i .r

.4 s 3...

{Mi .
.3: . 53. $23qu

in “uufixzuwhs

aha

.52....

23.3. a: ..

. £13153!
.2 \P!‘

u:

£25.58...
.. f. : I»
25!!!!
. 3.5.493.
2.... .2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5
.fimm‘...
«m9

e.

I

V a» .3
e F... .. .5... r...

1..V¢t.r1pl.lx1-4 av". .VIII

1 4 “its: 7‘". . .hauvi. t ‘3

an. t 5..., .2 5......"

«mush .

-2.
3:...
4.53 2:4... .3.
a. . z
. 132......rn3
\IVIio“1'IA C.
,3}... k:.!.......?.. .
.l.’ 4:);‘5

‘ a i
It?! .3.

2.- .raniiiamli 3.0150.)
:1; .5. s...

. Luvs, \r 3;.a.it.§.;.

1.. . .. .
‘ Fuafi‘.?oibvgcn)
. ‘ i

 

 

 

THESI"
zoom

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

TEACHING IN INDUSTRY: CAREER CHOICES, JOB EXPERIENCES,
AND CAREER PERSISTENCE OF
TRAINERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

presented by

Judy Joy Bailey

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration

5%, Made

Major professor

 

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

AUG 1 1 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuepss-ots

TEACHING IN INDUSTRY: CAREER CHOICES, JOB EXPERIENCES,
AND CAREER PERSISTENCE OF
TRAINERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

By

Judy Joy Bailey

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration
College of Education

2002

ABSTRACT

TEACHING IN INDUSTRY: CAREER CHOICES, JOB EXPERIENCES,
AND CAREER PERSISTENCE OF
TRAINERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

By

Judy Joy Bailey

This dissertation examines why trainers who did not originally choose training as
a career continue in it despite the difficulties of the job, rather than work as practitioners
in their first careers. It seems contradictory that someone would find satisfaction and
persist in a career far from the work for which he or she was trained. While it is true that
many people change careers over life, it is the case with trainers that they are often
employed for a long time in activities which they never anticipated. These trainers
originally chose to be financial analysts, health care professionals, engineers, business
administrators, or other business-related professionals instead of teachers. They came
into teaching late—many even came into it accidentally. While current job satisfaction
and career persistence theories appear to explain some of this career persistence, much
still seems unexplained. Training has aspects that make it exhausting—job pressures,
travel, and the repetitiveness of teaching the same content many times to similar
audiences. This dissertation reviews the existing career persistence models and job
satisfaction theories and their relevance to the conclusions drawn through the interviews
conducted of a small group of trainers who provide information about how they got into

the field and what motivates them inside or outside of the classroom to continue teaching.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 4
Work Environment of Trainers ..................................................................................... 6

Similarities and Difi‘erences with Higher Education ................................................... 6
The Repetitive Nature of Training .......................................................................... l 1
Who Employs Trainers? ......................................................................................... 12
Where Does Training Take Place? .......................................................................... 13
Employees’ Attitudes About Training ..................................................................... 17
Summary of Training Work Environment ............................................................... 20
Job Satisfaction and Career Persistence ...................................................................... 20
Consequences of Job Satisfaction ........................................................................... 24
Limitations/Delimitations ........................................................................................... 25
Definitions ................................................................................................................. 26

Chapter 2 - What We Already Know ............................................................................. 27
Changing Needs of Learners and Organizations .......................................................... 27
The Economics of the Continuing Education and Training Industry ............................ 29
What We Know About Teaching ............................................................................... 32
The Commonality of the Teaching Experience ............................................................ 34
Motivation and Persistence in a Career ....................................................................... 36
The Meaning of Work ................................................................................................ 39

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology ............................................................................... 41
Theoretical Framework in Qualitative Research .......................................................... 41
The Traditional and Modernist Phases of Qualitative Research ................................... 42
Constructivist Paradigm ............................................................................................. 45
Interviews as a Research Method ............................................................................... 47
Protocol ..................................................................................................................... 48

Script ..................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 4 — Entry Into Training as a Career ................................................................... 52

Adult Career Development ......................................................................................... 53
Training As a Non-Traditional Career .................................................................... 55
Understanding Careers ............................................................................................... 56
Unplanned Entry Into Training ................................................................................... 59
Daniel D ................................................................................................................ 59
Vickie L ................................................................................................................. 61
Pam W ................................................................................................................... 63
Bill A ..................................................................................................................... 64
Dawn M ................................................................................................................. 65
Planned Entry Into Training ....................................................................................... 67

Fred C .................................................................................................................... 67

Richard P ............................................................................................................... 69
Paul M ................................................................................................................... 73
Tim K .................................................................................................................... 75
Summary ................................................................................................................... 78
Chapter 5 - Job Experiences of Trainers ......................................................................... 80
Training as an Unknown Career ................................................................................. 80
Working Conditions ................................................................................................... 82
Travel .................................................................................................................... 84
Preparation to Teach .............................................................................................. 85
Getting to the Classroom ........................................................................................ 87
Getting to Know the Students ................................................................................ 88
End of Day ............................................................................................................. 91
Cognitive Processes of Trainers ................................................................................. 92
Trainers as Learners ............................................................................................... 94
Summary ................................................................................................................... 97
Chapter 6 - Career Motivation and Persistence of Trainers ........................................... 100
Making a Difi‘erence Through What They Teach ...................................................... 102
Social Relationships with Learners ........................................................................... 107
Praise and Recognition ............................................................................................. 109
Personal Learning .................................................................................................... 110
De-motivators .......................................................................................................... 1 1 1
Repetitive Nature of Instructing Training Programs .............................................. 113
College Teaching as an Alternative ....................................................................... 117
Summary ................................................................................................................. 118
Chapter7—WhatThisAllMeans ................................................................................ 120
Factors That Make Trainers Different From Other Educators ................................... 120
Trainers’ Relationships to their Employers ........................................................... 120
Trainers’ Relationships With Learners .................................................................. 123
Accountability of Trainers .................................................................................... 127
Efl‘ects on Trainers’ Teaching .................................................................................. 129
Difl‘erences in How They Teach ........................................................................... 130
High Energy Levels on a Consistent Basis ............................................................ 132
Organizational Loyalties ....................................................................................... 133
Selfand Career Development ............................................................................... 133
Complex Dynamics Relating to Their Career Persistence .......................................... 134
Training a Subsidiary, Evolved Career Choice ...................................................... 134
Training as a Non-Traditional, “New Age” Career ................................................ 135
Difiicult Working Conditions ............................................................................... 137
Repetitive Nature of Training ............................................................................... 141
Compensatory Motivators — the Intangibles .......................................................... 145
Summary ................................................................................................................. 147

iv

Chapter 8 - Research Conclusions ................................................................................ 149

Changing Nature of the Training Industry ................................................................ 150
Changing Roles of Trainers ...................................................................................... 152
Future Research ....................................................................................................... 153
Reference List .............................................................................................................. 155

Chapter 1 - Introduction

All my life, I have either been a teacher or have been around teachers and teaching
of one sort or another. I have observed that some people are drawn to teaching while
others cannot imagine teaching as a career. I have been a high school teacher, a college
teacher, and a tutor. In addition, during a fifteen year career in the training industry, I
have coordinated training in a manufacturing organization, evaluated all types of training,
designed and developed both classroom and online training, wrote about training, and
even marketed training. I have also been active in a national professional association for
continuing education and training.

A few years ago, I was inspired to study individuals who teach continuing
education and training programs, a field not well known or understood by those outside of
it. My inspiration occurred during a phone conversation with an instructor I had known
slightly for several years. He had recently been diagnosed with cancer, a concern to us
because he was our sole instructor for a course that was critical to the major automotive
client for whom we administered training. I had been asked to call him and discuss
potential replacement solutions while he was undergoing chemotherapy. My expectation
was that he might be retiring permanently.

Instead, he told me he “couldn’t imagine not teac ' g” and would not retire no
matter what the situation. We got into a long discussion about being in the classroom and
how we enjoyed teaching. We talked about other people we knew who felt the same way

he did, including the instructor who taught for us until only a few months before his death

at age 86. When I told him I was working on a doctoral degree and might write a
dissertation about the subject, he volunteered to be my first research subject.

He made me think about the many people I knew who taught seminars or “short
courses” and who loved what they were doing, in spite of the difficulties of the job: the
exhaustion of being on their feet in front of a class for an eight-hour day, the travel often
required, the repetitiveness of teaching the same courses over and over, having to deal
with difl‘erent types of audiences, and the challenges of teaching in unknown locations and
hotels. I have noticed that although many of these individuals did not originally choose
teaching as a career, as a result of their being well-respected subject matter experts they
have remained in a training role for many years, instead of returning to their original
careers.

When I began to research trainers and their work, I found almost no information.
Much research has been conducted on individuals who teach in K-12 or higher education
about how they feel about their teaching and why they continue to teach. Very little
academic research, however, has been conducted on individuals who are
instructors/trainers for business and industry. They are a virtually unstudied group. This
paucity of academic research may be due to the fact that “trainer” is a little known career.
The Department of Labor’s Occupational Outlook Hamflook 2000-01 Edition lists four
teaching fields: K-12, higher education, adult education, and vocational education. Adult
education is defined as teaching adults who wish to obtain a diploma or certificate or
leisure activities through continuing education. Vocational education is described as being
career focused and includes courses in such things as auto repair and welding. Although

training is vocational and its learners are adults, neither of these categories really describes

training in business and industry. “Trainer” is mentioned only briefly in the handbook
under human resources manager as someone who is managed by a human resources or
training manager.

What little research that has been conducted on trainers focuses on competencies
needed to be effective in their work. Articles in professional or trade journals tend to
provide general information on the industry or advice on how to handle the practical
aspects of teaching, such as recalcitrant learners. Only a very few articles, such as “Dog
Day Afiernoon” by Bob Filipczak relate the experiences of trainers (Training, 1997).
From these we learn some things about the experiences of trainers—spending long,
exhausting days on the road, dealing with energy-draining participants and handling
problem situations.

Because businesses expect a return on the money they have invested in training,
trainers and other human resource professionals tend to focus efforts on practical aspects
of the career such as effectiveness and obtaining results, as opposed to doing traditional
academic-type research. There is also a feeling among many practitioners that they are not
qualified to perform research and that any research they might do is invalid (Mott, 1996).
Mott notes that this considerable schism between practice and the development of theory
could be remedied by encouraging practitioners to recognize their own self-generated
knowledge as valuable, perceiving themselves as being able to build and share theories in
practice (Mott, 1996).

Although they might number in the tens of thousands, another possible reason
trainers and instructors of continuing education have not been studied extensively by

researchers in academia is because training has not been considered to be within the

“mainstream” of traditional education. Because trainers work in a business environment,
rather than in a public or private educational setting, their roles are not as well known by
the individuals in higher education who traditionally perform research.

The scarcity of research on instructors who conduct a large percentage of the
training that costs employers billions of dollars should be remedied. It is important to
learn more about these trainers and why they continue to choose to do a job which would
be considered dificult by many people. How do they get involved in training and what is

there about this job that motivates them to continue to do this kind of teaching?

Statement of the Problem

I intend to at least partially rectify the lack of research conducted on trainers. This
dissertation attempts to determine why trainers who may not have originally chosen
training as a career, choose to continue in it despite the difficulties of the job, rather than
work as practitioners in the careers they originally chose.

This question is important to me because it seems contradictory that someone
would find satisfaction and persist in a career far fi'om the work for which he or she was
trained. While it is true that many people change careers over life, it is the case with
trainers that they are employed for a long time in activities which they never anticipated.
Most of the trainer/consultants I studied did not choose this as a first career, as did most
educators in other venues. These trainers originally chose to be financial analysts, health
care professionals, engineers, business administrators, or other business-related
professionals instead of teachers. They came into teaching late—many even came into it

accidentally. While current job satisfaction and career persistence theories appear to

explain some of this career persistence, much still seems unexplained. Training has
aspects that make it exhausting and other aspects which make it repetitive and routine to
the point of being unsatisfying—namely the necessity of teaching the same content many
times to similar audiences. Training, as practiced by many in the field, can be exhausting
due to the pressures of the job and the travel ofien required.

This dissertation will describe in more detail the nature of the job of a trainer which
makes it a difficult and potentially boring career. It will also review the existing career
persistence models and job satisfaction theories and their relevance to this question.
Through interviews, a small group of trainers will provide information about how they got
into the field and what motivates them inside or outside of the classroom to continue
teaching. The trainers I interviewed obtained their education for a career which they later
abandoned in favor of one in training. In addition, most were freelancing for multiple
employers. Their careers as trainers remain stable only as long as their skills and
knowledge are in demand. Such instability would make many employees very
uncomfortable, but such arrangements are becoming more common in today’s workforce.

In my study, I focused on individuals who became trainers because of their
expertise in their fields. These individuals became trainers, but all had alternative careers
available to them. At the conclusion of this study, I hope to be able to provide at least the
beginnings of an understanding of their career decision-making, experiences, and
motivation to persist in their careers. Because so little is known about this work by
outsiders, I will use the next few sections to describe the work environment of trainers and

the things that make their work unusually difficult. Understanding these trainers and what

makes them persist in their careers is especially important as technology threatens to

change how they teach and the nature of their careers.

