Training trainers

Is corporate learning considered a retention tool? A recent survey found that’s exactly the case. Training is one of the preferred retention tools in Japan, Singapore and China, ranking only second to the universal crowd-pleaser of pay raises. In Singapore, 25% of respondents said training was the most valuable incentive to stay in an organisation. With only a few more (28%) suggesting bonuses were better motivators, it’s clear that Singapore’s workforce takes its training seriously, and that’s why HR should too.

Skills development is an integral aspect of the employee experience in any company, regardless of size, location or industry. Employees relish opportunities for career progression and personal growth, especially when it comes in the form of structured training.

It is HR’s role to match the learning needs of individuals with the appropriate resources and trainers. HR must also be aware of employees’ training gaps. In a volatile economy, this means keeping up with numerous unexpected changes in the organisation, across departments and roles.

The temptation to leave training solely to the trainers is high when other priorities need to be addressed on HR’s growing list of demands. However, employers who avoid involvement in the training process may inadvertently limit employees’ learning opportunities. The more HR is engaged in selecting a trainer, the more customised and fulfilling the learning process can be. As each organisation has its own set of training needs, HR must ensure the trainer is attuned to the unique aspects of these needs before attempting to address them.

Selection criteria

Generally, there are two ways HR can go about selecting a trainer. It can select somebody from within the organisation who has experience and demonstrated enthusiasm for guiding others. The other option is to outsource training to a service provider. Both strategies have separate advantages in terms of expertise and relevance, but if HR wants to maximise learning and development, it must be sure to make a considered choice.

Edwin Sim, Assistant Director, Learning and Development, Kaplan Professional, warns of the consequences of selecting trainers arbitrarily. “The greatest risk is putting the wrong person in front of a group of learners. Not only do learners fail to acquire new skills or improve, some even develop fears or disdain towards learning,” he says.

“Recruitment is critical,” agrees Sharlyn Stafford, founding partner of Stafford & Chan Training. She believes the abilities of a good trainer go beyond the desire to teach, although that is certainly a good starting point. Communication skills and a highly persuasive attitude are essential as well.

Stafford also believes that an unprepared or unskilled trainer can cause damage to employees’ perception of learning in the organisation. “Credibility and trust are compromised,” she explains. For example, a company whose in-house trainer lacks the competency and ability to deliver will make staff distrustful of future trainers.

Participants will also reduce their expectations, which can defeat the purpose of learning altogether. “When they come for training, they come with the wrong focus and positioning,” says Stafford.

Common misperceptions

HR plays a major role in identifying and developing trainers, but it can also be susceptible to common oversights, especially when engaging trainers from within the same organisation.

Should the same emphasis be placed on hiring external trainers and preparing internal trainers to lead learning and development initiatives? Experts say both types of trainers require attention from HR, but in different ways.

Trainers from an outside source are usually highly-skilled in motivating and relating to individuals, but they won’t be very attuned to the company’s specific needs and organisational culture. HR must brief these trainers thoroughly to point out the exact training areas. It is useful for HR to share its objectives with the trainers, and inform them of a deadline by which it would like the training needs met. When external trainers and HR collaborate closely, the end result is always much closer to the organisation’s ideals.

Trainers from within the organisation should already be aware of its culture and the training needs, so HR does not have to spend too much time acclimatising them. However, the selection process for internal trainers still requires a lot of evaluation.

Many employers mistakenly assume that a highly-competent worker will naturally possess the requisite qualities of an effective trainer. But Sim warns that isn’t always the case. “Training is a competency and many accomplished trainers take years to get there.”

HR can also mistakenly miss the next step in the training ladder; the development of trainers themselves. “Organisations forget trainers also require professional development,” Sim says. “It is important to periodically assess the developmental needs of your trainers so that they themselves continually learn and grow in their profession.”

It’s also easy to confuse a good presenter with an accomplished trainer. HR needs to distinguish between the two if it wants employees to learn valuable skills and not just be entertained for an hour. This isn’t to say a person with great presentation skills is not an asset, but if it’s not backed up by real training expertise, the effectiveness of any workshop will be short-lived. “A good trainer motivates others to take ownership of their learning and development and helps them improve their workplace performance,” says Sim.

The million dollar question

“Why do you want to be a trainer?” Sim says this is the most important question to ask any potential learning professionals. Almost all successful and accomplished trainers will cite their passion for helping people achieve their maximum potential, he says. If you hear something like that, chances are you have a good hire on your hands.

Still, there are other tests HR can apply. A model training session should be presented as a part of the trainer’s interview for the job. HR should follow up with an evaluation which includes its initial reactions and take-away lessons. How good is the trainer at engaging and building a rapport with the audience, and keeping the content relevant to the company’s training requirements?

According to Sim, post-training feedback forms are not reliable indicators of a trainer’s competency and effectiveness. “Instead, look at the learners he has taught,” he advises. “Are they performing better in the workplace? Are they more effective, more productive?”

The right type of trainer is aware of the need for balance in the teaching and learning process. A mix of lecture-style training and interactive training is ideal. Trainers should also be amenable to changes in their programmes, so look for trainers who can be flexible in response to learning needs.

Experience is important, but a shorter résumé should not necessarily be a deal-breaker. Employers will appreciate that the more experienced, the better-equipped a trainer will be at passing on skills in an effective manner.

On the other hand, HR might want to recruit somebody with no experience, perhaps creating an internal growth opportunity within the organisation. If this person possesses the potential and desire to train, Stafford suggests that HR collaborates with the trainer to map a path for future development in the new role.