We have a common problem in many of our leadership classes, the strong ones leading while the weaker learners just coast along. As facilitators we can almost see the learners who have been forced to be there vs those who are excited to be there.
Those who have been forced become wall flowers and lean too much on those who are excited to be there. One of our facilitators finds that mixing up the groups frequently, and even placing those who are wall flowers together forces the issue and makes wall flowers unite to solve problems.
In Ranger School we were forced to implement the worksheet rating approach that you mention in your post. At the end of each session we had to rate everyone in the squad from 1-8 and no number could be re-used. Ergo, the people who were ranked last were re-organized into a new squad to see if it was a personality issue with the team. If you were ranked 8 twice you had to recycle and try the entire session again. This was brutal in many respects as each session someone would be ranked last, invariably, no matter how hard you might try, but as we all knew the risk of the rating, we were all striving constantly to do our best.
One thing we found about the rating system it that it led to a network or alliances. Rangers would link up with buddies and do their best to be their safety net against being rated too low. The Ranger Instructor's countered this by forcefully breaking up alliances and intervening as they saw fit subjectively. Sort of like the facilitator I mention at the beginning of this post.
No comments:
Post a Comment