Work Environment of Trainers

To understand why this work is so difficult, we need an understanding of what this
work is like on a day-to-day basis and what outside forces affect how trainers perform
their jobs. We will look at:

o How trainers’ tasks are similar to and different from those of higher education

instructors.

o The repetitive nature of training

0 Who employs trainers

0 Where training takes place

0 Employees’ attitudes about training

Similarities and Differences with Higher Education
Faculty members in higher education believe that the purpose of their teaching is to

prepare students for careers and help them learn to learn. The focus is on teaching the
theory, with the idea that once students know the theory they can apply it whenever and
wherever it is needed in their later lives. The belief is that making students into learners
will enable them to continue to learn throughout their lives. Control over what is taught is
through individual instructors, department committees, and other internal groups, and the
university’s board of directors. Ultimately, if the institution is public, taxpayers and state

government have some say in the institution’s direction, and although this seldom afl‘ects

an individual who does the actual teaching, maintaining the university’s reputation among
the public is an important issue.

Trainers, on the other hand, are employed by businesses to improve the bottom
line by providing employees with the skills and knowledge they need to do their jobs better
and achieve organizational goals. The focus is on application and the practical, and if
what is taught cannot be applied to the bottom line, it is likely that management will not
continue to pay for it. Businesses develop or buy training programs which meet their
needs as efliciently as possible. Needs are determined by functional departments and the
local or corporate level training departments. Class content is monitored through end-of-
class evaluations, but it is more likely that problems with a course will be verbally reported
to management and the training department by the employees who attend the class. In
addition, training program attendees often “vote” about a course with their feet. Ifthey
do not think it is worth their time, they will walk out. Ifa program fails to meet
organizational or employee needs, it gets dumped and another one selected to take its
place. Thus the control by “management” over the classroom is more direct than in higher
education, and instructors are under pressure to keep both course participants and their
employers happy.

There are some other similarities and differences in the jobs. Unlike higher
education instructors, instructors of short courses do not assign homework, correct
student work, or give grades. They see their students only for the relatively brief period of
the course, and then typically never see them again. It could be described as “hit and run”
teaching. The problem with this is that instructors most often do not get to see what

students have done with what they have learned. They are also not around if students

need additional help or have questions upon implementation. It can be a major disconnect
and a common complaint of training managers is that employees often do not use what
they have learned.

Whereas, college faculty perform their teaching in the same or very similar sets of
classrooms in the same building or buildings over a period of years and spend only a few
hours each day in the classroom and the rest in an office, trainers have a very long day. A
trainer’s day typically means arriving well before participants at a training/conference
room they may not have seen before, setting out books and supplies, checking audio-
visual equipment and refreshments, and greeting participants as they arrive. This is after
flying in the night before, lugging heavy instructional material onto and ofi‘ the plane
(checking such luggage is not acceptable since losing it would cause an entire class to be
inconvenienced), obtaining a rental car, and finding the training site if the training class is
being held far away from home. Break and lunch time is sometimes spent with
participants. Alter spending nine to ten hours on his or her feet, the instructor returns to a
hotel or home to prepare for the next day.

College faculty typically live near their work and spend their nights at home. Some
trainers seldom travel, but others travel extensively in their jobs, and such travel can make
the job difficult for individuals who have families and other personal responsibilities.
Heavy travel schedules are a big reason for “burnout” of trainers who have become
“educational Gypsies,” as one of my subjects put it.

College instructors focus on teaching theory to students who may not use the
knowledge for many years. It is expected that students are there to gain a general

education and will put the information to use in their later careers. Trainers, however, are

expected to provide practical skills and knowledge that can be immediately applied.
Participants and their management expect that their time spent in class is not wasted on
what they consider to be “unnecessary” information. Ifthey feel the instructor is wasting
their time, they are likely to leave, return to their work places, and complain to
management. In other words, participants and their employers want immediate value for
their money and demand it fiom training programs.

There is no tenure in training. Ifyou do not deliver, you will not be asked to come
back and your income or job security will suffer. In addition, learners expect the
instructor to present information in an interesting, even entertaining, way, and to maintain
their interest over the entire course period. Unlike college students who are anxious to
get a good grade, business people who find a class boring will simply get up and leave,
and then demand their money back.

College instruction takes place for a few hours each week over a period of a
fourteen to fifteen-week semester. Most training is conducted intensively, meaning that it
occurs in all-day sessions for one or more consecutive days. This schedule is convenient
to business people, especially if travel to a training site is required because only one trip is
needed. In addition, this schedule enables learners to get the information they need
quickly so they can go back to work and begin using skills. What this means for the
trainers, however, is that they must be on their feet for a tiring eight-to-ten hours each
day. By the end of two or three consecutive days, not only are their feet sore, but their
voices are worn out. The task is made even more exhausting by the fact that good trainers
are expected to appear to be enthusiastic and animated, even when tired, which requires

extra energy.

Although trainers are seldom studied, one study was performed for the American
Society for Training and Development (ASTD), a major professional association of
trainers and human resource professionals, by McLagan and Suhadolnik in 1989. Among
the competency areas studied were instructional skills. The study also determined role
profiles for human resource professionals, and one role among those identified was that of
being an “instructor/facilitator” (Cited in Lewis, 1998, p. 1). One conclusion drawn fiom
the study was that, “When HRD practitioners assume instructional roles . . . their task
appears fundamentally to be no different from that of vocational instructors or fiom
practitioners in formal educational settings, such as schools or universities.” (Cited in
Lewis, 1998, p.1).

Much as do their higher education counterparts, many instructors who are subject
matter experts develop or contribute to the development of the courses they teach. Most
specialize in a few subject areas in which they have exceptional knowledge and skills either
through education or experience. Many have advanced degrees. Some of these
instructors also firnction as faculty in colleges of medicine, veterinary medicine, business
administration, labor relations, nursing, or other such professional areas where
practitioners need to have skills updated after graduation. Many instructors of training
have in common with college and university faculty that they come to this work through
expertise in an area. Rather than choosing education or teaching as a career, they began
their careers as engineers, accountants, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, or other

areas.

10

The Repetitive Nature of Training

Trainers tend to become specialists and are likely to teach the same few courses
over and over. Training tends to be packaged in prepared units so that everyone who
takes a particular class can learn the same content in a consistent way. Businesses want
everyone within an organization to do things the same way, for efficiency and
effectiveness in such things as engineering procedures, for example. There is also content
which is taught to employees in a very consistent way so that employers protect
themselves against lawsuits, for example on such things as sexual harassment and safety
procedures.

In addition, often much money is spent ensuring that courses are as effective as
possible. Because training is seldom a one-time thing, it tends to be planned carefiilly so
that time spent in class is as cost-effective as possible. Courses are often designed by
pe0ple with knowledge of what makes good instructional design, and course materials and
instructor guides developed and piloted at great expense. Once a course is designed and
developed, several hundred employees in a company may be scheduled to take the same
class, so a trainer may teach it using the same materials and the same agenda a couple of
days every week for months.

Outside providers of training programs also try to deliver a consistent product as
many times as they can to recoup their development costs and deliver to customers exactly
what they have advertised in their catalogs. For that reason, only a few trainers may be
qualified or certified to teach a particular class and, therefore, trainers tend to specialize in

a few courses. This is especially true when the subject matter is such that it takes

11

someone who has considerable experience and expertise in the content area, which is
typically true of technical or specialized subjects.

The result of this is that a trainer may end up teaching the same two or three-day
course dozens of times a year. Although this is an efficient and effective way to deliver
skills and knowledge, it can make the job boring to a trainer. How many times can you
say the same thing, for example, without sounding dull even to yourself? Where is the
challenge of this kind of teaching? The mundane nature of teaching the same thing over
and over can be de-motivating and may make career persistence among the trainers seem
puzzling.

Who Employs Trainers?

For whom do trainers work? Probably the most common work situation is in a
training department within a company. Larger companies often have training departments
that include instructional designers, desktop publishers, and instructors. Large
manufacturing companies whose workers are represented by labor unions may also have
union members who represent the union’s interests assigned to the training department.
Union members may fulfill many of the same roles as the salaried trainers in that they
develop courses and teach them. Smaller companies tend to rely on individuals within the
organization who teach a particular course or two when needed, but otherwise perform
their regular jobs. Other training is likely to be provided by local community colleges and
other local sources, since budgets are often minimal.

Whether large or small, the trend is for companies to outsource as much training as
possible in order to minimize the size of training departments and save money.

Outsourced courses are taught by employees of the outsourcing organizations or for-

12

profit, sub-contracted vendors. These for-profit vendors can be large companies that own
and supply courses or small “mom and pop” firms, consisting of a handfirl of instructors,
or even a single instructor who owns a course and is self-employed.

Some other trainers are employed as adjuncts by colleges and universities through
extension centers or continuing education departments. Still others are employed by non-
profit professional associations that focus on programs targeted to their membership, and
some instructors work firll-time or part-time by for-profit training companies. Of these
total numbers of instructors, some have a formal education which has prepared them for a
teaching role, but many do not. Many are subject matter experts who have been drafted
into training as a result of their expertise. Thus, continuing education and training is a
large, though not well-recognized, employer. Where and how one is employed as a trainer
can make a difl’erence in the freedom or constraints one has in choosing which courses one
teaches or how often one is scheduled to teach.

Of the trainers I interviewed for this study, most were employed by for-profit
providers of training, or were self-employed and had contracts with for-profits or

professional associations.

Where Does Training Take Place?
One of the challenges to trainers is that formal training programs take place in such

a wide variety of places, many of which present challenges to effective teaching. Many
large companies have a large, separate facility containing as many as 30 or more training
rooms and a support staff who manages the facility, sets up rooms for upcoming classes,
and provides various services for instructors. Support services may include last minute

copying of instructional material, technical assistance with projectors or computers, and

13

food service. Classrooms are likely to be designed for training program delivery and come
equipped with screens, transparency projectors, and student tables and chairs that can be
moved to meet the needs of a specific course. In such a training center, an instructor has
fewer unknowns and help is available if any problems occur. Other, smaller companies
may have only one or two rooms in an office facility dedicated as training rooms. Such
rooms tend to be equipped as well as they might be in a separate training facility, but may
be also used as meeting and conference rooms, meaning that equipment may be borrowed
by other activities or not left in good condition. Although not as well staffed as a training
facility, help is usually available nearby.

Training also occurs in manufacturing facilities. Sometimes a manufacturer may
have an ofllsite training facility as complete and as well equipped as any other training
facility. However, training also takes place in the plant itself, in rooms that vary greatly in
terms of size, location, and equipment. Training rooms in plants can be noisy because of
neamess to equipment and hot because of lack of air conditioning. I have known of
trainers who taught classes in rooms less than 100 feet fi'om booming stamping presses,
and I have personally taught in thin-walled temporary classroom structures situated next
to loading and delivery docks where large diesel trucks with engines idling were loaded by
fork lifts. At times, I had to shout to be heard above all the commotion. The worst
situation, however, was when a maintenance crew began sandblasting a wall just outside
our classroom windows. Since the Chinese and Mexican students in the class did not
speak or understand English well, it was an impossible situation. Plant maintenance
personnel do not change their schedules because training is taking place. Another problem

in teaching classes to plant personnel is that shifts often start very early in the morning or

14

can be held in the evening. Also, hourly participants will leave when their regular quitting
time arrives, regardless of whether the instructor is in mid-sentence. Adjusting to plant
time can be difiicult for some trainers who are used to regular business hours.

The above situations describe training conducted onsite for employees of a single
company. Training can also be held as “open enrollment,” meaning that employees of
many companies travel to a class location other than that owned by their employer.
College and university continuing education departments usually own their own classroom
training facilities or share space with regular, for-credit courses because they mostly draw
local audiences. Professional associations generally draw national or international
audiences. They hold some classes in their headquarters’ facility, but many others are held
in hotels or “conference centers” around the country to make it easier for participants who
must travel to attend. Private, for-profit training providers, also occasionally use hotels
for classes, as do companies who wish to get their employees ofi‘site so they will not be as
likely to be disturbed by peers and supervisors.

Hotel facilities tend to present the most surprises to trainers. First, it is likely that
the individual instructor has been sent to a hotel and scheduled to a room he or she has
never used before. In addition, hotel staff tends to be focused on managing banquets and
events such as weddings that involve food and beverages, rather than training classes
which mean less revenue to the hotel. Also, because training is not very profitable, if
another event is scheduled at the last moment, the training room may be switched to one
which is much smaller. I once taught 15 people in what was actually a small hotel
conference room, with chairs crammed around one big table so tightly that I could stand

on only one side of the transparency projector and could not move around the room at all.

15

Group exercises were impossible because of the inflexible seating. Other events can also
interfere with training if they are noisy. Any trainer who has done much teaching in a
hotel can tell stories about the rock band playing outside in the lobby or the 300 person
wedding reception just on the other side of a thin room divider.

