Right answers from participants also deserve a conscious approach, if you want to ensure high levels of interaction. What you want to avoid is that when a participant gives a sliver of the right answer you immediately move in and take over. Let’s look at an example from a training on the Rose of Leary.
You: ‘So let me ask you, who can give me an example of when ABOVE - AGAINST behavior is appropriate or even necessary?’
Participant: ‘Maybe when you have to communicate a boundary?’
You: ‘That’s exactly right! When you have to communicate a boundary, ABOVE - AGAINST behavior is what you need. At that particular moment, you are putting your needs/wants/desires above what the other person might want. That makes it AGAINST. You are taking initiative by speaking up and making a statement and that makes it ABOVE. Does that make sense?
What you communicate through this interaction is that you only need their input as assists to your own story. You are not truly interested in what they have to say. Participants will pick up on this immediately and as a result will not be as forthcoming with any new answers. Interaction levels will slowly wither.
How to deal with right answers
How you deal with a right answer is influenced by the level of correctness and the level of completeness. Let’s take a look at a couple of examples to find out how you deal with them.
The answer is 100% correct & 100% complete
Strategy: Highlight & Reward. Endorse the answer and offer the participant a moment in the sun for their contribution. How you do this depends very much on your style as a trainer. I personally have some fun with this by saying things like:
‘Ladies and gentleman, we have an angels-singing situation on our hands, what Peter said is exactly right!’
‘That’s exactly right! I couldn’t have said it any better if I had read it to you from the textbook.’
‘That’s a 10 out of 10 right there! Well done!’
The answer is <100% correct & 100% complete
<100% correct implies that the answer is definitely in the direction you’re looking for, but it needs some fine-tuning to be exactly right.
Strategy: Reward the part that’s right and invite further additions either from the group or from the participant who gave the answer. Let’s take a look at this example from a training on Coaching:
You: ‘What did you see me do, after the coachee told me the story about his boss?’
Participant A: ‘You summarized it, by saying ‘I see that this is bothering you’.
You: ‘Well spotted! I indeed summarized it. Those were not the exact words I used though. Who remembers which turn of phrase I used?
Participant B: ‘You said: ‘It looks like this is bothering you’’
You: ‘Awesome! That’s right. The reason I’m making you aware of this distinction is that ‘It looks like’ keeps the focus on the coachee and ‘I see’ takes more of the focus towards yourself and what you think.
The answer is 100% correct & <100% complete
<100% complete can mean two things.
Multiple answers exist for this particular question.
Strategy: reward and invite further contributions, sometimes nudging the participants in a particular direction to come up with new answers. Let’s take a look at a situation from training on Focus:
You: So when we know that the most effective breaks for the brain involve not taking in any information and being in a state of open awareness, can you think of some examples of great breaks?
Participant A: ‘Loading the dishwasher.’
You: ‘For sure! What else?’
Participant B: ‘I always dance in the living room!’
You: ‘Cool, I think I’ll try that myself! That definitely is an effective break for the brain. To also have some examples of breaks that are easier to do when you’re at work, what can you think of?’
Participant C: ‘Take a walk’
You: ‘Yup! Easy movement is one of the most effective breaks for the brain. Keep going!
Participant D: ‘Stare out of the window’
You: ‘Indeed, it might seem odd, but that’s actually a great break! I hope these examples gives you some inspiration for your breaks to come.’
2. The answer lacks depth and needs further elaboration to be meaningful.
Strategy: Invite the participant to elaborate further. Let’s take a look at the example from a training on Delivering Bad News.
You: ‘What would happen if you ignore that someone is angry and try to have a rational conversation?’
Participant: ‘It wouldn’t work.’
You: [with friendly inquisitive look on your face] ‘Say more’
Participant: ‘Well, they wouldn’t exactly be open for it, right?’
You: ‘Can you elaborate?’
Participant: ‘Well, when I think of myself when I am angry, anything you say to me usually only puts fuel to the fire. I get even more riled up. I’m just not in the right headspace to hear what it is you have to say.
You: ‘Yes, that is exactly what tends to happen. ‘
This is an excerpt from my upcoming book on how to deliver awesome trainings. It comes from the chapter Interaction. This theory is also covered in my Train-the-Trainer programme: Inspire to Develop.