GAMES AND THEIR ROLE IN TRAINING

GAMES AND THEIR ROLE IN TRAINING
Training Officer Magazine December 1997 Vol. No10
This is the first of three articles considering different types of 'Game'. The word comes in quotation marks because it is impossible to define what is or is not a game. The concept is loaded with perceptions along the serious to non-serious dimension and the competition to cooperation dimension. The result is that what training staff call a game - and their attitude towards such things - says more about their own background than anything else. But whatever word they use, most training specialists will have at some time and for some purpose made use of such devices. 'Game' will be the principal word used, in order to be consistent and because it is the preferred word of the author: readers are welcome to substitute their own.

The first article will be about shorter types of game - icebreakers, and those dramatic 'structured experiences' which sometimes help us to learn about human behaviour in general and our own in particular. The second will be concerned with games about management and organisation of the type in which one is required to plan an activity and then simulate the execution of that plan. The third will be about business simulations: activities in which one is asked to make quantitative decisions about the management of an imaginary company and learn 'what has happened' through the operation of a computer program.

Ice-breakers

The name derives from the fact that social situations in which the participants know nothing about each other normally start off in a cautious, frigid atmosphere with people behaving in a polite no-risk manner. This is often true on training courses. It matters little in a formal lecture where it is only necessary to listen to the speaker, but it matters a great deal when learning is expected to derive from discussion between the delegates. If all of them are determined to utter nothing unconventional - for fear of an adverse reaction - then not much is going to be learnt. There will be no comparison of alternative views, no critical examination of the established wisdom and no feed-back to individuals about the impact of their natural behaviour upon others. So the 'ice' has to be broken.

The traditional method was to carry out a round of introductions - each delegate spoke a few words about himself or herself. It communicated some basic facts, but it took a long time, it was hard to remember who had said what, and people not required to speak early spent too much time thinking "What am I going to say when my turn comes?" A variation on this was to split the group into pairs, each person speaking first to a partner who later made an introduction to the whole group saying "Here on my left is Jasmine Holt who works in the accounts department and is mad keen on athletics. etc." This had some advantages - it forced all the delegates to use their listening skills for a few minutes, it meant that everybody had some in-depth knowledge about at least one other member and it provided a potential basis for cooperation.

But words are not as revealing as actions. Think about Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady and the words in her song "Don't SPEAK of love. IF you're in love SHOW ME!" She wanted some action - because words are cheap and may be untrue anyway. So innovative people began to start training courses by asking the delegates to carry out some cooperative task. They had to DO something together, thus revealing to each other a bit more about their attitudes and skills and abilities. Icebreakers as we now know them were born. The practice is commonly accepted, but few people concern themselves with WHY it works and there are lessons to be learnt from considering the issue. Firstly, it works because we are gradually breaking free from the concept that the spoken word (from an authority to a pupil) is the natural and right and almost the only legitimate way of learning. It is in line with our current views. Secondly, it works because something with an immediate purpose is being substituted for something that is rather formal and artificial. Thirdly, it works because people enjoy the successful completion of a task and it generates good feelings towards others who were associated in the success. (In the jargon, this is known as 'Effectance Motivation'. People enjoy purposeful action, and the feeling that something has happened because of their actions - that the world is in some tiny way different.)

Today one can almost distinguish a hierarchy of icebreakers. There are some that are used just to get people talking to each other and don't call for judgement of a result. There are some that are used to generate familiarity and cooperation through successful task completion without any specific connection with later course content. There are some that are carefully chosen to introduce concepts upon which the course will dwell in greater depth.

Just getting people talking to each other

These are quick and easy things. Use them when time is short. One technique is to pick a subject within which there are well-known divisions and ask the adherents of each to move briefly to a defined section of the room. For a non-serious example, try television soap operas - "Brookside people over by the door. Neighbours people beside the projector. East Enders people under the window. etc." As soon as the groups are formed, repeat the process with a new criterion like Holiday Destination or Preferred Sport or Pop Group or Car. Obviously, the subjects can also be serious - different types of commercial skill, perhaps, or preferred methods of learning, or views about company policy.

As mentioned before, the fact that something works will at times stop us from asking WHY. An idea like this works because:

It allows physical movement instead of being psychologically imprisoned at a table, desk or chair. (People prefer freedom of choice to being subject to control.)

It allows people to make contact with others who share their enthusiasms. (We feel more comfortable with people who have something in common with us.)

It allows each person to demonstrate a unique identity. There will not be many perfect 'clones' who always find themselves standing in the same group as each other.

These articles will often argue that a small adaptation can have a major impact, and one example is the introduction of tangible objects, however small: badges, or pieces of card, or parts of an artefact which must be 'matched' with another part. The reason for their importance is that they provide a focal point for starting a discussion. Even the shy delegate finds it possible to approach a stranger saying "My card says XYZ. What does yours say?" The presumption is that the exchange of information may be beneficial to both of them and that gives a justification for the approach. It makes it purposeful. It is much easier than "I am Joe Judd from Purchasing".