Hotel furniture is also a problem. Tables provided tend to be narrower than those
provided by training facilities and the space allowed per participant can be quite small,
making it difficult for learners to manage binders and other course materials while sitting
elbow to elbow with another student. In addition, banquet chairs are designed for their
ability to be stacked—not sat upon for eight hours. Backs are usually very straight and
provide no support for spines. Audio-visual equipment is often not owned by the hotel
but rented through an outside vendor who comes in to set it up and then leaves until the
end of the day. Ifbulbs burn out or there are compatibility problems, no one is available
to troubleshoot and fix problems. Occasionally, the equipment does not arrive at all or is
missing needed cables and plugs. Some trainers I know routinely carry their own laptops
and projection equipment, along with extra extension cords. Frankly, I often did this
myselfifI possibly could, since I have had bad experiences with equipment. The result is
a lot of heavy carry-on baggage which cannot be checked because the airline might lose it.

Generally, the problem with hotels is that there are more unknowns, more
surprises. You don’t know ahead of time what the room where you will be teaching is
like, how big it is, what the acoustics are, whether the equipment will arrive or operate
correctly, how the room will be arranged, and whether the materials you have shipped

have arrived and are available. It also means that you will likely have to set up the room

16

yourself, arranging chairs and tables classroom style or in groups. You will almost
certainly have to put training materials out at each student place.
Not knowing what your classroom will look like or how it will firnction until you

get there the morning of class, can be a major challenge to training instructors.

Employees’ Attitudes About Training
The attitudes employees have about training can affect the jobs of the trainers.

Employees often attend training because they are required to attend by their supervisor or
their employer. However, they also enroll in training programs for developmental reasons
which may be voluntary or involuntary (Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek, 1997). We will
look first at the mandatory reasons people attend training and how these situations can
result in attitudes toward training that trainers must deal with in class.

Some training is mandated by employers in order to meet governmental
regulations. Examples of this include hazardous materials handling, workplace safety,
sexual harassment prevention, and other courses that help employees meet federal and
state regulations. Also, mandated in an organization are courses that teach people how to
use new equipment and new technologies. Examples of this would be training related to
the purchase of computer-operated milling or welding equipment, which is a technology
which has not been used in a plant before. A second example would be training on new
versions of soitware. Additional training has also been mandated by employers in order to
implement company-wide initiatives such as team development, statistical process control,
total quality management, and others. Such training is usually accepted as necessary or
welcomed by employees, although occasionally new methodologies and technologies

produce fear in employees because of possible job insecurity.

17

Another type of employer-required training would be on company-specific
procedures or processes, such as new employee orientation, timesheet completion, or
company-specific project management. Also, many companies have prescribed,
mandatory training paths for anyone in a management role or anyone identified as being
potential managers-in-training (Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek, 1997). Older managers,
especially those who have achieved a high position in a company often consider such
mandatory training unnecessary and avoid the classroom if they possibly can. When I
worked as a training coordinator in a divisional office of an automobile component
manufacturer, I once had the dubious pleasure of periodically having to send letters out to
a group of very high level directors that they had to take a certain series of courses
according to company policy. Each politely and regularly scheduled themselves into the
required classes and then just as regularly and politely cancelled the day before the
scheduled class due to an “emergency.”

Many employers tie their performance management systems to training. When an
employee undergoes the annual performance appraisal, areas of weakness are identified
and employees are asked or told to complete training programs in an attempt to strengthen
these deficiencies. Although training is sometimes voluntary in these situations, at other
times employees who fail to take advantage of those opportunities to improve skills can
find themselves being demoted or losing out on promotional opportunities. Employees
often see being required to attend what they consider to be “remedial” training negatively
as punishment. This sometimes results in their attending grudgingly and becoming what
trainers call “prisoners” (Ganzel, 1998). They can sometimes be identified as the

participants who take the last seat in the room and slump down for a nap. Salaried

l8

employees will react to “punishment” training by being out of the room as much as
possible, talking on cell phones, or disappearing to their desks for long periods if their
offices are nearby.

Sometimes, however, training is voluntarily selected by employees. Employees
who wish to move into the next higher position or another position in a company often use
performance appraisals to discuss this with a supervisor and jointly identify training
programs or other developmental activities that can help them develop the skills needed to
advance to the desired position. Other employees may have been identified as being on a
promotion “fast track” and may be sent to many training courses as part of their
preparation for promotion (Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek, 1997). Such voluntary
attendees are more likely to approach training positively because they see it as a means to
something they want. Such training is often seen as an opportunity, a positive aspect of
their job, and a contributor to job satisfaction (Schneider, Gunnarson, & Wheeler, 1992).
Also, in some fields such as engineering or health care, increasingly employees attend
training to meet state licensing and professional association certification requirements
(Phillips, 1997). While initial licensing or certification may require an exam of some sort,
many programs require a specific number of continuing education credits to be completed
within a period of time to maintain their status.

The reasons that people attend training programs, clearly can affect how they feel
about the training and their resultant attitude when they come into a classroom. People
who are forced to be somewhere they do not want to be or who see an activity as
punishment will have a different attitude than those people who see training as an

opportunity. There may also be political battles occurring in an organization that can

19

affect attitudes of students. The variety of students and their attitudes in class can make
the job of the instructor very difficult, especially when the trainer is from outside the
organization and does not know about the politics and atmosphere in that particular
workplace. It is not uncommon for a trainer to arrive at a site to find a roomfiil of angry
and hostile workers. It is also easy under those conditions for a trainer to unknowingly
step on hidden land mines during a class and make the situation even worse. An example
of this is the trainer who was hired by management to teach methodologies to hourly

employees that are opposed by the union.

Summary of Training Work Environment

The environment in which trainers work can make the job of a trainer very diflicult
and make it seem unlikely that someone would want to persist in it as a career, especially
if they had other options available to them. Why would anyone want to continue doing a
job which required substantial travel, had much uncertainty regarding the conditions under
which the teaching must occur, could be so repetitive, and was so physically and
emotionally exhausting? We clearly need to look more closely at what makes anyone

choose a career and stick with it for many years.

Job Satisfaction and Career Persistence

An individual will persist in a career as long as it meets his or her individual
economic and psychological needs. “Economic needs" means that a person must earn
enough to maintain a particular standard of living for his or her family and to feel satisfied
with the particular lifestyle which that career provides. Online Learning magazine reports

in its 2001 annual salary survey that classroom trainers who are employed in a training

20

department earn an average of $56,993 per year (2001). The same Online Learning
salary survey lists an average annual survey of $83.619 for trainers who are self-employed
and earn a daily rate, such as is true with most of the individuals I interviewed. They
typically earn from $400 to $1,500 per teaching or consulting day and have some control
over how many days per year they want to work. Even taking into consideration that such
trainers do not work a five-day week, all of the trainers I interviewed earned enough to
more than meet basic needs. .

In his book on intrinsic motivation, Kenneth Thomas argues that in order to be
satisfying work must offer the new (post-1990) worker more than the extrinsic rewards of
a salary and benefits (2000). He points out that intrinsic rewards are based on emotions—
those things about the work that make the worker feel good. Seeing a clear purpose to
their work and being able to achieve that purpose is intrinsically rewarding to employees,
and in fact, critical to job satisfaction. Tasks a worker performs generally are done to
meet external needs of customers or others who consume the products or services that
create our job. Meeting those needs, and having a positive impact on our environment,
gives those tasks meaning and significance and makes them satisfying to us. There are,
however, some aspects of a task which are not under a worker’s control and thus present
inevitable uncertainties. Thomas argues that it is uncertainty “. . . that provides much of
the challenge and suspense involved in accomplishing task purposes, and that produces
much of the satisfaction in their accomplishment” (p.19).

There is a difl‘erence of opinion as to how many intrinsic rewards are present in the

workplace. In his 1995 book, Why We Do What We Do, Edward Deci listed two intrinsic

21

rewards: a sense of self-determination and competence. Thomas expands this to four
intrinsic rewards, the first two of which are similar to Deci’s:

0 Sense of choice

0 Sense of competence

0 Sense of meaningfulness

0 Sense of progress

The last two intrinsic rewards that Thomas lists relate to how their work is
monitored. Thomas argues that whereas in the past workers were primarily monitored
and the meaning of their work determined by managers, today’s workers often self-
monitor their achievement of tasks which they consider to be important (2000). Much of
this monitoring is received as feedback fi'om the users of the product or services or the
judgment of the worker himself on whether the particular product or service he or she
produced meets whatever quality standards he or she has set for himself or herself
(Thomas, 2000). This feedback enables the worker to try different methods to obtain an
acceptable result. By continually working to improve our results, we come to new
understandings and this learning contributes to both our personal and our organization’s
knowledge bank and sometimes to innovation. Thus the more uncertainty and challenge in
a task, the more opportunities we have to learn fi'om our efforts to adapt to these
uncertainties.

Hackman and Oldham (Work Redesign, 1980) also argue that people will work
hard and try to perform the job well when it is rewarding and satisfying to do so. They
refer to this aspect of job satisfaction as “internal motivation,” which is really the same as

the intrinsic reward described by others. To experience this internal motivation, Hackrnan

22

and Oldham argue that the worker must experience each of three key conditions listed
below, which are very similar to Thomas’s list:
1. Must have knowledge of the results of his work. (Core job characteristics: Skill
variety, task identity, task significance)
2. Must experience responsibility; believe he or she is personally accountable for the
work outcomes. (Core job characteristics: autonomy)
3. Must experience the work as meaningful, something that “counts” in one’s own

system of values. (Core job characteristics: Feedback from job) (1980, p. 77)

Hackman and Oldham propose that all three “critical psychological states” must be present
for strong internal work motivation to develop and persist. They give the following
example: “One of your authors, like many college instructors, finds that the day is made or
broken by how well the morning lecture goes. The task is meaningfirl to him (he finds
lecturing challenging and believes it to be important); he feels that the quality of the
lecture is his responsibility (he’s never quite learned how to attribute responsibility for a
bad lecture to his students); and his knowledge of results is direct and unambiguous
(undergraduates are expert in using subtle cues—and some not so subtle, such as
newspaper reading—to signal how much they feel they are learning fi'om the day’s class)
(1980, p. 73).

Hackman and Oldham agree with Kenneth Thomas on the importance of
challenges. They point out that people tend to experience as meaningful almost any task
that provides opportunities to use and test personal skills, regardless whether the task is

inherently significant. Meaningfulness grows from challenges to skills (1980. In addition,

23

Hackman and Oldham point out that it is the perception of job characteristics as being
satisfing that counts, not some objective measure of whether something is satisfying
(1980)

Schneider, Gunnarson, and Wheeler (1992) discuss the role that opportunity has in
job satisfaction. They propose that opportunities are relevant to all facets of job
satisfaction. Opportunities, as they define them, are choices or options that people have in
their work lives. Whether or not people take advantages of these opportunities, they
propose, is not as important as the fact that choices are available, which is why working in
a participative environment has a positive effect of worker satisfaction. Opportunity can
mean chances for firture advancement, choice of present career, or such things as whether
to join a union or scheduling their tasks in the workday.

A survey conducted by Roper Starch Worldwide for Randstad North America
concluded that employees find the following as being reasons for employee satisfaction:

0 Trust — Being trusted to get the job done.

0 Opportunity — Getting the opportunity to do the type of work you want to
do.

0 Autonomy — Having power to make decisions that affect your own work.

0 Flexibility — Determining when, where or how they get their work done.

0 Career focus — Viewing what they do as a career, rather than just a job

(Randstad, 2001).

Consequences of Job Satisfaction

The most obvious consequence of job satisfaction is that an individual will persist

in whatever job is providing that satisfaction. In addition, employees who are satisfied

24

with their jobs tend to have more positive attitudes, work harder at tasks, work longer
hours, and help fellow employees with their work. However, there are also consequences
to a lack of job satisfaction. Among these consequences are employee turnover and a
variety of what are termed “non-compliance behaviors” such as absenteeism without
cause, tardiness, breaking rules, taking long breaks, missing deadlines, not working hard,
vandalism and theft of employer equipment and supplied (Fisher and Locke, 1992)
(Oldham & Hackman, 1980).

Because for the most part trainers work alone in a classroom and are virtually
unsupervised, a lack of job satisfaction might result in behaviors such as arriving to the
classroom late and unprepared, neglecting to keep control of the class, failure to teach all
of the content, and dismissing the class early (which participants often request). All of
these actions mean that class participants fail to learn everything promised and thus fail to
get good value for their tuition paid for by their employer.

I expect in this research to determine which job satisfaction models seem to best
explain the pleasure my subjects seem to get fi'om their jobs and why they have persisted

in a difficult career.

Limitations/Delimitation

I have limited my study to individuals who teach short courses in a continuing
education or training situation and who are subject matter experts in a content field. Such
instructors may concurrently teach in a college or university setting, but they must spend a
substantial amount of their time teaching short courses to have been included in this study.

I also have limited my study to those trainers who are well established in their careers.

