Avis clients de Cegos.fr

bon panorama des techniques, mais les exercices proposés sont trop déconnectés de la réalité de mon travail. Trop de temps passé sur des choses assez basiques. Le fait de faire la formation par teams est aussi compliqué.

Formation hors sujet, pas travaillé, des slides au ras des paquerettes, une formatrice pas compétente...

J'ai trouvé la formation bien trop théorique je regrette de l'avoir suivie

Trop descendant, pas suffisamment d'exercice, ..Le peu de pratique était concentré en fin de formation et s'appuyait sur un support d'une autre formation.

Pas convaincue. Animation pas au niveau de mes attentes. Pas d'apport particulier de la consultante. Mauvaise répartition du temps, beaucoup trop de temps en J1 sur l'inclusion et les réveils pédagogiques tout au long des 2 jours, pas de mélange dans les groupes de travail, toujours les mêmes, et dynamique de groupe &quot mole&quot , pas de valeur ajoutée de la formatrice pendant les sous groupes de travail qui n'intervient pas (peut être avce l'autre groupe ?). Trop de répétitions de l'outil &quot inversion&quot très simple, et pas de pratique sur les &quot risques classiques&quot de la créativité: pas d'exemple de purge ou de pose du problème. Dans notre sous groupe aucun outil n'a généré de piste créative...Donc pas convainquant. Sensation de mauvaise connaissance des supports, n'arrive pas bien à utiliser les outils en distanciel, problèmes de connexions. PAs d emise en avant de méthode de travail en distanciel. Des methodes de présentiel qui sont transposées en visio. Plutot pour jeune débutant qui n'a jamais animé de sa vie, et ne connait aucun outil.

Trop long, animation ennuyeuse.

a formation est à 75% hors sujet par rapport a mon besoin. (3 demi journées consacrées à l'animation de réunion vs 1/2 journée sur de la mise en situation du &quot a distance&quot ... ça ne fait pas le poids et par les temps qui courent le besoin de montée en compétence est fort et urgent. Dommage !

There are three overarching reasons that I would not recommend this course to my workplace, friends or colleagues:....1) The methodology is so centered on a residential environment. You can absolutely see why in a residential environment away from the workplace and family you can bring together a strong cohort of people. However, this course has not taken the time to recognise that someone sitting at home in front of a screen for 40 hours a week is wrong. Not only does it put unnecessary stress on people who have to sit at a computer for this time, but it applies really difficult strain on families. The team call the 'sacrifice' but really this is the irresponsibility of the provider. The same outcomes could be delivered virtually but not in this current format. It is missing some of those key moments at lunchtime or between sessions that make a residential truly valuable. The extended hours held no value because the tasks which felt unnecessary impacted peoples personal circumstances. In addition to this there was so much wasted time in the agenda. For example:..- Two hours in the work where spent in providing and update on team scores..- The Friday afternoon session was nearly three hours of 'gratitude'. One of the sessions in particular felt set up so that the organising group could receive thanks.....2) This is not a leadership course, it is a teamwork course. Throughout the week you only really interreact with ten other people. where there are over 40 on the course. You have no time to lead but are constantly part of a team. The course isn't hugely innovative either. It took to the Wednesday to receive any models of leadership. The other side of the programme was the consistent practice of making people feel like school children with the idea of rules and teams losing points if this where broken. As a cohort of senior professionals this felt really regressive and at times offensive. Alongside this there was a huge inconsistency in the quality of delivery. Some of the sessions where particularly hard because of the facilitator. An example, was on the Tuesday a session with Arthur. This was an hour long talk but no visuals to follow and it was very difficult to understand.....3) The leaders also ranged in quality. On some instances there was great energy and conversations such as Veronica and Jose but other times really problematic delivery. During one of the business plan presentations one of the facilitators told a group they would not invest their money because the team where all white. This is hugely problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, the team had no choice who was on it and secondly, the cohort itself was not diverse which the coach did not even acknowledge. this was hugely offensive to observe and also had an impact on that team.....In particular, I want to highlight the poor behaviors of Javier Lenzner. Throughout the week they demonstrated really offensive behaviors that I think impacted the dignity and respect of the group. Some examples are:..- In a session delivered by Javier he asked people to imagine their death. The last two years many people have lost people due to illness and the pandemic this showed no real care for people. In the same session they also shared a picture of themselves after a car crash without any warning. The impact of this can be quite significant but they did not seem to care...- In a feedback session, even though we had been given a model to provide feedback, Javier decided he would give 'real world' feedback which was similar to that you would find on an x-factor show. He used terms such 'the team need to learn a lesson' and 'start again', the impact of this was hugely demotivating and patronizing.

Une théorie par assez approfondie (lien avec des études, etc...), la pratique est arrivée trop tard, manque d'anticipation pour connaître les outils utilisés par chacun des participants

Très mitigé