The Train Driver's Dinner
A facilitation fallacy
“ I can’t see what the problem is!
I departed each station on schedule and got back to the depot in time for dinner.”
“Yes, but you are supposed to OPEN THE DOORS at the stations
to let passengers on and off!!!
IMAGINE A FACILITATOR who speeds through a workshop like a train driver, determined to reach the final stop on time, no matter what. I mentioned this error briefly in my first post on facilitator fallacies, and we succumb to it more often than we would like to admit. Maybe the workshop started late, but you still want to cover everything. Perhaps you stick to a rigid schedule, even if participants are struggling to understand. Or you find yourself resorting to only demonstrating complex technique without giving enough time for practical engagement.
Understanding the error:
It would be easy to dismiss this as simply an instance of 'the planning fallacy', the tendency to optimistically schedule timings based on a perfect scenario. But our focus here is less on why time is short and more on what the facilitator decides to do about it.
As is typically the case with facilitator's fallacies, what we are questioning are specific choices made 'in the moment' that, upon reflection, seem illogical.
Why on earth would we feel compelled to rush through, 'covering' everything in the plan even though it means that nothing is covered properly?
In hindsight, The Train Driver's Dinner approach is clearly misguided. Trying to cram everything in sacrifices depth for breadth, leaving participants overwhelmed and key insights underexplored. So, why do we fall into this trap?
The root of this fallacy lies in our desire to provide value. We want the workshop to 'go well'. However, of the numerous conditions that contribute to a successful workshop, none are definitive in isolation. For example, ensuring participants' physical safety is fundamental, but simply avoiding accidents doesn't guarantee success.
Prioritising adherence to planned timings is attractive. It provides a clear, straightforward measure of 'how it is going'. It's pretty simple: the session is on schedule, or it isn't. As sensible as that sounds, we are confusing the benefits of our 'planning'- where we refine aims and considering various ways of achieving them, with 'the plan'- the last version of our thinking before we dive into the workshop.
The 'plan' is not the only outcome of 'planning'
Most of the time, we know that 'the plan' is provisional. We mentally cross-reference between plan, planning and the reality on the ground, updating sequence and timings to best deliver the aims. But occasionally, especially when we’re under a lot of pressure, the plan can become an anchor. It can lock us in, making it tough to think beyond the assumptions we made before the workshop. When this happens, the plan is no longer a means of achieving the aims, it becomes the aim itself.
Strangely enough, in all the sessions I have observed, the most common cause of a 'Train Driver's Dinner' is not a lack of time but a plan that is not working. Faced with a lack of engagement or seeing activities fail to meet intended aims, the facilitator gives up and resorts to the written plan. They put their head down (literally not seeing the participants) and process the group through the pre-prepared sequence, often speeding up and getting louder to cover the absence of participation.
Potential consequences:
Questions and discoveries are ignored.
Anyone impeding the schedule/plan becomes an 'obstacle'.
Pseudo-achievement. Participants will not remember what happened in the session.
Ways of interrupting the fallacy:
Plan from core intention. Make sure you have identified aims before choosing activities.
Include elements of divergent thinking in your planning. Don't just go with the first idea and follow it linearly, consider a variety of ways of meeting the aims.
Establish options for simplifying or extending activities.
Ensure the written plan specifies the aim of each exercise. Then, when you need to adapt something, you'll be reminded what the original intention was.
Develop a practice of identifying and monitoring a range of qualitative metrics that can act like a Station Master's whistle - signalling the participants are 'on board'.
In hindsight, consider where more natural moments of completion might have occurred.
Always an error?:
Sessions generally have a fixed start and end time, with little or no flexibility to run over. This is a practical limit. Even when running over is possible, to do so without tacit agreement from the participants is to sublimate their time to your 'plan.' But, whilst good timing is necessary for a successful workshop, it is not, in and of itself, a sufficient condition.
Finishing on time is a professional requirement and can only rarely be overlooked. However, finishing the workshop within the time available is equally important in the sense of having reached a point of completion or pause (even if that end point is different to the one in the plan).
Links
Bibliography
Bennett, B., 2021. Logically fallacious: the ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies. Updated academic edition ed. Sudbury, MA: Archieboy Holdings, LLC.
Kahneman, D., 2012. Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin psychology. London: Penguin Books.
Withey, M., 2016. Mastering logical fallacies: the definitive guide to flawless rhetoric and bulletproof logic. Berkeley, California: Zephyros Press.