This way, managers get what they want.
When developing training programs for managers, existing concepts are often adopted or the management's favourite topics are dealt with. For example: "Our bosses need better working techniques". If these topics do not meet the actual needs, the participants will lack any commitment: they allow themselves to be bombarded and reject what is on offer. For this reason, the wishes should always be determined with the participants.
The moderation method makes it easy to find topics in a short space of time that turn those affected into participants. The advantages are obvious:
- Only topics that the participants consider important are determined.
- Motivation is high, as each individual can help shape the program's focus.
Our practical report shows how you can use the moderation method to develop a needs analysis for leadership training. The time required is around three hours. The subtitles correspond to the headings on the pin boards.
1. introduction to the topic
At the beginning, a thesis is set up that is to be evaluated by the participants.
The evaluation is carried out with the help of a dot survey: All participants attach a sticky dot. If the dot is stuck on + +, the person fully agrees with the thesis. With - -, they completely reject the thesis. There are variations in between. In the end, the picture could look something like this:
The participants in our example are therefore of the opinion that leadership is partly a question of training. This confirms that leadership training is worthwhile. Experience shows that "honest players" never stick in all the points at + +. However, if this should happen, there is probably no need for training. At least in this case you can discuss why the participants think that they cannot or do not need to improve their leadership skills.
2. building on existing knowledge
Ask the question:
Participants write down their opinions on cards. (Point out the rule that a separate card must be used for each statement). The cards are pinned to the pin board. You then group similar statements into a "clump" and look for suitable generic terms for these clumps. I
As a rule, no sensational insights are gained from this survey, and some important areas may even be missing. However, as the survey only serves as an introduction to the topic, you can also regard the first two steps as a "warm-up phase". If you are also using the moderation method for the first time, the second step also serves as an introduction to the moderation method: the participants learn how to handle the material.
3. deepening in small groups
In the first two steps, we have dealt with the topic rather superficially. Now we will deepen the work in small groups (4 to 6 participants). Each group
has a pinboard and works according to the following rules:
- Everyone writes their views on the topic on cards; the group does not discuss the topic at this stage.
- The cards are pinned to the pinboard immediately after they have been completed so that everyone in the group can see what their colleagues have already written.
- Group the cards with similar statements together into "clumps".
- Search together for generic terms (headings) for the clumps.
- Discuss the result. Ask the "closing" questions: What is still missing, what has not been said? Where are there other views?
- Appoint a presenter to present the group work in plenary. The first question for processing in the group could be, for example:
So that not only the shortcomings and disruptive factors are dealt with, the groups work on the question on a second board:
After completing this first part of the group work, all groups present the results to each other. A discussion in plenary is possible, but not essential.
4. gap analysis
Experience has shown that rarely all aspects are covered in a first round. For this reason, it is worth approaching the same topic again from a different direction. In our case, the further questions could be as follows:
The group again works according to the same rules as in step 3. Once the work has been completed, a presentation is given followed by a discussion in the plenary session.
5. list of topics
The fifth step is to summarize the headings of the various pinboards. As each group has worked individually, overlaps and duplications cannot be avoided. They are eliminated when they are transferred.
As a rule, deficiencies or strengths are also identified that cannot be eliminated or strengthened with training - they require other measures that must be ordered by the management, for example. For this reason, it is best to draw up a second list of topics:
6. weighting the topics
As it is generally not possible to deal with all topics at the same time during a training course, a weighting must now be made. To do this, all participants receive four sticky dots. Each person sticks the dots on the topics that they think need to be dealt with most urgently. Depending on the situation, you can also allow participants to stick 2 dots on a very important topic. The number of sticky dots determines the ranking and weighting of the topics. The pinboard could then look something like this (excerpt):
7. evaluation of the results
The 6th step concludes the work with the participants. The training concept is developed individually or in pairs. The moderation participants receive a photo protocol. It is also worthwhile to add their thoughts on the developed program. This ensures the connection between the survey of training needs and the revised program.
The text is taken from the book "The Pinboard Technique" by Dr. Victor Bataillard.
Order from Amazon