If an icebreaker is only intended to get people talking then two qualifications follow logically. Firstly, it does not have to be course-related or even work related. The training specialist will be trying to answer the question "What shall I do to get things moving?" The context within which the question is asked tends, sub-consciously, to restrict what are seen as acceptable answers. This is not necessary. Ideas can be drawn from childrens parties, or television shows or fairgrounds or baseball games or science fiction. Secondly, it has to be kept short. No extensive time allocation can be justified.

Successful task completion

This title implies that the objective is motivational. The facilitator hopes that working together on a problem and getting a right answer will make delegates feel good about themselves, and about the group as a whole, and prepared to take a constructive attitude to whatever they are subsequently asked to do. Obviously, as many people as possible must be given such feelings so there are some tasks that are clearly inappropriate - like the sort of intellectual puzzle that can be solved without assistance by one individual with the right type of mind. Just one person then feels good about the experience and the rest are left wondering "What was the point of doing that?" Ideally, the task should demand that every member must contribute effectively before it can be solved. Good examples are the 'Information-Sharing' exercises in which problem-solving data is 'seeded' - distributed amongst the group by some artificial method. Versions of the following selection exercise have been circulating in the training world for many years. There is an instruction paper, given to all participants, casting them as members of a selection panel that must choose an applicant for a particular post from a short list provided. Additionally, each participant has a paper stating the qualities required and giving a little extra data about the circumstances of the selection. These papers are so written that they look the same (have the same number of lines of text) are largely the same (most of the wording is common) but have perhaps one special sentence in each which the others don't have. The papers are stapled together with the common brief on top, thus suggesting that everybody is in the same position. Group discussion soon reveals the deception, and each individual then concentrates on what his/her personal brief is saying, and making sure that others have taken it on board. When all the facts are integrated, it becomes clear than only one candidate has all the qualifications needed and the problem is solved. It can't happen without a correct contribution from everybody.

The subject matter of an information-sharing exercise can vary. Murder mysteries have been used (each piece of information being one essential clue), and inscriptions on imaginary ancient monuments (the Zin Obelisk) and mathematical calculations (The value of 'T'). Likewise, the method of planting the information can vary. It can be on separate cards dealt out in the training room, or in the course documentation, or concealed on the reverse side of a name badge.

There are other ways of ensuring that all must contribute, or at least making it likely. One is to design a multiple task in which the elements require different skills and abilities. Ideally, there should be something for everybody - something which causes each person to feel "This is my scene. I can contribute here." Some such exercises take rather too long for the icebreaker slot, but how about a mini-version of Trivial Pursuits? One reason for the success of that product is the huge variety of questions and the way in which everybody, sooner or later, becomes the only one with the critical answer. Any training specialist can devise a battery of twenty short questions suitable for his or her own organisation. The group will get their heads together, everybody will contribute, and they will actually like it! (Why else do public houses have Quizz Nights?) Another option is to give separate tasks to three sub-groups, each being rewarded for success by something that relates to the rewards of the others. It might be one line of a four-line poem, or three segments of a circle (like the 'cheese' in Trivial Pursuits). The reward is a symbol to underline the fact that the full task is not completed till each sub-group has played its part.

Participation can also be engineered by the use of a group representative who is required to respond as an individual but on behalf of his/her colleagues. The entire group is asked not to solve a single problem, but to devise a method for solving problems of a certain type. One example concerns an imaginary numbering system that does not use our 1, 2, 3 and so on but is based instead on horizontal or vertical bars. It counts to base 5, and every 5 units is represented by one horizontal bar. Thus 15 becomes three horizontal bars one on top of another. If the number to be represented is, say, two less than 15 (13) then there are two vertical bars side by side under the three horizontal ones. If it is, say, 2 above 15 (17) then there are two vertical bars above the horizontal ones. The group is given a sequence of numbers written both in our own system and in the other. They have to deduce how the system works and ensure that every group member is capable of making a correct translation. The facilitator then chooses an individual to test. The whole group is deemed to have passed or failed according to the performance of that one member. The exercise ensures that all members take part - sufficiently, at the very least, to make sure that they can do the job correctly and avoid letting down their colleagues. Once again, the subject can vary. A solitaire puzzle works well, for instance, and quite a testing exercise can be based around the Customer Barcoding Specification developed by Royal Mail.

