A Manifesto Against 'Presumptuous Design'

It's time to call out a fatal flaw in so many training designs. The flaw in question is running rampant in most training courses being conducted in organizations, even those designed by "Instructional Designers" who follow the time-tested, linear, and logical instructional design process. The misconception? When participants accept an Outlook meeting request to attend a training session or webinar, one can safely assume that they are ready to learn. Right?  Sure! One might also assume that because someone smiles back at you in the street that s/he is ready to marry you. While your unique brand of charisma may be very compelling to a passerby, the likelihood that a mere glance and even the acceptance of a free drink from you is truly a sign of 'readiness to engage' is slim to none. Most people (and most learners) are just not that trampy. Yet, so many training courses have this fatal misconception underpinning the design. The result: At a minimum - Failing to achieve desired results. At a maximum - Disrespecting (and even provoking fear responses) from participants. If either of those is the goal you seek from your training courses, you may stop reading here.

If your answer to any of the above is even a glimmer of 'yes', then you are already experiencing the flaw of Presumptuous Design. While there is currently no FDA-approved pharmaceutical to treat this ailment, here are three home remedies that can provide relief:

You can't help someone solve a problem until s/he admits to having one. 

• Allow time for learners to admit to and own the problems meant to be addressed in a particular training class. Don't assume that the learners agree with you that the problem exists or that it is even their problem to begin with. Whether through discussion, reflection, or experiential activities, learners have to recognize that the problem is real if they are to want solutions from you. And no, merely showing up at the training is not a sign of this. Sorry.

Using bullet-laden Powerpoint slides to tout research-based findings for high-performance can, if a learner is not ready for the solution, do more harm than good.

• This is a classic mistake in most training classes. Some researcher has provided the 'Five Steps for _____' and the business rationale for using said steps. While the research may be sound, and the researcher highly credentialed, if a learner isn't ready to care about the research it will fall upon deaf ears. Sure, in our insular world of learning we care. However, we can't assume that the voice from up on high is all that important or even heard by learners. They're not in our world. They don't share our bias for research-based tactics. They don't care about Dr. BlahBlahBlah's research. Remember the teacher's voice in many Charlie Brown TV specials? Yeah, that's what you sound like to them. 
• Even if they hear the research, for example about high-performing sales professionals, every time you present something that is not happening in a learner's own performance you reinforce the unfortunate voice that exists in so many people. Often this voice sounds eerily like a parent, teacher, or authority figure from the past, and that voice utters the painful words, "You're not good enough."

Even the smallest request for change in activity (e.g., "From now on you will fill out this sexy, new online template and press F2 instead of using the old template and the F5 key.") can provoke a fear response from learners. 

• For all of its miraculous capabilities, the human brain is in reality a creature of habit. Habit (or long-term potentiation) feeds a survival instinct for humans. If I know how to do something automatically, and don't have to think on the spot, I may be accepted by my tribe, have food, and survive impending threats to my survival. Now, that's a strong instinct! To ask someone to change what they are doing at work raises a question for the brain. "Can I do it, ergo will I survive?" If your training courses are not helping learners to surface, process, and resolve these highly-emotional questions, the result will be inertia and a return to old habits. In essence, no change will result. 
• So few organizations, designers or facilitators allow for the emotional processing to occur. Designers, often at the request of internal stakeholders, cut time in a design for practice and reflection. Facilitators pummel people with bullets of tactics, steps, and tools. (They're called bullets for a reason, folks!) Stakeholders, Designers and Facilitators too often operate under the misconception that 'these people are smart'. Smart they may be. However, they are also people with emotions, fears, and habits. Get that joke and train accordingly. New ideas cannot enter into a closed-system. Open the brain up and THEN insert learning.