I was taking part in an interview today where everything that could go wrong for the interviewee, did. The laptop they had done the pre-task on died just before, they didn't have rights to install on the second laptop available and the internet connection kept fading - a challenge with people working remotely. They were meant to deliver a bit of a training for us, but with no material or connection, it wasn't possible. With nothing available for a prompt, they floundered for a little until my team stepped in to give something to stand on, some time to breathe and collect thoughts while we spoke in turn for a few minutes and then, some ideas as to what they could do from this point.
We let them sink and splutter for a while on purpose, not because we are cruel people, but what happened today has happened to all of us in the team at some point or another, and being able to recover fast is a critical skill to have. A similar thing happened to me when I interviewed for the job two years ago and, I pivoted and rather than delivering a training or using the material I had which was unavailable as the conference screen wasn't working - I delivered a software training on a flipchart.
These kinds of hiccups don't phase me much these days and about six months later, I delivered a technical administrator training on a flipchart in the same way, as the client was having troubles with their AD and hadn't the software available. What choice was there but to deliver something of value?
The interesting thing with these kinds of "disaster events" is that quite often, they end up getting the best feedback and tend to be the more useful training. I think that it is because there is a sense of collective struggle where everyone is having to work a little bit harder and compromise together in order to make the most out of a bad situation - which effectively changes the conditions into a good situation - if done well.
We should really get accustomed to plans changing constantly, as it is the way things will go on average. However, we live in a more stable bubble than we once did, as we tend to spend more of our time in engineered environments, designed to deliver familiarity and consistency on demand. We have also gotten used to having on-demand goods and services delivered in increasingly fast times.
But, because we spend time socializing online more than off, while information is available quickly,. we still have time to respond slowly, or at least think about how we are going to respond. What I have found is that a lot of the people who are witty online, aren't able to replicate that in the real world, as they do not have the timing for face to face social humor.
This also affects the ability to recover in front of a group of people when things go wrong, as many no longer have the practice of looking like an idiot in front of peers. The filter of the screen also gives a time cushion, where inputs can be analyzed and the right thing to respond can be developed in the space of seconds, minutes or even hours and days, depending on the format. The same thing isn't available face to face and, there is the added risk of body language indicating failure, even before trying to respond.
I could see in the interview today how much they were struggling and I wanted to "save" earlier, but it is important to go through this and it is a very good indicator as to whether they will actually go on in the process or not, in my opinion. The reason is that while the technical skills required can be quite easily taught, the social and personality skills required for a trainer or coach are far harder to affect. Someone can be technically great, but if they can't communicate in a way that engages their audience, they are not likely to succeed.
Just to note, we had a couple work arounds in place that we leveraged and I suggested that they do the delivery task in another session next week, which has now been organized. I know how hard it can be and I know what stress can do to a mind that needs to perform specific tasks - I am comfortable with these events now, because I have failed enough at them in the past and was forced to learn another way to cope.
A lot of people try to know enough in order to manage, to be well-prepared and have a contingency for every possible outcome. This is a losing strategy as no matter how well prepared a person is, randomness and unforeseen circumstances will eventually arise - so if a person hasn't developed the personal skills required to cope under stress of this kind, they will flounder and fail.
In my opinion, the skill most valuable in less than ideal conditions where some task still needs to be performed is, the ability to disconnect from the feelings about the circumstances and connect with what is available. Getting driven by the emotional state of bad situations doesn't generally end up with a great performance. Having some nerves is good, being anxious, embarrassed and victimized by conditions doesn't help find solutions.
For me in training deliveries, my anchor is the audience itself, as by engaging them into working on the problem with me, gives me time to develop a secondary plan for the future and, that plan is generally to include them even more in the training, which is probably why they end up liking the training, as it is their training event, not something given to them. A few questions, some suggested pathways forward and some brainstorming and pretty much everything will smooth out and even changed content will be okay, as everyone agreed to it, we all opted-in to the new plan.
Yes, plans change constantly, but it doesn't mean there is failure. Some people seem to think that executing a plan well is a success by default, but that is not actually the case in practice. Pretty much every event I have delivered, hasn't gone to plan, meaning that what was agreed and prepared, changes on-the-fly as new information comes to light. For example, the skill level of participants was higher or lower than expected, so the content has to be shifted up or down depending. sometimes, it has to go both ways simultaneously, which means being able to include the weakest link, but still add content for the strongest. For this, I often use tips and tricks that enhance usage of the product, as they are fast to learn, but it gives added proficiency to the skilled, without excluding the newbies.
I think we have all been in trainings of some kind where things have gone wrong and probably, we have seen the spectrum of reactions that a trainer can have, from the smooth sailing to the full shutdown. We probably have been in circumstances where we ourselves have had things go wrong and possibly recovered, or failed miserably.
I have failed a lot in my life, but I have got every job I have ever interviewed for except the very first one at 15 years of age - where I was so nervous I couldn't remember my home telephone number. It wouldn't have mattered - they weren't going to call me anyway. But, this doesn't mean all the interviews went well either - it is just that I have been able to salvage something from them and despite my shortcomings, be able to connect with the people giving the interview so at the very least, they will ask me back for a second, just to make sure.
Communication is all about engagement. Some people concentrate on what they are going to say, but pay no mind to how they are going to say it and if the way they deliver connects with the audience or not. Sometimes, the only thing needed to turn a failure into a success, is to reframe it.
How about you, have you ever been in a horror interview where everything has gone wrong? Have you ever been so nervous you shut down? Have you ever been able to recover, despite very challenging conditions?
There is a lot to learn from experiencing failure. Living in overly-engineered environments that protect us from error, might cost us skills that could save us in the future. People generally don't value something until it is missing when they need it. we might not realize what we've got til its gone - but I also think a lot of us don't realize what we need, but have never had.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]