25

Definitions

I use the term “short course” in this dissertation. It is a training industry term that
refers to a program that consists of one or more consecutive, all-day (8-hour) sessions.
Because trainers have been little studied and not well-defined, there is little consensus
about what to call these individuals. They may call themselves facilitators, instructors,
trainers, consultants, or the newer “performance improvement facilitators,” depending on
the situation and the person’s feelings about what they do. I use the terms “trainer,”
“teacher” and “instructor” interchangeably in this study as generic terms for anyone with
expertise in an area who attempts to impart this knowledge to others. I also use the terms
“learner” and “participant” interchangeably with the term “student.” There are biases in
the training field against calling adults “students” because of the negative connotations
obtained during K-12 schooling. In turn, participants do “assignments” or “exercises,” as
opposed to “homework.” “Continuing education” refers to non-credit education or
training programs conducted to provide adults with skills and knowledge they can apply to
their personal lives or to their jobs.

The distinction between “education” and “training” is often blurred in practice.
Both education and training are provided by many employers. While many people
distinguish “education” as employing a more theoretical “knowledge” base, as opposed to
practical “skills” learned in “training,” in reality most training contains both theoretical and
practical aspects.

The next chapter of this document will summarize what we already know about

teaching, training, and motivation to persist in a career.

26

Chapter 2 - What We Already Know

This chapter will attempt to summarize what we know about teaching and trainers,
and discuss this in terms of career motivation. We will first look at what we know about
teaching in general, the nature of teaching, the commonality of experiences, motivation to
teach, and motivation and persistence in a career, and the nature of work. I have chosen
to present a discussion of career decision making in Chapter 4 where I discuss how

trainers got involved in training as a career.

Changing Needs of Learners and Organizations

In past decades, training meant vocational training or on-the-job training, when
someone showed you how to do a particular job. A trainer was usually a fellow employee
who taught small groups of people skills that were specific to a job. We got most of what
we needed to know in school or in college. However, we now live in a world which is
changing at an unprecedented pace. How and when we learn as adults has been an
important part of that change.

Futurist Alvin Tofiler writes about the agricultural age, and called this the First
Wave (Tofller, 1990). Tofiler points out that in what he calls the Second Wave, the
industrial age, wealth was measured in the capital of machines, raw materials, steel
fumaces, assembly lines, and other hard assets. This wealth was also finite and could be
quantified and sold and bought. The industrial age brought many people increased wealth
and improvement in their living standard, but wealth was primarily achievable for only a
few. We are now on the verge of the Third Wave, the information age where knowledge

means power.

27

In their newer book, Creating a New Organization: The Politics of the Third
Wave, the Tofllers emphasize that in the last decade factories have become smaller, but
the workers in them must perform jobs which are much more complex. Their needs for
skills have “skyrocketed.” In addition, the value of a company is no longer measured in
bricks, mortar, and steel, but how well they can apply knowledge strategically. No longer
can workers be replaced easily—now it is more difficult to find workers who have the
necessary skills, so blue collar workers are no longer interchangeable (1995).

In order to compete, organizations are becoming “learning organizations” which
create and accumulate knowledge through the knowledge of its employees and their
cumulative experiences (Senge, 1994). In addition, technological change has meant that
countries lacking natural resources and other hard assets can now compete on the basis of
expertise and knowledge, thus creating a global economy and forcing American companies
to make substantial changes in how they operate in order to compete (Tomer, 1995).

Apps points out that in this learning society, the need for learning far exceeds that
which was traditionally provided by four-year colleges and universities to young people
(Apps, 1988). Such rapid change means that people cannot simply take what they learned
in high school or college and expect to apply it for all of their careers. In fact, continuing
education or training is required by most college-educated or professional people not only
because their jobs require it, but it is required by licensing bodies and certification
maintenance by professional associations. This has resulted in the blurring in what is
considered training and what is considered continuing or professional education. Both
provide new skills in new technologies or new business and professional practices, and the

terms now tend to be used synonyrnously.

28

In addition, the well-paid, unskilled labor jobs which accompanied the industrial
age of even two or three decades ago have almost disappeared. A stroll through a modern
factory will evidence, not workers feeding parts into and out of machines, but workers
operating and monitoring computer controls. A factory job often requires a worker who
can read and do math at a higher level than before, and often one who can operate that
computer. As workers, we must now learn new skills and new technologies continually or
be replaced by those who have already learned them. And this is true whether we are
engineers or doctors or machine operators.

How do we learn these new skills and technologies? Most of us in the workforce
rely on our employers to make it available to us, or we take courses on our own through
continuing education departments of colleges, universities, or professional associations.
Employers often take responsibility for paying for these developmental activities,
especially if they are needed for our current jobs or to qualify us for a promotion. In fact,
an entire industry has developed to meet these continuing education and training needs.

The next section will look at this growing industry and the trainers employed within it.

The Economics of the Continuing Education and Training Industry

Businesses pay for the education and training of their employees because the
financial effort results in a more competitive workforce and enables them to use emerging
technologies. For example, Frank Huband, CEO of the American Society for Engineering
Education, notes that “half of what an electrical engineer learns today will be outdated five
years later” (1997). He notes that conunitting the funds to re—educating those engineers,

as well as other kinds of engineers in America, is necessary to maintain a technological

29

edge. Motorola, Texas Instruments, and other such large companies are aggressively
establishing continuing education programs for their engineers and other salaried
professionals Giuband, 1997).

In fact, in its recent 20"” Annual Industry Report, Training magazine estimates
that, based on the data from the survey they conduct annually, more money is spent yearly
on “non-traditional” education than in all of the K-12 and higher education institutions
combined (Training, 2001). They estimate that nearly $57 billion will be spent by
employers on formal training in 2001, a 5% increase from 2000. Over $19 billion of that
amount is spent on outside providers. An additional $37 billion will be spent on trainees’
salaries while in training. The cost of training would increase to $200 billion if you
counted on-the-job training (Eurich, p. 18).

The American Society for Training and Development reports that over 14 million
workers receive training each year, more than the number of traditional students in all of
the four-year colleges and universities combined (Eurich, p. 18). In addition, more states
are requiring mandatory continuing education for licensure than ever before (Phillips,
1997). Professional associations, especially in the health care and engineering fields, are
also requiring (and providing to their members and others) continuing education for
certification and recertification. Many large organizations are also recognizing that their
technical staffs must continually update their education, as they agree with an Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) figure of engineers becoming obsolete every
five years (Alef, 1996). Some of this need is addressed through tuition assistance

payments for employees to obtain a more advanced degree.

30

While higher education serves the needs of individuals who wish to obtain degrees,
including advanced degrees, millions of employees and employers have educational needs
that are best met through continuing education and training. Many employees are not
willing to or able to attend courses over a 15-week semester. Nor do they wish to obtain
college credit towards a degree. What they want are the specific skills needed for their
present jobs or next higher promotions. And they want to obtain these skills quickly, so
they choose to attend “short courses” that are held during several consecutive eight-hour
days, often requiring travel.

In spite of the growing popularity of technology to deliver training, the 2001
Training survey reported that 77% of training takes place in classrooms with live
instructors and an additional 5% is delivered by instructors from a remote location.
Interestingly, in spite of predictions that instructors will be made obsolete by technology,
the percentage of training delivered by computers without an instructor actually dropped
from 13% to 11% from 2000 to 2001 (Industry Report, 2001). In addition, training is no
longer something confined to low-skilled occupations. In fact, 64% of training firnds are
spent on exempt non-managers, exempt managers, and executives. This means that most
attendees of training programs probably have bachelor’s degrees or more.

Considering the amount of money spent yearly and the number of people who
attend training programs, there must be several thousand individuals who teach these

programs, although I have been unable to find any statistics that give any data on this.

31

What We Know About Teaching

Very little academic research has been conducted specifically on the nature of

teaching for individuals who teach seminars in the workplace or through continuing

education and training providers. Most of the information that is available on this subject

is practical in nature and is written in the form of advice by those working in the field. On

the other hand, much has been written on the job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic

rewards, motivation, and emotional aspects of college and university teaching. I believe

that there are enough similarities between these two groups that what we know about one

group can help us understand the other. Some of these similarities are:

Both groups have a high degree in autonomy in their jobs. They are pretty much
left alone to manage their time and how they perform their tasks.

Both groups consist of subject matter experts who are teaching as a result of their
expertise in an area.

Many instructors move back and forth between the two fields or teach in both
areas concurrently.

Both groups teach adults, although learners in business tend to be older than
college students.

Members of both groups often use similar instructional techniques.

For the most part, neither group receives much training in how to teach. (i.e. few
attended education schools.)

Although many similarities exit between the work life of college and university

teachers and instructors of continuing education, there are some substantial differences

that must be addressed. Probably the most obvious difl‘erence is the length and degree of

32

contact. College classes usually last 14-16 weeks and classes meet 2-5 hours per week, so
the instructor contact is spread out over a longer period of time than the intensive 1-5
days a continuing education short course meets. Another important difference is that the
university instructor grades student work and gives the student a passing or failing grade,
thus defining one part of the relationship between student and teacher as “gatekeeper.”
Although, the continuing education instructor provides information and leads the class
through exercises and other class work, there is usually little pressure on the student to
participate or actively learn, unless this is a mandatory course for licensing or certification.
There is seldom any further contact between instructor and participants once the class has
ended, and the instructor does not control enrollment in any other courses or firrther
progress toward a goal. Another difference between college teaching and continuing
education teaching is the immediacy of feedback fi'om students. Whereas college
instructors must wait until after the end of the semester for a formal evaluation of their
teaching, the continuing education teacher gets the results of his evaluation within a few
minutes of the end of class, which may affect motivation and job satisfaction.

We do know that teaching is a challenging occupation, whether the students are
children, college students, or adults in industry or business. Bess notes, “Administrators in
colleges and universities worry about how to induce faculty to devote energy and attention
to teaching, how to keep them committed to it, and how to recommit those who have
drifted from it” (p. x).

Bess notes, “Teaching well—and liking it——is very hard to come by. Like sports . .
. , it requires extremely high energy, focus, and total commitment. Teaching is not a part-

time job. It is also risky (or should be). It necessitates (in a Western sense) a continual

33

testing of self as presumed expert—a perpetual and insistent questioning of one’s basic
understanding of society and one’s assumptions about and understanding and mastery of
one’s own field and of the field of education. It demands competency in the intricacies of
teaching methods.” In spite of the difficulties and challenges of teaching, most university
professors report that if given the opportunity, they would reduce their teaching by only
10% (Boyer, 1989, 1990). Public school teachers report higher job satisfaction with the
teaching and actual contact with students than they do with administrative and other tasks.
Teachers of all kinds are alike in that they generally like to teach. They report that
it is the student contact part of their jobs that satisfies them most. In a survey of
community college instructors who were teaching training activities to industry, 62% said
such teaching helped them to keep up with their field of study and thus wanted to continue
such teaching. This was in spite of the fact that such teaching (and the travel required)
was often uncompensated and simply added to their teaching load (Konicek, 1992). Many
continuing education instructors, by the nature of their high level of expertise in their
fields, vote their preference for teaching by the fact that they could easily be working as

practitioners in their areas of expertise.

The Commonality of the Teaching Experience

How do we know that what we experience is also experienced by others? From
the time we are born, each of us seeks to understand our world. As individuals, we learn
about what is happening by the things we see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. As we grow
older, we share those experiences with others through our language and gain an

understanding of how others see the world, although we may never firlly understand one

34

another’s experiences. Over time, these experiences shape us as individuals and affect
how we see new experiences. All of this forms our “reality” and informs our “truth.” As
academic researchers, we seek to quantify and qualify the common experiences of groups
and individuals in order to add to a more general knowledge. Although our methodology
can never be perfect, understanding the experiences of others enriches our profession and
ourselves.

Our lives consist of series of experiences. All we are or can be is shaped by these
experiences. They are our ‘fivindows” to our world and through these windows we
evaluate and interpret what we see, feel, and hear. Thus, learning takes place.

Were we to learn only from our own experiences, what we learn would be sharply limited.
Indeed, our formal education is shaped by those who attempt to help us learn fiom those
individuals who have lived and died before us and by structuring experiences to guide our
learning. Inforrnally, we learn by observing others as they go through their lives and by
observing the natural world. As academic researchers, we bring these observational skills
to a high level. We bring a wide range of accepted methodology to our subjects, as we
attempt to answer questions relevant to our professions.

Schutz (1970) noted that as we perceive, we apply what we currently know about
our world to objects as we see them. Our previous knowledge enables us to “typ' ” or
classify our perceptions into categories and enables us to make sense of or recognize them
when we perceive them again. As we gain knowledge, we assign interpretations of
intentions and motivations of others, for example, because of our past experiences with
similar situations (Schutz, cited in Holstein and Gubrium, 1994). Putting things into

typifications enables us to categorize and remember what we perceive.

35

Van Kaam refers to finding the “necessary and suflicient constituents of this
experience.” He notes that, “Our basic assumption is that the core of such common
experiences is the same in different individuals” (1959, p. 67). Schutz also discusses the
social aspect of experience (social phenomenology). Although we each perceive our
experiences somewhat difi‘erently, we tend to construct categories of knowledge of
everyday events which we share with others. He refers to these as “typifications.” We
assume that others share these familiar experiences and see the world in a similar fashion
and we use language to articulate our experiences and share the experiences of other
people. This confirms to us that what we see as being “there” is really “there” for others,
and thus real (cited in Holstein and Gubrium, 1995, p, 263).

