Probably a bit negative of a title, but there’s some real value in this approach. Two weeks ago I spent 20-30 minutes describing the benefits and strengths of Team Foundation to a table full of my colleagues. Only one or two of them got it, the rest had no inclination to pursue the matter in any way.
Today I spent 5 minutes with one of those people that didn’t get it, and I was able to train them on TFS well enough to perform their job functions and left with them saying “This is a really good system for bringing all this stuff together”.
What’s the difference here? In the second case, I was demonstrating activities that directly benefit the individual in a highly visible manner. This is the key. Abstract, high-level overviews are nice for people actively looking for something to solve a problem, but people being asked/forced to use a new system don’t care for that. They won’t accept it unless they see benefits for themselves. Hence, greed-based training.
What is it really?
From my personal experience, greed-based training is really just applying andragogy‘s concepts in a one-on-one synchronous environment. Hard to write a process for, but easy to do if you know the person involved. For example, when I was selling TFS at my previous company over a period of months, each of the managers had a different image of what it was, because I communicated to each manager the aspects of TFS that helped with the challenges particular to that manage. Later, I was able to pull it together as people initially thought they were talking about different things, but realized that one system really could do it all.
So – if you want somebody to buy into something, talk about their benefit, not somebody else’s.