What is that exactly? Where do trainers come from? Are they born or made, as I like to ask my University students of “speakers.” Trainers are a little different. Trainers are made of parts, like the human body, and have many interacting functions or working parts. Without some parts they die. With others, they thrive.
Following the basic tenets of leadership, trainers, it seems, are:
- designated or assigned
- assumed as a matter of position
- discovered as they emerge over time with the company
- discovered as they emerge during a serious situation or crisis
- educated to be trainers
Like leaders, trainers can be designated or assigned the task and have to learn the material or are a subject matter expert (SME) already. You could hold a high position that includes the training aspect and therefore it is assumed you are responsible–essentially, no training needed for you (not really), or after the company gets to know you and has seen you communicate and present material in a variety of ways perceives you to be a person who has qualities that may be deemed worthy of an in-house trainer. This would be an emergent leader. In your case, an emergent trainer. There is the leadership that emerges during a specific experience for example, a high-stress, extremely important problem-solving situation where your leadership/training abilities are noticed. That is known as situational leadership and let’s say trainer. Perhaps, you are too young for a leadership position, but training is a good place to start. There is another that might be compared to a company bringing in an outside executive. You just finished a graduate program in human resources and training. So, you are educated for the task.
It is nice to be put in the same league with leaders and in some ways I think just as important. Many decisions are made at that level that are not training issues that can be discovered before undertaking extensive measures to train staffs of managers and lower level employees. However, we run the gamut of the business, corporation, and non-profit world.
We are at all levels–entry-level to senior staff. Where we are in the organization depends a lot on where we came from–how we got to where we are. Some of us were so dedicated we learned all we could from books, courses, and other trainers. Some of us had a training plan all made out for us by our predecessors. Is that wrong? I’m not here to judge your work ethic; I’m just trying to provide some enlightening views. There are probably a lot more of comparisons I can make with leaders, but I won’t go into that now. I want to clear the air. Our goals are the same wherever we are placed in the company or organizational chart. Sometimes we have a chance to move mountains, sometimes not. I know what it’s like to be stuck. That’s one of the reasons why I write.
My interest in people is two-fold: how do people perform under pressure and what makes people act the way they do in a group.
After publishing almost 200 training and development blog articles, about a 100 theatre critiques and articles on performance, four books, including a novel, it is about time I introduced myself again and why I write about training as way I do–not as an expert on training with a lifetime of training experience, but more as an observer. If you’ve read my blog before you know my background as a communicator. As well as having done professional acting on stage, film and commercials, I teach at a couple of Universities when I have an opportunity as a visiting professor.
I am retired from the Federal government where I was “discovered” and made a trainer after the training officer saw that I had skills. It had taken a long time to emerge as a trainer over time. Human Resources is always slow in government. So why bother? I wanted to do something different. The signs were obvious it seemed to me; I was a public affairs officer with years of experience. Before that Federal job, as Air Force officer, I was selected to teach at the U.S. Air Force Academy and ran the Summer Survival Training Camp. I was recruited out of Officer Training School to give presentations about the Air Force around the country–later to talk and lead people through the inside of Cheyenne Mountain. My education is unique: an interdisciplinary dual Masters in English and Speech/Theatre and another Masters in Social Psychology. The interdisciplinary degree is in performance criticism.
I hope you can see why my focus is people-based. I don’t knock the use of technology, but I want to make sure it is getting through, that it is not part of the frustration of taking the training itself. If it is, I try to report it and offer ways to fix it. I know “learning theory.” I’ve had those classes. Maybe not couched the same way as in “Training Programs,” but, in fact, it was a very strong interest of mine, why I love teach as well my personal interest in classroom teaching. It may sound egotistical, but I’m good at it. I can talk. I was an actor and a director, a professional speaker, as well as a speech coach for executives. Would you expect anything less? I have to assure my University speech students this my speech classes are not performance classes, that their classes also have to do with organization.
As a trainer as well, in whatever kind of training I’m doing, I treat my trainees as individuals; they are not the company some people put on their resume. The company name does not go on my resume because I do custom work and that is confidential. That doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be on other resumes. It’s just me.
I don’t feel classroom training is in lieu of any other kind of training. Not all training has to be done in the classroom. Some can be done on a handout–if you trust your staff to read and sign that they did, or a CD or DVD for them to see, or computer-based or a combination, etc. All this training depends on the type of business, company or organization we are talking about. Needs aren’t always the same.
I turn down work as often as I accept it; maybe, that’s the beauty of retirement, or a wife who is a working professional. If you are an in-house trainer, advise your boss on what you think is needed, but in the end, it is he or she who makes that decision. Again, it will depend where you are in the hierarchy.
To me, there is no one training product or system that does it all. No one trainer that does it all. I know some trainers and vendors will hate me for this: no long term contracts. I know there are in-house trainers who are so insecure they always buy off-the-shelf products or hire out-of-house services. All I can say at this point, is be careful. Try whatever someone is trying to sell in the short term, check references, and look for articles that may talk about the programs they use in an unbiased way. Obviously, not the vendor’s website.