Schutz points out that it is our use of language that allows us to convey everyday
information and be able to construct our reality (Schutz, cited in Holstein and Gubrium,
1994). Since we know that others experience objects in roughly the same way we do,
those objects must exist beyond the time when we are experiencing them. Because we can
understand how other people experience things, we learn how to understand one another
in our dealings with the world. This “intersubjectivity,” or sharing of the same reality,
changes as we adjust our understanding of the world as we continue to experience and
discuss our shared experiences with others. Thus, understanding the feelings and

motivations in one person’s career can help us understand that of others.

Motivation and Persistence in a Career

We know much about motivation in careers and some things about the sources of

motivation in teaching and the conditions that inhibit or encourage persistence in that

36

career. In his introduction to Teaching Well and Liking It, James Bess notes, “Strong
motivation is almost invariably a key to commitment, sustained effort, and creativity”
(1997, pix). He notes that his underlying premise is that motivation is a legitimate
psychological construct and that understanding may lead to some action that will affect
teachers’ lives (1997, p. x).

Individuals make decisions in many parts of their lives. Some decisions are
affected by external variables, some by internal variables, and some by both. Pavlov and
Skinner argued that behavior was entirely controlled by the external environment through
reinforcement and punishment. For example, higher pay in a merit pay system may cause
workers to increase performance (Walker, in Teaching Well, 1997). Other researchers
(Campion & McClelland, 1993) have focused on job design—looking at the job
characteristics that make some work more motivating than others. Hackman and Oldham
show specific characteristics of jobs that make work more motivating. They argue that
when work is meaningful, allows autonomy, and provides feedback, it is more motivating.
In addition, when work requires a multiplicity of skills, is important to others, provides
immediate feedback, and gives the worker control of what, how, and when the work is
done, the work itself is a source of motivation (1980).

Self-eflicacy theory (Bandura, 1982) focuses heavily on internal reward processes
that take into account both extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes. Self-efficacy refers to an
individual’s feelings of competency and effectiveness in mastering ones environment.
People who believe themselves to have a strong ability to accomplish something are more
likely to put forth a high level of effort. Such people try new things and explore

techniques because they expect to succeed instead of failing (Walker, in Teaching Well,

37

1997 ). However, Thierry warns us that the notion of intrinsic motivation is “scientifically
untenable” (1990, p. 67). He points out how the concept is blurred (based on a delusion)
and suggests that it is more important for us continue research on motivation, but to look
at motivation as being affected by both personal and situational characteristics which relate
interactively (1990, p. 80).

Traditionally, job satisfaction surveys list potential satisfiers and ask the respondent
to choose from numbers on a Likert scale representing “extremely satisfied” to “extremely
dissatisfied.” Results are reported as averages on the scales or in percentages of how
many respondents chose each answer. Herzberg disputes this survey approach. His two-
factor hypothesis differentiates between intrinsic and extrinsic variables by arguing that
intrinsic variables such as the work itself, the degree of responsibility, and grth act as
satisfiers and are essential to good performance (Herzberg, 1982). He argues that
extrinsic variables such as pay, benefits, status, and work conditions act as dissatisfiers
when they are not present. Thus, he argues that a single scale cannot measure satisfiers
and dissatisfiers using a Likert scale in this manner.

Optimal experience theorists (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) believe that a “flow
experience,” a situation in which challenges are overcome by the competencies of the
performers, causes a kind of euphoria that motivates them to tackle additional challenges
and thus increase their competence. This is the “success breeds success” thinking that
could explain why good teachers become better over time.

Self determination theorists such as Deci (1985), argue that humans have three
firndamental needs: a need for competence, a need for relatedness, and a need for self-

determination. Although self-determination is important for everyone, it is essential when

38

the work to be performed is complex and creative, as is the work of college teachers and
of trainers. When such work is controlled externally, motivation and performance is

reduced and workers develop feelings of distrust (Deci and Ryan, 1985, 1991).

The Meaning of Work

In order to know more about why we persist in a career, we need to know what
work means to us. We know that the beliefs of an individual that relate to work are
acquired through our experiences and our interaction with his or her social environment.
Such beliefs affect how satisfied we are with our work and affect our motivation to
perform this work. To Martin Luther and other Protestants who formulated our Western
work ethic, work was a “calling” and a path to salvation (Sverko, p. 3). Many people feel
so strongly in the importance of their career that they would agree. For most of us,
however, work has an important psychological function in that it provides us with self-
esteem, identity, and self-firlfillment (Sverko, p. 4).

What we value in our work lives and how we use our work days to achieve self-
firlfillment and intrinsic job satisfaction is critical to understanding the worker and his or
her career. We choose a career or move fiom one career to another throughout our lives
because we discover that as individuals we are best satisfied when performing certain tasks
in specific roles because of values we hold and our personal needs (Sverko, p. 27). Jobs
that allow us to better shape our roles to suit our personalities and preferences and that
best meet our needs may be more intrinsically rewarding and encourage better

performance than those that do not (Locke, p. 16).

39

The next chapter presents the methodology I used to obtain the research described

in Chapters 4, 5, & 6.

40

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology

This chapter discusses the theoretical fiamework for the type of interviews that I
plan to conduct for this study. It also presents the specific protocol I used in my research.
It begins with a theoretical fi'amework for qualitative research and discusses interviewing

as a research methodology.

Theoretical Framework in Qualitative Research

Qualitative research has had a rich and complex history since the early 1900’s as
researchers sought to find social “truth.” Social truth refers to those concepts that enable
us to understand our world, its people, and how they interact. We strive to understand
such concepts so we can understand how things work, including social systems, and
predict events. Being able to predict, makes us more comfortable in our own skins and
makes us more adaptable. As waves of successive researchers defined, theorized,
interpreted, and analyzed their subjects, they reacted to and built upon the perspectives of
those who had gone before them; each group of researchers reflecting not only the past
but the current beliefs about what research should entail during that period (Denzin and
Lincoln, 1994). As the field evolved, the definition of qualitative research itself became
blurred. However, Denzin and Lincoln offer a generic version: qualitative research
involves a naturalistic approach in which “researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomenon in terms of the meanings people

bring to them” (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p. 2).

41

This history has resulted in a multitude of approaches and methodology—varying
in tone and style. This multitude of approaches allows the researcher to select from a
variety of options, choosing the options the researcher believes best fits the situation, and
even combining methodologies (F etterrnan, Qualitative Shrfl, 1988). Thus, qualitative
researchers may study individuals (case studies/interviews), over long periods of time (life
histories/historical), groups (observational/ethnography), or their own experiences
(introspectives/personal reflections), as they attempt to find meaning and understanding of
lives. Researchers may even use a variety of methods in a single study in order to confirm
or get a better understanding of insights they had already obtained (Denzin and Lincoln,
1994)

Qualitative approaches to research form a diverse, not homogeneous, body of
practice. F etterman notes that each approach requires its own standards and criteria for
evaluation. Understanding this variety of approaches and standards of evaluation will also
help researchers design a broader spectrum of methodology (F ettermarr, Quiet Storm,

1988). Let us next look at how these approaches have evolved.

The Traditional and Modernist Phases of Qualitative Research

In their discussion of the various phases qualitative research has gone through,
Denzin and Lincoln noted that during the traditional period fi'om the early 1900’s to after
World War H, researchers, typified by “field” researchers, attempted to be “objective” in
their gathering of data.

Traditionally, research has been synonymous with “science,” and science defined as

a body of study that searched for those unchanging truths which could be observed

42

objectively. It was believed that there were facts which existed outside of and separate
fi'om the individual researcher, and thus were “truths” (F etterman, Qualitative Shift,
1988). A distinction was made between this “hard science” and all other research which
was considered to be weaker because it was affected by the bias of the researcher. This
positivist paradigm assumed that the goal of the researcher was to eliminate all bias and
subjectivity from observation. The less bias, the better the research and the better the
result, according to the positivists (F etterrnan, Qualitative Shift, 1988).

Traditionally, qualitative researchers tried to make their subjective science as
objective as possible. In this modernist period, positivism was the most common
paradigm. Positivism, with its focus on eliminating the effect of the researcher, was
considered more valid and appropriate than “softer” sciences (F etterman, Qualitative
Approaches, 1988). Positivists believed that truth was “out there” to be discovered and
researchers attempted to find it by becoming objective and keeping apart from their
subjects so as not to allow their own feelings and opinions to interfere (Guba and Lincoln,
1994). The field was someplace you went to study a group different fiom yourself.
Researchers kept apart from the studied group or individuals and observed them as
“others.” Getting too close to your subjects was to open yourself to bias and reduce
objectivity ( 1 994).

Interviews conducted using this approach would have been very structured, with
little room for variation in interview protocols. Scripts and questionnaires would have
been followed precisely and the interviewer would have been careful not to give the
interviewee any ideas of his or her personal views. No irnprovision would have been

allowed (F ontana and Frey, 1994). Results were displayed as timeless museum pieces.

43

During this era, science was seen as the optimum way to study and understand truth.
Scientists had achieved many advances in improving the way we lived, and it is
understandable that this way of looking at the natural world would spill over into the
social world.

In the period fi'om World War H to the 1970’s, new interpretive theories of social
research were formalized and standards made more rigorous (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).
Results were described based on likelihood or probability of being true. “Truth” was seen
as something that could be approached, but never quite achieved because there were no
truly scientific means to find it as a constant. It was recognized that truth was an
interpretation of what was really there and thus changeable.

In the 1970’s to the mid-1980’s, a third phase of blurred genres occurred.
Researchers were using a wide variety of strategies and methods, and ways of collecting
data became more diverse. There were no longer any firm rules on how data should be
collected and the researcher’s presence was recognized in his or her research. Geertz, for
one, suggested that all observations were actually interpretations of interpretations (cited
in Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p. 9). Reality was recognized as being pluralistic. In other
words, each person sees and interprets what is “there” difl‘erently. In fact, you could say
that there is no “there” there. What is there changes depending upon the individual’s point
of view. Thus, a researcher’s single voice is recognized as being only one of many
possible voices, and not considered to be the ultimate authority as in the traditional period
of the field researcher. Therefore, no matter how objective and “scientific” a researcher

tries to be, his or her interpretation cannot be the only “truth.”

44

This move to a pluralistic reality is reflective of what was taking place in the
society of the 70’s and 80’s with its attitude of “doing your own thing your own way.”
This was a furthering of the democratization of society and the lowering of the barriers of
control of ideas and mores. All of us were now equally qualified and fine to see our own
truths. Thus, the positivist paradigm gave way to the constructivist paradigm wherein

knowledge was seen to be in the constructions or interpretations of the researcher.

Constructivist Paradigm

Constructivism or interpretivism rejects the positivists’ belief in a single “truth.” It
proposed that there is no real world which exists independently of human mental activity
and human symbolic language (Schwandt, 1994.) A construction is an attempt to make
sense of or to interpret experience (Schwandt, 1994). Constructivism assumes that what
is real is a construction in the minds of individuals, not something which is “out there” that
can be directly measured through observation. The role of researchers is to interpret and
make sense of what they observe (Geertz, 1973). Because there are many individuals,
there will be multiple truths and many of these truths will be conflicting. However, all are
meaningful truths and should not be rejected because they do not fit a single, “hard
science” mold (Guba & Lincoln, cited in Schwandt, 1994, p. 129).

Constructivists believe that knowledge and truth are results of experience and
perspective. As researchers we can elucidate and clarify the meanings that are embodied
in the language and actions of social actors by observation, interviewing, asking, and
listening (Schwandt, 1994). These interpretations inform our reality and are all we know

of truth.

45

According to Guba and Lincoln, there are five properties of constructions:
1. They are attempts to make sense of experience and are self-sustaining and self-
renewing.
2. They depend upon the information available to an individual and the sophistication
of that individual in dealing with information.
3. They are shared, collective, and systematic attempts to come to common
agreement.
4. They all should be considered to be meaningful, even though incomplete,
malformed, or uninformed.
5. They can only be judged in reference to the paradigm of the constructor.
Constructions are challenged when one becomes aware of new information or
when one needs to make sense of new information (cited in Schwandt, 1994, p. 129).
Fetterman reports that although positivism is still the dominant culture in educational
evaluation and research, researchers are increasingly turning away from positivism toward
constructivist approaches (Qualitative Shift, 1988). Because the positivist paradigm was
so well accepted for so long, the move toward constructivism and other qualitative
paradigms has been slow, though steady.
Interviews using a constructivist approach are likely to be much less structured
than under a positivist approach. They can ask a range of questions which are more likely

to be open-ended. Answers are not coded or counted or measured “scientifically.”

46

Interviews as a Research Method

Interviewing as a research method has its roots in large-scale survey research
methodology and in ethnography, such as done by anthropologists (Powney and Watts,
1987). Although it went out of favor during the “scientific” positivist eras, it is becoming
more popular and accepted as a qualitative tool. As opposed to survey research,
interviews enable the interviewee to tell what he or she thinks is important, rather than
having only the researcher determine what is to be discussed (Powney and Watts, 1994).

