‘Why not use managers to train managers’ by Barry Johnson and Mandy Geal, Training Journal, July 2010

I have to confess to some inbuilt and self-serving prejudice against this article because, to some extent, MTP’s business depends upon managers not running internal finance and business courses and agreeing that specialist learning expertise is required. We have also found over the years that good managers do not necessarily make good trainers and that it is possible to be a superb trainer without much management experience.

Nevertheless some powerful points are made in favour of encouraging managers to train other managers, rather than bringing in specialists - internal or external - to do so. The first point is that it is developmental for the manager concerned and will improve his/her performance; it is impossible to deny this point because all trainers know that you learn more from every session. One challenge might be that a manager may learn even more from a joint session with an experienced trainer and the audience may do so too. One valid criticism of the article is that the choice is presented as ‘either/or’ and the authors do not raise the possibility of managers and specialist trainers working together; in our experience this is how the best sessions are often delivered.

Another powerful argument in the article is that the manager will know the company culture and will be able to provide specific examples of application of learning. This is clearly valid though our view is that the external trainer can, with experience, support and commitment, also get close to that ideal, while also providing an external perspective and, if required, a degree of challenge to the status quo..

I would have warmed more to the author’s views if there had been some acknowledgement that much depends upon the objectives and the content of the training. If it is about compliance with internal company systems or a relatively instrumental process, the manager may be the best person to run the course. But if it is a more conceptual topic where maybe the company wants to challenge the validity of internal practices, the external view will be important. Existing managers may want to perpetuate their own way of doing things rather than looking for new ways to improve. There may also be problems that the ‘prophet in own country’ is, rightly or wrongly, not always listened to as much as the external facilitator, particularly for more senior programmes.

The final point which the article does not fully address is the fact that many managers do not have the time or inclination to train others and may not be able to do so effectively. Our experience of running Train-the-Trainer programmes is that managers are often concerned when they find out that running an effective course is not about presenting on PowerPoint but is about managing a series of challenging interactions; it requires a lot of preparation and commitment, and a willingness to persevere, even if the first session does not go well.

And there are bound to be some failures, which can be a dispiriting experience for all concerned; but it has to be appreciated that, just as many trainers do not make good managers, some managers, even after ‘Train-the-Trainer’ sessions, do not make good trainers. This article would have been more credible if it had presented a more balanced view; though maybe some readers might feel that the same applies to this review!

To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/