A Taxonomy of Trainers

I am not intending to make a habit of blogging about training, but it recently struck me that people become trainers for very different reasons – and that this is reflected to varying degrees in the approach that they take to training. It might even be possible to define something like a ‘taxonomy of training types’. Donald Clark prompted me to make a start on this Linnean endeavour, in the hope that others might add their own discoveries:

Authoritative Andy: Andy is the expert. Worship his monumental expertise. Often a highly experienced practitioner, Andy sees his role as sharing the wealth of his knowledge with his hapless students. Sessions tend to be delivered as ‘information dumps’ often in a style which owes more to Andy’s quirks than the needs of learners. He’s not really a big fan of argument or alternative approaches. By slide 571 you will convinced that nobody in the world knows more about this topic than Andy.

Caring Karen: this type could equally have ended up in nursing, what they like above all is just how rewarding it is to help people – and especially to build their confidence. First and foremost what matters is nurturing the people in their care. Karen works well with people at the bottom of the personal development ladder, but evaluation is often expressed in ‘cards and flowers’ terms.

Performing Paul: wow. Is this a training session or a sales presentation? Could be either. Performing Paul is an entertainer, often with good interpersonal skills and always something of a showman. Brimming with confidence, performing Paul will leave a lasting impression – but not necessarily any lasting learning. Great at audience engagement and persuasive patter, Paul often focuses exclusively on his performance during the session, rather than that of his audience members after it.

Marathon Mark: you have to give him credit, he has overcome so many obstacles to get where he is today. For a some trainers training itself represents a personal challenge, and every session is a personal triumph of sorts. Marathon Mark delivers sessions which exact a huge toll on his energies – and sometimes leave learning and learners feeling as if they are just there to cheer.

Organised Olivia: ‘If you turn to section 4.1.3 of your colour booklet…’ you will find you are utterly overwhelmed by the sheer effort that has gone into planning and organising all this stuff. Organised Olivia is master of the training project, each element of the 427 step programme slotted into a spreadsheet and stapled carefully the night before. The terminator of the training world, brilliant at large-scale complex training rollouts, Olivia can come across as a little impersonal and fail to bring passion and enthusiasm to the table.

Look-at-me Lucy: you may feel as if you are in a scene from ‘Little Britain’: quite a few trainers clearly just like to be the centre of attention. Expect exaggerated performances and a holiday-camp atmosphere ‘let’s all have FUN!’ - and some of her sessions are, even if not in quite the way she intended. It has never occurred to Lucy to worry about learning effectiveness – the happy sheets say it all.

Evangelina: …probably knows more about training than you do. Evangelina lives, breathes and loves learning. Master of the holistic learning experience, this pedagogical Joan of Arc will seek to convert you even as you reach for your pitchfork. Capable of selfless devotion to learning, expect Evangelina’s rich and original sessions to reach parts of your shortcomings you didn’t know existed. So persuaded is she of the intrinsic value of learning that a hard-nosed analysis might be entirely unnecessarily.

Peter Pan: some people just didn’t have their natural sense of exploration and delight in learning beaten out of them whilst at school. Thankfully for us, a handful of these types have made it into training roles where they run highly learner-centered sessions buzzing with challenges and chit-chat. Peter is so at home in the classroom experience that he is unlikely ever to venture far beyond it, or sadly to achieve much influence over the training organisation.

Don’t get me wrong: this may sound very cynical, but I’ve seen trainers of every type achieve great things. And I recognise myself in at least one of the caricatures above – I only wish I had them all: I guess the perfect trainer would have just the right mix of enthusiasm and authority, a perfect balance of organisation and showmanship – equally caring and calculating in their assessment of what they do.

But if this type sounds rare, it’s been my experience that the rarest type of trainer of all is the one who can prove that they have made a difference; most will rely heavily on positive comments from delegates, some will cite impressive numbers of people trained. A very few will produce sophisticated-looking business cases promising ‘improvements in efficiency’ and ‘reductions in errors’ – promises so persuasive that nobody ever bothered to check them. It seems trainers either ‘just know’ they make a difference or can’t find a way to prove it. In my line of work the business outcome is often merely that we wasted less money – hardly something to write home about.

I do sometimes tire of the management obsession with measurement – as one wise colleague retorted ‘you don’t fatten a pig by weighing it’. True, but if you stopped feeding your pig and they didn’t lose any weight you might wonder if you were feeding them the right stuff.

What do you think – have I missed a few off the list?