Although they admit that it is difficult, Fontana and Frey describe interviewing as
“one of the most common and powerful ways we try to understand our fellow human
beings” (F ontana and Frey, 1994, p. 361). They point out that unstructured interviewing
is “used in an attempt to understand the complex behavior of members of a society
without imposing any a priori categorization that they limit the field of inquiry” (p. 366.).
Gorden agrees that unstructured interviews are most valuable when we are interested in
people’s beliefs, attitudes, values, and knowledge. The technique’s flexibility enables the
researcher to more quickly obtain needed information (1987).

Holstein and Gubrium further argue that interviews are active collaborations, with
meaning being constructed on the part of both interviewers and respondents. They see
interviews as a particularly useful mode of inquiry because they enable respondents to
more freely produce meaning (Holstein, 1995). Powney and Watts call interviewing
“collecting talk” and point out that talk is dynamic, and loses its quality when it is
transcribed. They note that interviewees who are willing to participate and have time to

participate be carefirlly selected (1987). Fontana and Frey also note that informal

47

conversation, chitchat, and a fiiendly tone are important to establishing rapport with
interviewees when you wish to obtain their opinions and feelings (1994).
The efl‘ectiveness of biographical interviews to obtain information about career

decision making will be discussed in Chapter 4.

Protocol

What follows is the protocol I used for this study. For my research, I chose nine
individuals who teach adults in a business or industry setting. I identified my subjects by
asking several acquaintances who work for training firms and professional associations in
several cities across the United States for the names and contact information of potential
candidates who met my research criteria and who would be willing to participate in such
research. I attempted to select individuals who worked for a variety of continuing
education and training organizations to obtain a wide variety of experiences. I also tried
to select individuals fi'om both technical and non-technical areas. Note: All of the
individuals who participated in my research are identified by pseudonyms in this
dissertation.

The purpose of my interviews was to obtain detailed answers to the following
questions:

0 How did these subject matter experts who were trained in another field become
trainers?

o What are the experiences of these subject matter experts who teach “short
courses” to employees of business and industry? What are their jobs like on a

typical day?

48

o What motivates them to continue to teach? What might motivate them to quit?

I interviewed three people in their offices and one in a restaurant, audio-taping all
of these, and later transcribing the interviews. In five other cases, because the trainers
lived out-of-state, I used email to send them an initial list of open-ended questions, which
they completed and sent back. I followed up with firrther questions via email and by
phone. I had not really intended to conduct interviews via email, but did the first one at
the request of a trainer whose travel schedule made it diflicult for him to be available for a
phone interview. Rather than using the phone, he asked if I could just send the questions
to him. This email interview technique worked well enough that I offered it to four others
whose schedule was equally busy.

The purpose of the research was explained to all participants and they were asked
to sign a form signifying their permission to serve as research subjects. They were told
that results would be confidential and that although their experiences would be described,
no participant would be identified by name or by any other identifying details
Script
Although I wanted my interviews to be relatively unstructured, I prepared the following
list of questions to use as a starting point with interviewees. I began with questions (#1-
#3) that required factual answers and then moved to questions that were more open-ended
and opinion-based, as suggested by McCracken in his description of how to build a
questionnaire (1988)..

1. What kind of a background did you have before you got involved in training?

2. What is the highest degree you have earned?

49

3. What kind of a degree did you earn in college as an undergraduate and what did
you do immediately after graduation? What were your career plans then?

4. When did you start teaching courses for business and industry? Was it a conscious
decision you made or did it just happen?

5. Had you done any other teaching before you started teaching in a business setting?
What was that like?

6. How long have you taught seminars? How many days, on average, do you teach
each month and how long are the courses you teach, typically?

7. What are some of the courses you are currently teaching or have taught in the
past?

8. How do you prepare before you teach?

9. What is your day like when you teach a seminar? Tell me about a typical day
starting from when you leave your home. Include as many details as you can.

10. What do you like or dislike in this kind of teaching?

11. What motivates you to continue in this kind of teaching?

12. What kinds of things do you think about while you are teaching?

13. Can you describe some of the experiences you have had while teaching that have
meant something special for you?

14. What is it about this kind of teaching that is most meaningful to you?

15. Have you considered another career? What has made you consider that career?

16. Have there been any experiences that have been especially memorable for you?

I did not ask all of these questions in exactly this order, except for those individuals to

whom I sent a questionnaire via email. When I got answers that were confusing, I asked

50

for clarification. In addition, I asked follow-up questions when I thought initial answers
were incomplete. I did this follow up and clarification via email and phone calls to email
respondents. All in all my participants were very helpfirl and gave me good information.

The results of my research will be presented in the following three chapters: Entry
Into Training as a Career, Job Experiences of Trainers, and Career Motivation and

Persistence of Trainers.

51

Chapter 4 - Entry Into Training as a Career

Most college students have selected an initial career before graduation. They have
chosen a field of study and an academic degree they wish to receive. Most know before
graduation about available types of jobs in which they can use their education. Students
make these career decisions in a variety of ways. Some choose an academic field because
it prepares them for a career they know a lot about—perhaps a parent or other relative
had this job and the student admires him or her. Or students may have been influenced by
a favorite teacher or other person whose career they learn to admire. Others choose an
academic field because they believe it will ofl‘er monetary or other rewards, including
prestige.

The problem with career choice is that as young people who are making this
choice, we know about only a tiny percentage of the potential careers that are open to us.
In other words, we can only choose a career if we know it is available as a career. Careers
such as public school teaching or dentistry or police officer are well known to all of us
because those are some of the people we come in contact with during most of our lives.
Some careers, however, are unknown to most of us because they are very specialized and
only a very few individuals work in thenr, thus making it unlikely that many people have
heard of the potentials the career holds.

Other careers are unknown to us because our experiences are shaped by where we
live and what our parents and the adults around us do for a living. Ifour close relatives
are blue collar, for example, they probably do not know about many white collar jobs. In

turn, white collar parents may be only vaguely familiar with many blue collar careers,

52

including the pay or working conditions, for example, and may feel a college education is
the only route to making a good living, whereas in reality there are many blue collar jobs
with very high wages and good working conditions.

Training is a career that is not well known. Few of us had the opportunity to
choose it as young people because it is virtually unknown outside of business. It is
doubtful that even our college placement counselors knew about it as a career alternative,
although we may have stumbled into some knowledge of it through labor relations or

business programs it is unlikely they offered few courses touching upon it.

Adult Career Development

Edwin Herr tells us that a career is different fi'om an occupation. An occupation is
a title of a job; a career is the complex interactions between affective, cognitive, and
psychomotor characteristics of a person, mediated by value, family, culture, and other
factors (Herr, 1990). Much of the focus on career development in the past has been on
adolescence and young adulthood. It was assumed that adulthood was a long period of
stability and career growth, and that once we, as young adults, had found the right career,
we would focus our energies into moving ahead in that career (Gladstein, 1994). In fact,
much of the literature on career development still focuses on adolescence and young
adulthood.

It was felt by career counselors that career success depended on matching
individuals to careers and much effort was spent on using interest inventories and
personality tests to ensure that individuals could choose a career where he or she best “fit”

(Gladstein, 1994). Donald Super agreed that this matching concept was a usefirl one, but

53

he also believed that development was a lifelong process and that people changed or went
through changes as they got older. Super saw five stages in ones career growth:
0 Grth — Expansion of capabilities. Typical ages 0-14.
0 Exploration — Of self and the world in order to clarify self-concept and roles
consistent with it. Typical ages 15-24.
0 Establishment — Finds a career field which suits him. Typical ages 25-44.
0 Maintenance - Seeks to hold into a position in face of change and competition.
Typical ages 45-64
0 Decline - Decreasing capacities and involvement in work. Typical ages 65+.

(cited in Arnold, 1997).

Such traditional careers as described by Super require stability and predictability
(1986). The Industrial Age in which he was situated gave rise to such stable bureaucracies
in which information was specific to a company and boarded in permanent jobs. The ideal
employee was a loyal and upwardly mobile company-man. However these bureaucracies
were unable to innovate when faced with the Information Age (Arthur et al, 1999. In
addition, the stages proposed by Super and others do not take into consideration that all
workers will not be men and that many workers will be non-traditional. Where does the
woman who is reentering the workplace at age 50 fit into these stages? What about the
former executive who has been downsized due to technological change and must choose a
new career because the one he had no longer exists? Or the older, recent college graduate
who wants to use his or her newly-acquired education?

The new, global economy and the sociological and technological changes have

deeply affected the work place and how careers work. With information and technology

54

driving change, this has meant changes in careers, since value is now in information and no
longer in bricks and mortar. People are much freer to undertake new jobs and new
responsibilities and frequently change employers in order to gain new opportunities.
Arthur calls these “Boundaryless” careers in which individuals use accumulated learning to
“enact” their careers. The exchange between employer and employee is based on
competence for opportunity, rather than the old loyalty for stability (Arthur et al, 1999).

Career development is much more dynamic today and career change in adulthood
is not only expected, but encouraged. As we have experiences, our beliefs and values
change, as does how we see ourselves, so no single career can satisfy us over a lifetime
(Gladstein, 1994). More importantly, our fast-changing information-based age means that
many of the careers that are available today did not exist even twenty years ago (Tomer,
1995). We do not know today what careers will be available in ten years, so we no longer
have the ability to choose a career and know that it will continue to be available for us in
the firture. A single career in a lifetime is much less likely than before, so career changes
as adults are inevitable. Thus, we will make not one career decision in our work lives, but
many.
Training As a Non-Traditional Career

Traditional career literature assumes that a person will select a single career and
remain in it for a lifetime. It also assumes that most of a career will be spent working for a
single employer and that there will be an unspoken contract between employee and
employer that promises a secure job for the employee in exchange for the employee’s
lifetime commitment to that employer. Workers obtained a job when they were young and

expected to keep that job until retirement. Information learned during that career tended

55

to be company-specific and remained with the company (Tofiler, 1990). Traditional
career counseling focused on finding the career which best fits an individual’s skills and
aptitudes and then moving that person into that lifetime career. Traditional careers require
stability and predictability, which are clearly not present in most of today’s jobs (Arthur,
1999). New jobs are created and other jobs disappear because technology or the work
economic condition no longer supports them. The benefit for today’s workers is that they
can move from job to job, taking what they have learned fi'om one job to another. The
more moves, the more knowledge gained. These workers become “knowledge workers”
because the knowledge is within them, instead of being hoarded within a specific
company.

Trainers, such as the ones I interviewed, are truly :krrowledge workers.” They do
not fit into the traditional model because they move around more and tend to work for a

variety of employers over their career.

Understanding Careers

Vondracek notes that careers cannot be understood unless one understands the
contexts, or external situations, surrounding them. He notes that, “Individuals develop
and contexts change. To study career development thus means to study a moving target
(the developing individual) within a changing and complex context” (1990, p. 38.). Not
only does the context affect and change the individual, but the individual affects and
changes the context. Each organism is distinct as is the context surrounding that
individual. In order to understand career development, one must understand the nature of

the individual, the features of the person’s context, and the relation between those

56

individual and contextual features. This is difficult to measure with quantitative means
because the individual and context changes fiom measurement to measurement, and
longitudinal studies are very difficult.

Traditional quantitative measure tells us “what” but not “why” something works or
“how” people make career decisions in the real world. Another problem with using
quantitative measurement is that these methods attempt to predict the future, which is
much more difficult than looking at the past. Herr points out that career decisions are
“better understood after the fact, than before.” In addition, case studies and biographies
have a “potential richness and explanatory power that many quantitative processes do not”
(Herr, 1990, p.4). Cochran says that because narratives emphasize “time as lived,” this
technique can give answers to the “great central questions that quantitative research
cannot answer—what makes a good career and how one should live” (1990). He notes
that the advantage of narrative research and other qualitative approaches is that one can
ask what is the meaning of life.

Polkinghorne suggests that narrative based on understanding human actions can
produce usefirl descriptions for a science of understanding humans (1990). He proposes
that understanding of career life planning can be greatly assisted by the study of particular
individuals in the form of narrative life histories (103). Bujold points out that life history,
including history of a career, is always “much more fascinating as such than all the
theories, schemes, paradigms, or models that would claim to help us discover its thread or
to identify satisfactorily the mechanisms underlying the development of a particular

individual” (1990, p.57).

57

The trainers I interviewed tell us in their narratives how their careers developed
and they moved from the careers they had originally chose into training. The individuals I
interviewed made their career choices in a variety of ways: some got involved with
training because of external events and others got there as a result of careful plans they
made. In addition, some became trainers early in their careers and others entered it very
late. They all tell us interesting things about the paths their careers have taken.

Sometimes, however, people end up doing something because life gave them the
opportunity to do it. Mitchell et. al call this “planned happenstance” and point out that
while the “unpredictable abounds,” it is not what happens to us, but how we react to those
happenings that are relevant (1999). They point out that people who feel comfortable
with ambiguity are most likely to react positively to unplanned occurrences and take
advantage of them, something seldom recognized or discussed with clients by career
counselors. They note that indecision is necessarily negative and that people should be
taught to participate in exploratory activities and to recognize and take advantage of
beneficial chance events (1999).