There are two general points connected with these illustrations. One is that no 'game' can be thought of in terms of a physical artefact that is the same in all situations - like a tin opener. What people learn from is not the product, but the experience structured for them by a facilitator who may or may not use a 'product' as part of it and may or may not use a 'product' in a particular way. The manner of use is at least as important as the product itself because it alters the group dynamics. Thus the numbering system can work very well as a communication game and can also serve as the focal task for a 'group representative' exercise. The product is the same in each case but the experience encountered by the participants is quite different. Another useful tip for the training specialist is to think in general language about the type of situation which he or she is trying to create. For instance (using the example of the selection exercise described above) don't think in terms like "I shall use the Coal Corporation Exercise" - or whatever name you know it by - but think instead "I want a situation in which it will be necessary for people to 'pass information to each other' or 'compare alternative methods' or 'reveal their personal value systems', etc." That is to say, think about the forms of behaviour upon which you want to focus. This is a good habit to cultivate because it means asking oneself repeatedly "What really is the learning objective on this occasion? Can I define it more exactly?" It is also helpful because it widens the field that one reviews when looking for suitable material. To illustrate the point, there is a big difference between saying to oneself "I want something a bit like The XYZ Exercise" and saying "I want to challenge the ability of the group to communicate accurately." Starting from The XYZ Exercise may mean that one looks for something similar in subject matter or language or method. Starting from the need to communicate accurately makes it more likely that one will review diverse fields. Don't allow yourself to become product-based: determine to remain objective-based and behaviour-based. Remember than one is often talking about universal human characteristics which are relevant to every field of cooperative endeavour. They can certainly be seen in the context of management and supervision, but they are not unique to it. Classic cases from other areas can extend ones thinking. Any training specialist not yet familiar with it should study the communication failure that led to the fatal collision between HMS Victoria (Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon) - and HMS Camperdown (Rear Admiral Albert Markham) in 1893. Nobody is quite sure of the cause because the top man went down with his ship - and with 358 other people!

Introduction of major learning points

Some games create 'here and now' examples of human behaviour which can be studied as a major course feature, having been 'brought alive' through active participation. They can be seen as demonstrating the nature of certain forces to which humans are susceptible by their make-up. Possibly the oldest and best is The Prisoners Dilemma - also known as Red and Blue and by various other titles. One version sets up two groups who interact within an imaginary commercial situation that allows them to manufacture either PRODUCT A or PRODUCT B. The outcome of their choice is determined by the market, and this behaves in such a way that if both choose Product A then both score 0 points. If they both choose Product B then both score 2 points. If one chooses A and the other chooses B then the former scores 4 points and the latter 0 points. The game proceeds in 'rounds', the teams first speaking to each other and agreeing a policy and then deciding separately what they will really do - and declaring it to the facilitator. The benefits of cooperation are obvious, and the 'negotiation' normally means that both agree to make Product B. Then, in the private talks within each group someone is certain to suggest cheating 'the opposition' by making Product A. If the stakes are doubled in every round it is extremely likely that one group will eventually double-cross the other. After that it will be impossible to re-establish trust. Both groups are likely to stick with Product A (in order to avoid being beaten) and will end up with much lower total scores than would have been the case if they had cooperated.

The user of such a game has to accept that to some extent he or she has relinquished control of the situation. The traditional role of a training specialist was based upon a degree of authority and a behaviour pattern of telling, and asking questions, and judging responses. Unwelcome contributions could be pushed aside. By contrast, the person who introduces a game has passed the initiative to the participants. Within the limits of the game they must be allowed to make their own choices. Therefore the training specialist, or facilitator, can't predict exactly what will happen and exactly what lessons it will be possible to draw from the experience. Most of the well-known exercises have outcomes that are strongly probable because they invoke natural human instincts, but they are not certain. There is an outside chance that the user will be in the position of the chemistry teacher who tells the class that the litmus paper is going to turn blue - and then it stays obstinately white! The answer is to know the material well and be prepared for the common deviations. In The Prisoners Dilemma, for instance, one of the main issues is group identity and the individual perception of where loyalty should lie. (Who is US and who is THEM?) The usual outcome is that each group perceives the other as 'them' and the double-cross creeps in. In a few cases the two groups identify the facilitator as the enemy (a person who is somehow trying to trick us) and then both seek solidarity by sticking to Product B.

Discussion of personal values and their effect is a common feature of training courses. It is easily introduced at the icebreaker stage by variations of a Balloon Debate. The title comes from a version which postulates a number of people travelling together in an air balloon - which is leaking. Somebody must be thrown out to lighten the load and keep the balloon airborne. Who is least valuable? The exercise is also available in proprietary versions which sometimes have quite elaborate scenarios about who must be rescued first from a disastrous situation. There may be extensive data about the imaginary people and their qualifications - but the principle is always the same. Within any training group there will be a huge variety of opinions about who must be saved first, and why. Different people will have been using different criteria, or values. Such an exercise establishes a base for formal study later in the course.

Availability

The simpler icebreakers tend to pass around the training world by personal experience or contact. They may consist of nothing more than one brilliant idea which, having seen once, anybody can apply in his/her situation. This accounts for the numerous versions of The Prisoners Dilemma and The Coal Corporation and The Balloon Debate. There are also 'collections' that are published under titles like "50 Activities for Management/Staff/Personal Development". These are file-type publications from which working papers can be copied and which offer excellent value. Then there are proprietary versions - single exercises or small collections - which have minor artefacts like cards or symbols included. These cost more, but the artefacts have a value in making the activity feel more 'special'. There will also be a manual, and there will be no need to copy pages from a book beforehand. They have a convenience value and a prestige value.