Thursday, December 9, 2010

You're Using a Game Show for THAT?!

When we talk to customers, we're always surprised at the broad range of content/material they incorporate into the game shows.

We were even more surprised as we uncovered that some trainers were using game shows to cover very traditionally sensitive/serious topics: sexual harassment, diversity training, etc. Topics where one wouldn't normally see people cheering, or --heaven forbid-- having fun.

I asked one trainer--a coordinator for student living on a college campus--why they were using game shows to train students on recognizing and reporting sexual assault. This was his response: "The subject is very serious and VERY important. However, we need to have an open dialog about it, and playing the game show diffuses the tension inherent in the room. People feel more open."

Here are some of the reasons why playing a game show with sensitive subject matter can be beneficial:

Your content is serious, but YOU don't have to be. Just because the content is serious, doesn't mean you have to take yourself seriously. It's okay to have fun--even in sensitive situations. Obviously, one doesn't want to be irreverent to the point of offensiveness--and pre-framing so that the content isn't trivialized is important--but adding competition to engage the audience is no crime.

The more important the subject, the more important the retention. It's critically important that employees know how to recognize harassment in the workplace. If the training is not engaging, they're less likely to remember the content. Game shows are a proven strategy for increasing attention and retention. Even though the content is serious, having a dry, non-engaging training session may jeopardize the content itself.

Games diffuse tension. No one likes to talk about personnel issues, for instance, but sometimes an open dialog is absolutely necessary. The friendly competition of playing a game breaks the ice and diffuses the tension in the room; allowing a trainer to segue into a deeper discussion.

No comments: