<div class="text-justify">

While currently I am doing some quite intense onboarding into a new position whilst simultaneously transitioning and handing over from my old, one of the things that has been enjoyable is taking part in the interview processes of candidates to replace me. 

What this means is sitting in on a team interview where the applicant delivers a cut-down version of an enduser training session based on our product, using their own materials and whatever they can glean from what is provided online. It is always interesting to see what points they highlight and what stories they utilize in their approach, but it doesn't really matter if they get the technical details correct or not, as it is about their delivery style and methodology. The reason is that it is *much easier* to teach the technical details than the ability for a person to engage well with the audience and it far faster to get a person who has delivery technique up to speed, than someone who has technical expertise, but lacks training ability. 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/427899493183258625/934027309353160714/IMG_20220121_111821.jpg

It is always fun to be part of these interviews to meet new candidates, but it is quite apparent which have potential and which do not, just by observing the audience. I would say that without seeing the delivery at all, through watching the body language of the audience you would be able to quite accurately predict which are going to cut it from an engagement perspective. And this is what I do in these team interviews. 

Rather than only focusing on the candidate, I observe my colleagues (we keep cameras on) and their facial reactions, their posture, the questions they ask and, the tone of voice used. By gauging these few data points, I am able to see not only how well the trainer is engaging the audience, but also how my colleagues are unconsciously connecting with them, which gives some indication as to how they will gel with the team on a personal level. This is important, especially since the training team is very much a "people orientated" department, making the ability to connect with humans a premium skill. 

It is funny at times though when I think back to high school days where I was the kid that found it incredibly hard to present to an audience and when doing the *in front of class* assignments, my hands would be visibly shaking. Weirdly perhaps for many I know IRL, I am actually introverted and reflective, rather than outgoing and gregarious, the normal traits required in the roles I do. However, I have *learned* that my introversion and extraversion can be situational, meaning that I am now able to flex my personality based on conditions, rather than be restricted to my "default" personality. 

Diving a little deeper, I realized it is very much like dancing, where the music played is going to affect the movements made. And while I am going to be affected myself, as an enablement trainer looking to engage my audience, I also have to be able to affect the music. By building effective strategies to engineer the conditions for a successful engagement, I am able to shift the tempo and rhythm of the session and thereby, change the dance of participants. This creates a positive feedback loop that energizes both me and the audience together in ways that lower the barriers to learning, by raising the ability to learn.

There are many techniques and strategies that can be used, but it is interesting to see how people coming in "cold" to the interview approach engagement, if they approach it at all. Some just deliver what they have been told to deliver looking at the features of the software, while others intertwine a story through examples and personal experience. I am more (perhaps obviously and to a fault) the latter, but I have learned it "on the job" through experience. Only in recent years have I discovered that some of the things I do have similar formal methodology. 

Feature based training has its place of course, but it is more for troubleshooting content, training a specific set of steps. However, if needing to affect mindset and understanding, the story-based learning approach is far more effective at developing a fundamental logic that underpins and supports a host of features that can be introduced upon it. This is where I spend my time professionally and personally, looking at the "platform" through conversation, not the details of every usecase and application that can be built upon it. 

Taking a step back from this, I think (in my eyes) it is pretty obvious why I love Hive and produce the content I do and in the way I do, as it is about the conversation around the platform that enables people to build their own features (take their specific approach) to improve their experience. With a client organization it is the same deal, where the base understanding allows them the framework to choose which features are the most relevant for them to enhance their ability in the workplace to fulfill their specific role.

From a learner perspective, there are people who want to just be given a list of steps and told what to do, while there are others who want to learn how to dance. What I have found is that almost without exception, it is the dancers who become not only the superior users, but the driving force that expands usecase and returns more value, often improving their own conditions along the way, as their own repertoire of abilities grow and, they are getting better at making music music with the growing number of instruments they can play.

We all affect our world through our actions and interactions and I think that even though it might not come "naturally", we can improve the way in which we do things - if we are willing to understand what we are trying to achieve and break our defaults. Sometimes it is useful to change the music to suit the way we dance, other times it is useful to learn some new steps. 

Not all DJs take requests - but still, everyone is dancing.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]



</div>