As I often get my inspiration from networking with other training professionals, I ran across a response to a question posted on LinkedIn. This question comes up for time to time, and it’s a good question: What is the difference between a good trainer and a great trainer? I found Avinash Naidu’s answer to be exactly what I was looking for so I rushed out and asked him if I could use his response.
Of course I didn’t fly all the way to Bangalore, India. I used e-mail, and he graciously gave me permission.
Avinash Naidu’s institution, Maarga Life Foundation, a premiere life skills institute in India, is transforming the lives of people by teaching them key skills that is helping them lead successful and happy lives. As you are reading this, he is out there solving emotional problems of people, mentoring, coaching and conducting training programs for corporations.
“There is very little to debate on while deciding between a good and a bad trainer (in the context of training). The problem arises when we have to choose between a good and a great trainer. Anybody who is passionate about training can deliver a good program, but only a selected few can combine passion, intelligence, commitment, and cutting-edge skills to deliver programs of lasting value.
“Here is a common misconception while judging the value of a training program. If the trainer is able to engage the attendees throughout the session, and is able to create a wow factor by the end of the program, he/she is usually considered to be a great trainer. But, nothing can be further from the truth. A training program’s real worth can only be judged based on the lasting value it is able to create. Almost all trainers, with a little effort, would be able to create that wow factor. Most companies fall into the trap of believing that an engaging program is a great program. I believe that if engagement is the most important criteria, then attendees are better off watching a meaningful two-hour movie than attending a day long training program! Great trainers have the ability to move beyond engagement levels to create programs of lasting value.
“Here is one way of delivering an outstanding program of lasting value. Firstly, even before starting the subject of discussion, powerful learning states have to be created by getting the attendees on to thinking, analyzing, learning and interpreting mode. This is absolutely necessary to move the attendees from a judgmental mode to an accepting mode. Secondly, the golden rule of communication has to be followed –that is, if you want to influence somebody, you already have to know what influences them.
“First few hours of the training program should be dedicated to understand more about the attendee’s interests, aspirations, beliefs and influencing factors. Once the basic rapport has been established, important ideas have to be conveyed and the attendees should be allowed to present their interpretations. This process has to be followed to convey all new ideas – build rapport, present the idea, accept the interpretations. Finally, the trainer should use this entire process to create strong, unforgettable mental images that the attendees can hold on to long after the training program has ended. The ability to artfully do this differentiates an ordinary trainer from an extraordinary one.”
—
For more resources about training, see the Training library.
If you would like more information on Avanish Naidu or his Foundation, click here.
As for Jack Shaw, his training blogs can be found on this site, and related blogs on other topics through his Actingsmarts website under What I Say. For a look at the human side of training from his Cave Man perspective, please check out his book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.
The lasting effect is what makes the difference. It is using the all the skills you have to bring the information to a practical use for the audience and for them to retain it as long as they need it. I don’t think there is a recipe for the perfect trainer, but a great trainer has an impact, a mediocre one gets by.
I hate to say it but unless we tailor every training opportunity to all our strengths a few of our training sessions will not be out best. But that can be said of actors, too. Not every performance is the best, not every vehicle a 4-star event. It is the same for trainers.
We can strive to be one of the great ones, aware of our audience, know the tools and methods to hold its attention and deliver pertinent information, but we, too, need to experiment to expand what we do, explore new areas to achieve the most in possible impact.
Truly, the difference between a great and a good trainer may be psychological for us–a matter of marketing and telling ourselves how effective we are. That’s probably more real than anything because it is human nature. Only our audience can be the judge of how “great” we were when it’s over. If the boss sees results, great; however, more than likely, he’ll see the training assessment, which may be questionable but usable. Training greatness, then, is a matter of perception, rather than results, but doing our best will get us as close as possible; we’ll certainly do a great job.
For any learning to occur it must be internalized–a connection made between the audience and presenter. In acting, lines are memorized as well as the action the line represents. Lines mean nothing without what they represent, how they fit in the whole, and how they connect with the audience.
A good actor internalizes the information and attempts the same with the audience. It is only then, the message is received with the proper impact and remembered consciously, and becomes an unconscious part of the experience that is not forgotten. This only happens when the audience is able to identify with the action–with the whole. If a play, a film or even a book, changes you, it is considered art–so why not trainers or speakers? When a Great Trainer achieves change in his audience, he or she affects them personally, and internalization of the information and the “action” is possible.