Why Earthquakes Don't Work

Earthquakes are good at some things.  They are good at causing massive change to topography.  They are also good at breaking dishes and directing traffic to CNN or Yahoo News.  Earthquakes may even be good at finding a newfound respect for a doorframe you had previously ignored as 'nothing special'.  Yes, there are some things earthquakes are quite good at, but when it comes to learning, earthquakes don't cut it.

In this, I'm referring to crafting a massive change in perspective or knowledge that shakes up most of what the learner was previously aware of.  An earthquake method treats learning as something that involves destruction; destroying previously held notions, wiping clear previous ideas.  But in reality, learning works best as a gradual process, and an effective leader should emphasize what was previously learned to build upon the next piece of information rather than go for shock and surprise with the next reveal.

Surprises work well for earthquakes.  But when it comes to teaching, surprises don't work as effectively for leaders.  A leader who has an abrupt teaching style opens him or herself up to a loss of credibility; what the leader is hoping may come across as a clearing of the mind or leading to an 'a-ha' moment often appears as a lack of preparation.  Furthermore, surprises can frequently discourage the learner; people want to feel that what they have learned up until now has been worthwhile and hasn't been wasted time.  By using 'earthquake teaching' we're actively trying to cast doubt on previously held understandings.

What's more helpful in learning is to build on what's been done before.  If an earthquake is a metaphor for a style of teaching we want to avoid, think of a river carving a canyon as a style we want to emulate.  We must build on what has been learned in order to teach new knowledge.  When teaching, its important to identify the previously obtained knowledge and seek connections between that and the new.  Doing this highlights the fact that the leader and learner are actually building towards something based on knowledge already possessed by the learner.

By taking a gradual approach towards learning we give the learner more confidence and highlight past development, while also showing a potential roadmap for the future.  With earthquake teaching, we never know what will be affected, so we have no consistency in our development and no confidence in what will remain.  But when leaders approach learning as a gradual process their teams will continuously build a useful bank of interconnected knowledge that will continue to strengthen as he or she learns more and more.

How To Make Your Point With Wrong Answers

We've all encountered it.  You're having a great meeting or you're in the middle of a perfect presentation; you've thought of everything.  You've been building up to a new idea and all the work up until this point has been preparing them for the 'critical moment'.  The moment when they all exclaim 'oooohhhh' and everything falls into place.

And it comes, and it goes.  It flops, it falls apart.  For whatever reason your people are not digesting the concept you've provided for them.  And worse, you can't move on until they do.

We all know the proverb, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  This can be true for teaching.  So frequently we can provide all the info, the instruction, and the resources to our people but they don't get the point.  And sometimes this isn't our problem.  It is not the responsibility of a leader for a person's success.  Its not our responsibility to ensure our team never fails (that would be impossible).

But what if this said horse is thirsty and has simply never seen a river before?  The horse has been led to water but he doesn't know that he can actually drink from it.  Many times in teaching the fact that people aren't seeing the point isn't a result of stubbornness, its simply lack of awareness.  And its here where our skills as effective teachers really come to help us.

Good leaders can accept ignorance in their people.  We're here to teach-if they already knew it all, what would be the point.  Don't get frustrated with those people who don't 'get it'.  Our job as leaders is to help them 'get it,' and our success in this validates our title as 'Leaders'.

As we teach, its important to be prepared for the incorrect answer.  I don't believe my people are dumb, I just want to be ready with a backup plan if my point isn't understood.  Whenever you are making a new point or sharing new information be ready for that not knowing.  Its great if they get it, just don't assume it.

So, instead of seeking answers, seek ideas.  It may be a lot to ask your people to divine the specific idea you have in mind, but everyone can be expected to share a thought on a subject.  We all have experiences, we all have different areas of expertise.  Though a correct answer is difficult to guess, an simple idea is easy to provide.

Instead of fishing for a specific answer, do mini-brainstorms.  No need to write it down, just get people to vocalize thoughts.  From this group of ideas there's a greater likelihood that the correct train of thought has been provided.  The safety in numbers principle holds here.

Keep in ind the goal isn't the correct answer, its the usable answer.  Be on the lookout for suggestions that have some parallels to your point.  Keep an eye out for 'horseshoe ideas,' ideas that are close to what you want to say but not quite there.  When you encounter these ask permission to rephrase it into something closer to your point.  This way the leap to your point won't be so far.

Once we have these collected ideas we need to use them.  Begin to explain your point incorporating what your people already said.  Refer, by the person's name, to specific suggestions that are relevant to your concept.  This helps lead to our point, rather than forcing a search for it.  Emphasize the similarities between what has been said and what you're introducing.  Once similarities have been addressed, dive into the peculiarities of your point.

When presenting new knowledge, it is better for it to appear as an evolution of knowledge currently held, rather than a radical break from what they knew.  People are more likely to remember and utilize information that builds upon what the already have.  Maybe we're hearing a bunch of wrong answers, but all those wrong answers can come together to form the right thought.