This is a presentation I found on Slideshare:
That’s one heck of an “introduction,” no?
What did you learn… that you’ll retain? Did you ask yourself what happens if you’re both an “accute” observer and also “future oriented”? Did it cross your mind that the fact the test is based on Jung’s work means nothing? (Jung himself disassociated from from the MBTI.)
Or did the information flash too quickly for you to absorb its meaning?
Let’s assume for a moment that this presentation represents the content in a 90 minute program.
By the way, I have no reason to assume this. For all I know, this could be the material for a week-long seminar. If it is, great. But assuming my 90 minute program, it’s too much. So let’s assume the 90 minute program… it’ll make for a better blog post.
When you teach professionals, you’re talking to a group of people who aren’t experts like you and who don’t live and breathe this stuff every day. You have to give them bite-sized information nuggets, in digestible quantities, if you want them to learn anything at all.
You can’t jam pack a course on soft skills to the gills with information. You have to allow time for the information to seep in. As a teaching methodology, cramming soft skills material doesn’t work any more than eating a week’s worth of calories in one sitting.
Say less. Take your time. Your brain will process this information very quickly, but this information isn’t meant for your brain. And that other part of you that this information is designed for? That part digests information much more slowly.
Jason Seiden is CEO of Ajax Workforce Marketing. Ajax amplifies brands by aligning employees' online messaging.
I'm Jason. I run a brand agency with a specialization in workforce marketing.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I took the MBTI in college and found out I’m an INFJ. Barely an idea what that means! But if I really wanted to, I could review the info –yes, slowly. One digestible chicken nugget at a time, please.
Jason — I think this is a great example of “unintended consequences.” PowerPoint and its predecessors were developed to give ordinary business people a chance to make “more professional” presentations without relying on graphic artists.
What it did, instead, was shoe-horn everyone into a conventional format that has become “Word in large font” that’s really only useful as an after-presentation reference.
This could be an age/generational thing, but if you really want to teach (wherein the student grants listening), it’s a blank white board, people drawn in close (and not in rows or around a conference table), multiple digressions leading back to the same narrative. Students then appreciate the build-up, because it’s still in front of them.
@Heath—I’ve taken the MBTI a few times… it’s a decent conversation starter, but as a decision-making tool, it’s lacking. For one thing, one needs to be an expert on a new lexicon and 16 different boxes and the personality types they represent and how they relate to one another? Too much learning curve for me. For another thing, in all the coaching I’ve done, I’ve rarely seen people argue because one’s a sensor and one’s a feeler; far more often, they argue because one feels like the other one is either stepping on his toes or setting him up for failure.
@John—I love your suggested approach and wish more people had the confidence to try it!