these by careful positioning of any model which you use and by making sure you help people to think about how they could use any model in a real way in their own situations, to move from the theoretical to the practical.

www.transformyourtraining.com is the website for trainers who want to be outstanding. You can find information to help you design and deliver training which is engaging, interactive, memorable and effective. Visit www.transformyourtraining.com