Arthur referred to people (such as these trainers) who are willing to change
employers, take on new responsibilities, improvise, take on temporary roles to learn new
skills, work with new people, and then move on, as “career actors.” They have a
motivation to work and a willingness to change employers, relocate, and use a company as
a training ground (1999).

We will first look at the individuals who ended up in training because of external

events and let them tell their stories.

58

Unplanned Entry Into Training

Daniel D, Vickie L, Bill A, and Pam W all got involved in training because it was
assigned to them by a supervisor, an example of planned happenstance described earlier.
They were available, had some knowledge, were needed to do a job, and took a risk in
doing something new. Having been assigned to training, they got hooked on it to varying

levels and decided to focus on it as a career. Their narratives follow:

Daniel D
Daniel D’s story is unusual because of how fast he got into training. His first job

after graduation was as a “training engineer.” He had attended two years of a business
curriculum at a community college and obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in
Mechanical Engineering. He had no special skills beyond what he had learned in college.

“I attended 2 years at the Community College level in Business and then switched
to an engineering major. The TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] then sent me to school
for two years to finish up an Applied Engineering Degree.” His intent was to become a
mechanical engineer, but in his first job after graduation he was assigned to be a “training
engineer” at a fossil-fired power plant for NUS, [National Utility Service], a major
provider of technical services to the utility industry.

He said, “I know the title is a strange one. Nonetheless, that is what NUS called
their trainers. I hadn’t planned to become a trainer, but my boss assigned me to that
because he needed someone and I was the newest employee.” He pretty much used what
he had learned in his engineering degree and taught himself the subject while he taught it
to others. “I developed technical training material on the operation of fossil-fired power

plants. I found I really enjoyed this.”

59

Thus Daniel D’s career in training began specifically because he was new and
inexperienced. He was selected for the task by default. Clearly, training was not a career
that others in the organization were lining up for. However, in spite of its lack of
popularity with others, he found it was something he enjoyed doing.

“I then left that job and became a senior startup engineer with The Bechtel Power
Corporation. I traveled to five different sites doing startup work and training. From there
I joined the automotive community in various engineering and training assignments at
Rockwell International, GM, and For .”

He also worked as a training instructor for a training company where he
researched, developed and taught a curriculum of courses in sheet metal fornring for an
automotive client—in efl‘ect making himselfa sheet metal forming expert. He said he
ended up liking teaching so much, “In 1990, I started my own consulting company to do
training and consulting to various automotive companies and their suppliers.” Although
he calls it a consulting company, nearly all of what he and his employees do is teach
courses to a variety of clients, including all of the Big Three automotive companies and a
professional manufacturing association. He says he personally teaches, “FMEA [Failure
Modes Efl’ect Analysis], DFA [Design for Assembly], DFM [Design for
Manufacturability], Project Management Theory, Project Management, Microsoft Project,
Project Management Awareness, Reliability and Maintainability, Discovering Common
Ground, Men & Woman as Colleagues, Hourly Supervisory Management, Auto Talk.”

He says, “I love teaching. It is a talent I discovered early in my life and when you

see the lights turn on in the student’s eyes, it’s most rewarding. There is little I don’t like

60

about teaching. I suppose it may be the very rare occasion when you can’t reach a person
or perhaps some administrators making bad decisions regarding classes.”

It is interesting that Daniel D has made a very successful career out of teaching,
among others, courses in several engineering areas to practicing engineers, yet he has
never actually worked as an engineer. In other words, through research and his teaching,
he has become a subject matter expert in something he has never practiced—unusual for
this type of training.

Vickie L

Vickie L’s situation is more typical in that she got involved in training almost
twenty years into her career in nursing. She was asked by a local college to supervise
nursing students who were enrolled in a practicum. As a manager of a healthcare
department, she was a logical choice for this task because she had the knowledge and
experience in nursing. Although that assignment didn’t last long, she enjoyed it and later
accepted an opportunity to move into a training position in the healthcare system she had
worked in, where she could teach what she had learned over her career in nursing.

In college, she had earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Nursing and then
achieved a Master of Science in Healthcare Administration. Her original career plan was
to be a nurse, . . taking care of patients, then nursing management or teaching in a
college nursing program.” She achieved both of these, working “as a nurse for ten years
and then as a director in healthcare for another ten years.” She then worked “eight years
in a healthcare human resources department doing recruiting and managing employee

relations, and finally training.”

61

She describes her first experience with teaching: “The opportunity was presented
to me by chance. I was a manager in a large healthcare system, and the college came to
the department, asking if their students could be assigned there for eight weeks. They did
not have an instructor available and asked if I would be interested. I accepted the job and
continued to do my manager job. The opportunity was valuable. I felt like I shared a lot
of useful knowledge and skills to the students. The feedback from the college was very
positive. Unfortunately, I was not able to accept any firture assignments, as I was
promoted to a director position and had too much responsibility to do both.”

“In June, 1997 I moved into a training and development position within the human
resources department at a large healthcare institution. It just seemed to happen. The
opportunity came up and I had good experience and a desire to help others in management
positions to succeed.” She notes that, “On the average I teach about 4 times per month. I
teach an average of three, '/2 day seminars for a large healthcare system. I teach an
average of one, day-long seminar for [a local business college].” She currently teaches
“Conflict Management, Interviewing, Corrective Action, Performance Management,
Coaching, Stopping Negativity, Keeping Your Best Employees, Situational Leadership,
Motivating Employees, Workplace Violence.”

She says of her teaching, “I like the instant feedback from my participants. I like
knowing that I can make a difference in how they, as a manager can succeed as well as the
people who they manage.”

Vickie L was typical of many people who find and take advantage of opportunities
to focus on the parts of her job she liked best. She took her earlier taste of training and

broadened into it into a larger part of her career.

62

Pam W

Pam W got involved in training soon after she obtained her bachelor’s degree. Her
supervisor asked her to help teach student nurses while working in a mental health facility.
She had begun her nursing career as an aide in a mental health facility while earning a BS
in psychology and had intended to remain a practicing nurse.

She describes her first teaching experience: “Once I graduated, the director of
nurses wanted me to teach psychology to the student nurses and become their psychiatry
instructor/preceptor. As I did that, she started making plans to retire. She would be
leaving our nurses training and wanted me to take over. I needed a nursing degree to do
that, so I got another degree in nursing and got my RN license. She retired and I took
over the training department.”

Having her supervisor retire and turn over her job to Pam W was a lucky break for
her and showed her competence in her job. “I still did some psychiatric nursing and
administration when needed. Then the state wanted to expand training to all employees. I
got my Master’s in Education and expanded our training and education services. I then
moved to central office and did the program for the entire state. We hooked up with the
International Association for Continuing Education and Training in about 1978 and began
to give CEUs to our courses. 1 next had us become Providers and Approvers of various
continuing education credits by various disciplines/ on a statewide basis/ and have been
doing it ever since. I thought I’d be a clinician, but ended up an instructor, as well.”

She is now retired but does consulting and teaching about three to four times per
month in a wide variety of health and general training topics: training of trainers, child

abuse, drug abuse, crisis intervention, facilitation, how to start a training department,

63

curriculum design and development, needs assessments, outcomes management, and
health care topics in medical, nursing, psychology, and other areas. She also teaches
courses for the International Association for Continuing Education and Training on their
certification process, having been on the board of directors for that organization and chair
of the Certification Commission for several years.

She says, “I usually enjoy the folks I work with/teach. I usually like the content. I
enjoy banter and discussion. I especially like the ‘Aha’ experiences in class. I like the
action plans [that] folks develop to implement the content/ skills.”

Taking advantage of opportunities gave Pam W a career which was unexpected,
but one she has found fulfilling and continues in beyond retirement part-time. She has
developed not only her knowledge of health care, but also her professional activities into

something that she can share with others.

Bill A
Bill A went into the military immediately after obtaining his bachelor’s degree. He

began his training career in the military soon after, when he was appointed medical
training officer. Later, after leaving the military, he was asked by his employer to teach
medical technicians in a hospital setting as part of one of his first clinical assignments.
He had graduated from a school of nursing and worked in clinical, surgery, and
intensive care at local hospital while completing undergraduate school, majoring in
Biology and Psychology. He then enlisted in the military. While in the military for two
years, he “ worked clinical, renal dialysis, psychiatry and medical units, was appointed

military medical training officer (Captain), researched and trained tech personnel” After

64

serving in the military, he managed the admission of psychiatry patients for the State
Service.”

“Within two years, I began to focus in education and management and [am]
currently Manager of Continuing Education & Training for a state Department of Mental
Health.” So, unlike my other subjects, Bill A both teaches and administers training.

He describes his decision to move into training: “I guess the answer to your
question is that it was more a firnction of the employer’s need and my own felt abilities. In
[one of] my first clinical assignments, I was asked to train technicians assisting in medical
areas of the hospital. This [being asked to be a trainer] carried over to technicians in
surgery when I was working and going to school. It carried over fi'om the Air Force when
I was asked to teach medical technicians, and I guess it followed through in my current
field since they needed leadership in the Hospital Education Department, and I chose to
apply for it. I’ve been satisfied with the results of this decision. I find this career [as an
administrator of training] has many challenges, however more on an individual and
management level now than when I was primarily an educator in the medical and nursing
area preparing classroom training.” He notes that he likes “having an effect on motivating
learning in participants, assisting the learning process.”

Like the others who “fell” into training, he found it fulfilling and something he
enjoyed doing enough to make it a permanent career. Given opportunities, he was willing

to accept them, take on new responsibilities, and learn new skills.

Dawn M
Dawn M received a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree and initially worked in a variety

of part-time drama positions with a city recreation department, while also getting

65

experience in marketing, advertising, and firnd raising for several non-profits and a couple
of businesses

She explains that actually her career goal was never really in theatre, either:
“Within 6 months of graduation, I designed improvisation drama class for 4 park districts
in my home town area in Illinois. I also worked with businesses (advertising and printing)
as a receptionist and sales person. My career plan was to get some practical business
experience: learn to type, get comfortable with other business people, and learn about
products and services. I was never interested in a professional career in the theatre.
Attending drama school was a way for me to continue to have firn and the freedom to
express myself in creative ways, and to avoid heavy academic requirements.”

She was also active in community projects. She says, “I also scheduled and led the
Ending Hunger Briefing, as a volunteer for The Hunger Project, for 7,000 Hawaii youth
and adults (1982-1986), primarily in private schools. I began teaching my speed reading
class for individuals who were business people and college students in 1986. It [getting
involved in continuing education] was a conscious decision, based on wanting to earn a
self-employed income and sharing the reading skills I had learned in 1982 with others. I
began teaching for Kapiolani Community College in Honolulu in 1988.”

She admits she really never had any training to be a teacher. She says about her
lack of skill, “However, as a social activist, I feel I got my teaching stripes fiom the
dozens of teachers, thousands of young people and others who gave me tremendous praise
for the Ending Hunger Briefings that I led for them. Teaching a subject that was
important to human life and spirit was very rewarding and gave me a very positive

experience of teaching at its best: for personal and social development.”

66

She teaches several communication and other business courses for a community
college and a regular four-year college continuing education department in Hawaii. She
sees training as her last career, at least for the foreseeable firture, however, I sensed that
she had the least commitment to training and teaching of all of the people I interviewed.

Dawn M got involved in training through social activism. She never really planned
to be a trainer—it evolved as a career out of becoming active in community projects.
Being self-employed as a trainer has enabled her to teach only as much as she needs to, in

order to support herself, and gives her fi'ee time to pursue her interest in social activism.

Planned Entry Into Training

The other trainers that I interviewed started their careers doing something else, but
had always liked mentoring people, wanted to be teachers of some sort, and took
conscious steps to get involved in it and make it their life careers. They made mid-life or
later career changes so they could do what they had always really wanted to do. Their

stories follow:

Fred C

Fred C began as a production worker for a large automotive manufacturing
company. He got into training when he became a union representative—a common path
for skilled trades people who have political power and connections. It was a planned
move, however, not an accidental one, because he had always enjoyed speaking in fi'ont of
groups and saw training as a way to do that.

He says, “Before I got into training, I was a production worker for General

Motors. Then in the skilled trades area, I went into an apprenticeship—joumeyman

67

electrician. Then I got involved in the technical training arena alter a number of years, as
a UAW representative. So I have a manufacturing background and a union background
prior to going back to college and prior to being involved in the educational arena.”

He went through an apprenticeship program and became a journeyman electrician.
As an older adult, he obtained a BA. in Industrial Management and a Masters degree in
Career and Technical Education. “[Getting involved with training] was a very conscious
decision. It was something I always wanted to do. I felt very comfortable speaking with
groups and interacting with groups so it was not an issue of not being able to perform in
the classroom environment. It was just something I wanted to do. And after I got started,
I found I really enjoyed it, so it was a plan.” He was first a skilled trades trainer and then
a training coordinator, so he saw several aspects of training. He is currently an
administrator of a small, local college, while continuing to teach both college level and
what he calls “plant level” courses.

