I've just been checking out an interesting site recommended by Friar Tuck called PLA (Participatory Learning and Action). One of the articles featured a training game called "Marching Soldiers" which the author says he's used with great success in many different places and cultures. In this game, one group acts as villagers trying to defend their village from the second group who play the part of an invading army. It made me wonder if this scenario has ever offended or bothered any of the participants who were involved in a similar situation in real life.

A few years ago I attended a train-the-trainer where we played a similar team game where the teams' objective was to "rescue" a colleague from a group of terrorists. My immediate supervisor at the time was someone who'd grown up in the Middle East and strongly felt that anything involving terrorists did not belong in a training game. He more or less excused himself from the game and then commented about his feelings in the class evaluation.

My questions are these: Has anyone else ever run into similar issues with games and, if so, what did you do about it? At what point do you consider not using such a game, or at least modifying the game so it doesn't include the aspect that someone found bothersome? Would you do so if only one student complained?

Wow -- interesting story. Personally, I would never use a game involving a war scenario unless, perhaps, I were teaching soldiers. Neither do I use war/military stories, metaphors or analogies.

What was listed as the purpose/goal of the game? I think it would be interesting to put our heads together and devise alternative games for accomplishing the same goal/purpose without involving "war games." If competition, protection, rescue and such are themes, there are many other ways to achieve those without the war metaphor/analogy.

Liz, unlike Always, I do tell stories about my military past. They have less to do with war, and more to do with the parallels between military training and corporate training. Often though, I will give the story some perspective by providing a submarine-related anecdotal story. I certainly keep any mention of hostilities out of it, so I suppose you could say it has been cleaned up for the more sensitive of my students, but they do work for making the point I'm trying to make.

As for games that simulate terrorism or fighting, I would stay away from them unless, as already mentioned by Always, it serves a very specific purpose in a class focused on that subject. So while you may not have to limit them to soldiers, you would be advised to make certain your audience can tolerate the game/story, and can put it to use afterwards.

Regarding your question about changing my approach if one person among many found it bothersome, I would have to say that if they took offense, I would change it in a heartbeat. I would be in a place where I'd have to presume that this person could easily be speaking for many who felt the same way but weren't willing to verbalize it or write their feelings down.

Just my thoughts....

Regards,

Del Laughery
President, Instructional Dynamics

Not all exercises that some find offensive should be discarded.

I use an exercise at retreats that is found to be disturbing to a lot of people (I usually try to end it before a fist fight breaks out) but it's sort of the point to the exercise - which is to bring frustration to an absolute head so that the participants thoroughly understand the situation we need to discuss.

It begins by breaking a the group into smaller groups. Everyone has to remain sitting. A "policeman" patrols the area and anyone standing will be "arrested" and brought to an area for a period of time.

Each group gets some paper, crayons and scissors to build a small community of paper buildings. You then have a budget to "buy" more supplies. The group has to agree on the design and approach to building the city.

A number of things occur (not going into the whole exercise) but patterns begin to develop where certain groups get free paper, larger budgets, and more attention from the moderator. Other groups begin to get frustrated, as there is no discernable reason for the groups being treated differently.

It amazes me, but grown adults will begin tirades over the fact that another adult got two pieces of paper. But that is the moment that I know the group has bought into the exercise. And a good number of people end up standing to voice their frustration, and they get arrested, and the group loses "money" and resources.

After it runs for a bit longer, and tempers get hotter, and frustration builds to a boil, I stop the exercise and form the group for a discussion. Before anyone is allowed to speak, I explain the point.

The gist is this: this is how urban centers formed and this is how states distribute resources. Suburban areas get greater funding because (draw from example in exercise) than urban areas. Poor design, arrests, and other factors leads to bad reputations and anger in the community.

When the group is focused on the point of the exercise, I let them discuss the exercise themselves. This is one of the more powerful Diversity trainings that I do.

A number of people have complained that the exercise should be run differently because they felt uncomfortable at the level of anger and frustration. But it's that anger and frustration that I need to develop, so that the participants can understand some of the frustration that people who live in urban areas feel.

So while I see that there might be an instinct to shy away from some topics, there MAY be a greater point to the training that was intended but not made clear that makes it critical. And just because someone complains doesn't mean that it should be scrapped. It just may be that they need an explanation as to why the exercise was designed that way.

quote:

Liz, unlike Always, I do tell stories about my military past. They have less to do with war, and more to do with the parallels between military training and corporate training.

This is quite different, in my opinion, than having people participate in war games. Additionally, you personally experienced life in the military, therefore it's only natural that those stories are in your bag of training tools. I've worked with the military and certainly use those tales of woe as examples for customer service, cultural differences, sales tactics, etc. My aversion is, specifically, to using violent games, metaphors, similes.