As for me, the buzz word is customize. Customize with your own creativity. Create in the classroom. Problem-solve in small groups. Use products you know personally that work. Test products of which you’re pretty sure of the result.
For more resources about training, see the Training library.
A final reminder: I do have a website where you can find other items I have written, including coupons for my best selling, The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development and my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality! You might even get them for free. Happy Training.
These are great insights into how and why people become trainers. I have also seen good trainers (and good training) come from leaders who realized that — at that moment or over the long haul — the most productive thing they could do is to train their people. This is particularly true in high-tech, where a few months without training can really leave you behind. And, when you think about it, we’re all in high-tech to some degree. We all use the Internet, cell phones, web-based software-as-a-service; if we aren’t properly trained to take advantage of the latest features, we’re behind the competition.
Hello Jack,
I totally agree with you on the fact that trainers come from leadership. You do not have to be in the classroom to be a trainer and you also do not have to have a degree in training to be a trainer. If you develop experience on a subject matter that needs to be taught to someone you can actually be their trainer on that subject. Leadership comes from within someone and their character. A leader can learn and teach what he has learned to others. Classroom training is getting older by the minute and new techniques are arising for our industry. I personally enjoy online learning and training myself rather than being in a classroom.
Murat Bashelvaci
Roosevelt University
Training And Development
Murat,
I think you misunderstood my basic premise. Sorry that it has taken me so long to get to this. For the most part, I am saying that trainers can be anywhere in the organization. We are not all created equal. I do not always agree a subject matter expert (SME) is the best choice of a trainer. Having an SME standing by to answer questions and clarify points and using the trainer more as a facilitator works best. If the SME is not a good communicator, he or she is likely to give too much information and literally gag the audience. I did start out my piece by using the same places where leadership may be found–the idea being that trainers are often found that way, too, and may often exhibit leadership qualities. In fact, I have written pieces that encourage trainers to be leaders in their organization, to take initiative, to motivate employees, to advise the boss; after all, the trainer represents the boss, the very image of boss’ vision, every time he or she stands in front to train. Now, I have students who would agree with you about online learning and training themselves rather than being in a classroom. That depends on so many variables. How devoted the student is to learning. How good the program is. What about retention? Is the program memorable enough over time? Some subjects where little has to be retained and is of minor interest (usually box-checking) are perfect for a packaged program, and we’ve had them for years in one shape or another. If the online learning involves you actually performing the task you are learning, then it is beneficial. Again, we have to talk about retention. Bad classroom training gets old quickly; good classroom training, which is dynamically presented and involves the trainees in various tasks, can actually be fun. The major point to take away is: not every training session has to conform to any particular form except that which best suits the subject you are training about. Something to think about. Trainers teach leadership. Can leaders teach training? Training leaders and trainers to lead works best. In my humble opinion.
Jack Shaw
TrainingSmarts
http:www.actingsmarts-jackshaw.com
These are great comments. Sorry that I couldn’t respond earlier. I have to note that one comment is from a vendor of specialized programs and a student. To some extent I don’t disagree with either one of you. I do believe in knowing my trainees and for the most part they are getting more sophisticated when it comes to technology (I do note that and adapt in my audience analysis without fail), but one size does not fit all and we can’t shove it down their throats and say, “You’re behind the times, catch up!” Leaders should train their people, but with an open mind to the scores of methods out there and what is best for his company and he or she should not be sold training products or services. However, that’s what we do isn’t it? We sell our “brand.” I don’t advocate classroom only for training, nor do I think it is dying. There is a time and place for it. What is dying is the number of people who can do a dynamite job keeping trainees engaged and excited about the work. There are other products that can work just as easily for some training, such as online, but for others there is no substitute for human interaction. I have also heard from students and trainees that they took an online class and hated it for just that reason. Sometimes it’s a matter of personality. Some people do work better alone. Some work better with others. Who works better on a team? With my blog I drum up ideas. In this case, I was reminded that the leadership model fit trainers very well and used it to show some trainers they should step up to the plate. An experienced trainer should be involved in buying products or services he or she can’t provide. If it is a small company, the ceo had better be training savvy or bear the weight of being taken and wasting a valuable resource he or she may purchase. He or she needs a company bias; after all, it is his or her company. As for preferring to be taught online, a trainer or educator selected and designed that program and you can bet whoever did tried to incorporate a human interactive element as well–even if it is e-mailing, e-boards or threads you must share with your classmates. Again, as I have stressed time and time again, especially in this post, trainers all come from different backgrounds and have different ways of expressing themselves. My next blog is on Talent and Performance. I assure you it will be different. And I welcome guest writers to talk about what they believe works as long as they keep it generic. Thanks.