Why is directed training our professional development default?

In an interview process recently, I asked candidates the following question: How would you define the difference between facilitation and presentation? On the surface, this distinction may seem simple or obvious, but under the greater term of “education,” “development,” and especially “training”, the waters grow muddy. 

How would I define the difference? First, I’m going to shift my terms slightly from the question's premise. For the purposes of exploring this distinction, I’m going to use the term “directive training” in place of “presentation” so that we can compare and contrast with “facilitated training” as an alternative. In a world of complexity and nuance, training will not always fall neatly into these two categories, but let’s define them to explore the differences and implications of each. 

Directive training: an individual or small group of identified expert(s) have knowledge and/or experience which they share with a larger group via a discussion, speech, or presentation. The training often has defined objectives and may offer some form of an individual assessment linked to those objectives. Learners are largely passive vessels to learn and absorb from the defined presenter(s). The trainers have defined both the end destination and all points along the way which they hold themselves solely accountable for reaching. Learners are in a vehicle, invited to observe out the windows and ask questions, but the speed, direction, and ultimate pathway is all defined and controlled by the trainer who is the driver. 

Facilitated training: an individual or small group is tasked with structuring a guided learning experience for a small or large group of people. Facilitators will define the goals of the training in order to structure access to resources, prompting questions, and collaborative activities in order to arrive at a learning or product outcome. Facilitators do not have to be experts in the content core of the training, but they must apply their expertise in adult learning, productive collaboration, and effective dialogue. They must know where to find expertise and make it available to the learners. They must frame activities, discussions, and exploration within the objectives and goals of the training. Facilitators are clear on the end destination and have expertise in how to navigate the journey. Learners are participating in a ride-share: collaborating with the trainer who is the driver and the other passengers who communicate needs and preferences for the shared journey. 

The core difference between a facilitated training and a directive training is this: who owns the learning? 

My language may imply that I believe facilitated training a better model than directive training. That is not true. Rather, I believe each offers advantages and should be applied after an assessment of purpose, audience, context, and capacity. In my experience, adult learning in the form of professional training and development over-relies on directed training and under-utilizes facilitation. 

The immense popularity of TedTalks as well as platforms like MasterClass and even YouTube would quickly refute any claim that directed training is outdated or lacks power. Many who want to learn choose to listen and absorb without being engaged in a facilitated dialogue. Think back to a time you were riveted by an adoit speaker, buoyed by inspiring presentation, or relieved to find a concise tutorial. Our world begs for a proliferation of effective public speakers and relevant visual aids to expedite learning. Presentation and public speaking remain foundational skills for success in many of our current jobs and industries, even beyond training and development. 

However, too often, the directive lecture resides as the default for all training. I was reminded of this universal default setting recently when reading the Harvard Business Review’s article Where Companies Go Wrong with Learning and Development. Despite science pointing us to the importance of applied learning, short feedback loops, and interactivity as a way to cement learning concepts into long-term memory, professional training and development continue to rely on the well worn paths of sit-and-get directive training. But why? I have some hypotheses. 

Directive training…

• is familiar and comfortable. 
• requires less from both trainer and learner.
• feels (and in some cases may be) more efficient. 
• removes most uncertainty about process and outcome. 
• has power in certain contexts and applications. 
• has been the model of training and development for decades.
• is what learners expect. 

I challenge you to examine your organization’s professional development and training model. Are training sessions mostly passive experience for learners? Or are conversations co-owned and co-constructed by the learners? If training and development happen largely through online modules, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that 24/7 access or clicking on a screen equates to facilitated learning. Think about how much your learners are engaged by a skilled facilitator to have constructive dialogue and effective collaboration with their peers. Ask those who lead professional development to explain their approach to structuring training and development. See what you can learn about the capacity within your organization for skilled facilitation. 

Let me know how you might expand or revise my distinctions. Where have you pushed back on a culture of “this is how it’s been done before” within training and development? I look forward to the conversation.