One class that really stood out to me was a public speaking course I took freshman year. At first, I thought I was going to hate it, but the way it was structured made a big difference. The instructor used a very hands on, discussion based approach. Instead of just lecturing, we had some fun activities that felt practical, like speaking a random sentence using a random emotion as a way to do role-call, which was difficult but kind of fun. It forced us to get out of our comfort zones and actually practice in a way that felt real. I now realize this connects with what the Harvard Business Review article said about the importance of social support and feeling connected in training (Ellis et al. 2017). That class felt supportive and clear about expectations. It also lines up with the ideas from First, Break All the Rules about “defining the right outcomes” and letting people figure out their own way to get there (Buckingham 2016). On the other hand, when I was in the Air Force, we had tons of trainings called CBT’s, or computer based training, for stuff like operational security and flightline safety. Honestly, most of us just clicked through them and passed the quiz at the end. They didn’t relate to anything we were actively doing and felt like a box to check, not something useful. It was also repetitive and we had to do them every month so most of us had memorized all the answers. It reminded me of the old UPS training style before they created the Integrad program, just a lot of memorizing without applying anything (Hira 2007). There was no interaction or support, and no one really cared about it. It didn’t help us grow or understand the mission better. From what I have learned, I think training is most effective when it’s interactive, goal oriented, and actually helps you connect with the material instead of just throwing info at you.
