Your Revenue Driver
An emerging Instructional design technique is the use of debate.
Here is a video emory.arvmag.com/Debate/Emory_Debate_Promo_v3.mov that provides an overview of how this is being used in K-12.
Are you aware of the use of debate in workplace learning?
Are you willing to share your opinion on the use of debate in workplace learning?
(The Glenn Pelham Debate Foundation is active in the Georgia LEARNS(sm) initiative.
The only organization that comes to mind is Intel Corporation which, under Andy Grove, encouraged and expected fact-based dissent and debate. However, I doubt that they actively and intentionally trained their executives on how to structure a debate on a business issue. Without the appropriate definition of terms and training, the notion of "debate" is interpreted as an expectation of belligerence and argument. When the happens, there is more destruction than direction and more antagonism than advancement. When I had to do business with Intel in the mid-90s, their executives confrontational approach diluted business relationships. Conversely, I believe that applying Glenn Pelham's methodology and thoughtful instruction to key business decisions provides the chance to dramatically improve corporate learning, innovation and outcomes and to foster stronger, clear-eyed business relationships.
The concept of debate has always been powerful. Certainly, it is a proven means to share critical thinking and stimulate ideas and creativity. That is a key component of ideation and new product design. I am not experienced with firms who are offering "debate" as such in workplace learning and would enjoy learning more about their experiences.
The video you provided didn't contain enough detail for me to fully understand the concept. However after some digging I found this which helped me understand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjXGI0tHpl8
Debate is clearly an effective tool for improving communication skills in K-12 education and once we have a solid skill base established in secondary schools, it would not be necessary in higher education to improve communication skills. Secondarily I think it is a marvelous way to engage students at all levels.
I think that secondary benefit would become the prime benefit in workplace learning i.e. engaging others in learning themselves and teaching others simultaneously. That increases the speed of learning as well as increasing the retention rate.
I would be cautious about it's application across the enterprise because of the risk it would slow decision-making or cause analysis paralysis. Some years ago consensus building was in vogue and when it was misinterpreted or misapplied it stifled decision-making and had a hugely detrimental effect on many organizations i.e. HP & others.
The video was very good. I believe that this has a lot of merit. I believe the ability to debate allows both sides to be heard on a specific question. It is something seriously lacking in society today.
This September 6th I am the chair of an educational symposium for the Finnish American Chamber of Commerce - Southeast. Cosponsor is the Georgia Department of Education. It is to be held at the Carter Center. We are bring in Pasi Sahlberg, author of" Finnish Lesson: What the World can Learn for Educational Change in Finland." I believe the information provided in the video is great talking point.
Paul do you have any contacts at the Glenn Pelham Foundation. I would like to speak with someone at the foundation.