He describes teaching in the plant, when he began his training career: “It was a
tough situation because when you are teaching your peers, they are probably the most
critical group you will find. They tend to expect that you know the information very well,
and they tend to be very critical of any mistakes you may make or any areas that you may
have weaknesses in, so I made sure that I was very well, very well prepared to enter the
classroom and to have reference material in mind and people I could call as backup if there
was something I didn’t know. And if it was necessary, to have someone I could get a hold
of for that particular piece of information.”

He describes plant training sessions, “Well, normally the sessions would be 2-4

hour sessions. In industry, when you go over 4 hours you start to lose the attention speed,

68

and people start to get antsy. They’re not accustomed to sitting in one place for 4 hours.
That’s why few of the courses [in the plant] are ever 8 hours long. Some of them run for
a whole shift, but the actual classroom activity is a lot less than 8 hours. But typically, 2-4
hour blocks was what was typical.”

When asked what he would say to someone interested in the field, he said,
“Trainers typically rise to the surface. They evolve out of a group of people who grasp
the information very easily and can share that information with others. They typically are
trainers before they are identified as trainers. They typically are already showing their
peers what to do and showing and sharing that information with the peOple they work
with.”

And indeed, that seems to be what happened to him. He saw in himself
characteristics such as liking to speak in fiont of groups and interact with people, and then
he found that a training and educational career would provide him with opportunities to
do those things he liked to do best. In addition, while involved in training, he worked his
way up from being an unskilled, factory production worker all the way to a master’s

degree and college administrator position.

Richard P
Richard P also began his career in manufacturing production, reaching for many

years the highest level one can achieve in a plant: plant manager. However, he waited
until retirement to enter training as a second career which would let him focus on the most
enjoyable things he had done in his first career. Training is what he does now for firn.

He says, “I worked in industry for 34 years, for [an automobile company]. I was a

manufacturing supervisor, then a superintendent. I went back and got training and a

69

degree in engineering. Then I was a personnel director for a while and I had a staff
position. Then, my last [job], for the past 15 years or so, was as a plant manager.
Primarily, the [spring and bumper plant]. There I had the experience of having to shut it
down. Then I had a plant down in Mexico.”

Finance was an important to his plant role. He said, “Many years ago, it was the
main way you were judged—on your ability to get costs down. You need to understand,
that you can’t play the game unless you really understand the rules. Basically, finance is
the rules of running a business. You know, this is how you show your effectiveness and
things like that. So that’s how I learned it.”

After 34 years of running a plant, most people would be satisfied with a retirement
filled with fishing, golf, traveling, or other pursuits. Instead, after closing his plant,
Richard P completed a career assessment program. He explained, “Well, when I retired, I
wanted to do something. And I didn’t want to jump right back into doing what I was
doing. I mean the assignment I had in the plant was very stressful. And I was fortunate
enough because of the plant closing that I could get a special early retirement. And I
wanted to do something, and I wanted to make sure, what it was [that I would like it].
And as I look back, well they had this career thing about what do you like best. And I
thought that the firn parts were around training.”

He realized that he had always enjoyed mentoring employees and helping them to
be effective. He describes this mentoring as the fun part of his job. “And the fun part of
my job was where you could help people. To learn new skills and things like that. And
applying that and getting results. You’re supporting people in their ability to do their job.

That was the good part of the job. I enjoyed it.”

70

He also felt a kind of mission about improving training. “I also felt the soft
training, things like leadership, team building, stuff like that. That what we were given,
wasn’t as effective as it could be. I thought it was a lot of fluff. As a matter of fact, it was
very discretionary. Ifa person came to me and it was an engineering skill or a computer
skill, I figured, well, let him go. But when it came to soft skills, well, I never felt that
there was a lot of effectiveness there. When I sent you out to training, and you came
back, I’d look at you, Judy, and you don’t look any smarter than when you went out last
week. What did you learn? And you’d say, ‘Well, I learned some stufl‘.’ And I’d say,
‘What are you going to do differently when you get back on your job?”’

He saw a need to make training more applicable to employees’ jobs. “I didn’t
think the content was applicable. I felt the facilitators or the trainers couldn’t relate to the
participants. [They] never really had been there. In my opinion, in training, the
effectiveness is in the credibility of the instructor. This is the difference between training
and academics. It’s the fact that [if you have business experience] you can speak with
some authority, a high degree of credibility—you’ve been there and done that. And you
can relate more to the participants. And if you have a background in manufacturing or
engineering, and it’s been done in the past and it’s worked with people, you can really
relate with them and it takes the leadership skills you really need and you can go back in
the environment.”

Thus, he was drawn to teaching because he believed the kind of experience he had
was something he wanted to share with others, and it was something he knew he would
enjoy. He had strong beliefs about what training should be like and felt a mission to make

training more efl‘ective. He approached someone who owned a small training company

71

about teaching and developing courses. He got an opportunity to help rewrite the
leadership course for GM. He was also asked to rewrite a finance course that had been
getting complaints because it was too full of theory and not enough practical information.
Soon after, he was contacted by the continuing education department of a local business
college about rewriting a couple of finance courses, and teaching the courses he had
written.

He noted that he likes training because of the . . relationship with the people.
Getting their response. Getting the Aha’s from them. Well you know when you’re
working and you’re running a plant, you need feedback. Your feedback from the financial
point of view is your profit or your feedback is getting the project done on time and out
the door. Improve your quality level. You have to improve customer satisfaction. You
can get some pretty good feedback with some hard numbers.”

“And when you retire, you don’t get that. You don’t get that hard number
feedback. And what you get, when you get rave reviews and people come up to you and
say, ‘Hey, that was great. I learned a lot. I can use it.’ But what I’m talking about is
when they write something [on an evaluation form]. You know, it really made a
difference. And I really like that. And that gives you a warm firzzy feeling, and you’re
never too old for that. You’re never too old to say I made a difl‘erence. And that to me is
the greatest thing in training.” Currently, he continues to teach leadership and financial
courses, and has no plans to stop teaching and retire for a final time.

So for Richard P, a late-in-life training career has been a way for him to fulfill his
mission of improving the content of training courses for industry, as well as a personal

opportunity for him to receive praise and have “firn” in his retirement. It is also unusual

72

that in spite of his having been the plant manager, he took advantage of the career
counseling that was offered to all of the laid-off workers, and used it to make a retirement

career choice.

Paul M

Paul M volunteered to be a participant in my research three years ago when I was
given the task of calling him to enlist his help in finding a replacement instructor for him
while he was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. In fact, he gave me the inspiration to
conduct this study when he told me that his absence would only be temporary because he
“couldn’t imagine not teaching.” He said he planned to teach no matter what and would
never consider retiring.

Paul M had always wanted to be a teacher, but was talked out of it by his parents.
He spent much of his career working to get back to his original goal of teaching, and once
he accomplished this, vowed never to do anything else.

Paul M earned a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration as an undergraduate.
He says of his career before he turned to teaching, “I had spent nearly my entire career in
material-related functions. I joined Boeing as a production expeditor for the early 707’s
while I finished my last semester of college. When I received my degree, I went into the
materials [purchasing] department as an expeditor, then worked my way up to buyer
where I was required to negotiate as part of my job description. When I topped-out at
Boeing (too young, not bald or gray), I changed companies twice in a 12 year period,
either in purchasing or marketing functions, and did as well as I did because of my ability

to negotiate. My earliest career objective was to get out of the manufacturing function.

73

When I went into the material function, I discovered that I was good at purchasing and I
liked it, so my direction was accidentally determined.”

“As a young person (high school, early college), I really wanted to be a teacher,
but my parents talked me out of it, because, ‘teachers didn’t make any money.’ By the
time I left Boeing and was working in Las Vegas as the Purchasing Manager for a
government contractor, I had determined my general direction. I would continue my
education in preparation to become either a professor of business classes or a consultant,
but I wouldn’t be stuck in big companies forever. Every job opportunity and educational
opportunity, then, was only considered if they met one of those goals.”

“When I was in Las Vegas, I became a member of the National Association of
Purchasing Management, and became the chairman of their professional development
committee, so I insisted they spend their money for professional development instead of
fostering the ‘good ol’ boy’ thing. So I put together the first professional training
program ever in the state of Nevada for purchasing people. One-fourth of the program
was presented by Chester Karrass, the negotiation guru, who was just finishing his
doctoral research. Soon after, I conducted a two-semester course for University of Las
Vegas on The Basics of Purchasing. I have been teaching something ever since then.”
[While in Las Vegas, he had earned an MBA. fiom the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas]

His next full-time purchasing job was in southern California for an instrument
company. While there he I started teaching college courses. “I eventually taught four
courses a semester—evenings and Saturday morning. When I left [the instrument

company], I counted on those classes for support as I grew my consulting and seminar

74

business.” While there he also completed a certificate program from the University of
California Executive Program. Eventually, he quit his regular job and moved into
consulting and training full-time.

When asked how long he had been involved in training, he said, “I began with the
American Management Association 29 years ago and I have been with Karrass ‘firll-time’
for over 24 years. Last year [2000], I presented 61 programs, either two or three days in
length, which was a little lighter than a usual load. Nearly all of my presentations are two
days long. In my busiest year I presented 88 programs, but those macho days are over. I
am nearly 64 now and after next year, I will try to scale back my schedule to one per
week. To do that, I have to learn to say ‘No.’ I am calling Nancy Reagan now.”

He currently teaches Effective Negotiating, Effective Negotiating 11, Effective
Sales Negotiating, Preparing for a Successfirl Negotiation. He also gives a talk, Using
Humor in the Negotiation Process. In the past, he has taught courses in purchasing, basic
supervision, time management and salesmanship.

It took Paul M a long time to achieve the teaching career he had really wanted as a
young person. He entered it through activity in a professional association and fiirthered it
by getting an MBA and completing the executive program, thus qualifying himself to
teach, not only because of his purchasing experience and expertise, but also because of his
academic credentials.

Tim K
Tim K also always wanted to be a teacher and even got a teaching certificate, but

had the bad luck of graduating when jobs of all kinds were scare and teaching jobs almost

75

non-existent. He entered training by becoming an expert in his field and some good luck
in being at the right place at the right time to take advantage of an opportunity.

He tells about the wide variety of jobs he has held. “As a youth, I was always
trying to earn money through various jobs fi'om selling items for charities, to running a
lawn care service (purchased my own lawn mowers), to working at a corner grocery store
for eight years as a delivery boy/meat counter clerk. I also had various jobs while in
college: Marine Corp Reservist in engineering, bottle gas dock general help, cigar shop,
bouncer at local bar, automotive supply shop (two different stores), automotive garage
helper, etc. I had told my mother in fifth grade that I wanted to be a teacher. After
college there were very few high school teaching jobs open so I decided to go into
industry.”

He graduated fiom Adrian College with a Bachelor’s degree in Business
Administration, Econonrics, & Earth Science. “Upon graduating in 1979, I was unable to
find meaningful work, so returned to college that fall and added a Natural Science minor
and a Michigan Secondary Provisional Certificate in January 1981. I substituted for 1-'/2
years with no opportunities for a full time assignment.”

He “finally found a full time job in 1982 as a purchasing agent in a small plant,
which was part of a fortune 500 company. “While in the purchasing job, I went back to
school to earn a masters degree [in Industry Technology, Quality Management]. I become
aware of the video If Japan Can, Why Can't We, which introduced me to the Quality
Movement of Statistical Process Control (SPC). The classes that I was taking made so

much sense to me; that I could not understand why industry did not use this stufl‘ more.”

76

“During my second full time industrial job I was applying the stufl‘ I learned in the
masters [program]. The company hired a new CEO from Ford Motor Company who took
the entire senior management team to a five-day W. Edwards Deming seminar in
Dearborn. At the last minute, my manager asked me to go along with the group. I was
the only non-manager fi'om the company that attended, mainly due to my job to help the
plants set up SPC. After returning from that session, the CEO wanted training conducted
for the entire organization, and since I was low man in the group, I got (which I
welcomed) the opportunity to start working up and teaching the materials we had learned
fiom Deming to our company. I quickly also set up training for suppliers.”

One could argue that his being given this opportunity to set up training was due
mainly to luck, and therefore not really planned. However, he was given this chance
because he had previously been doing one aspect of training—that is, helping plants
implement new methods and skills, based on what he had learned himself.

He believes this training role was a natural one for him. He has “. . . always
enjoyed learning new things myself and enjoyed trying to help others to learn. For
example, during a math class while in high school, after one particular lesson, nearly
everyone was lost about what the teacher had said. I turned around and started talking to
several other students about what we had just heard working through the materials. I
found that I understood it much better after that and the student who I was talking to, also
seemed to understand how to do the problems.”

While in military boot camp, he had help set up and manage the self-directed

learning lab that prepared the unit for their final exam. Again in service while in

77

engineering school, he said, “I was the class leader and offered to tutor anyone on
Saturday mornings in the materials we were learning.”

He currently teaches SPC, Managing Process for Continuous Improvement,
Technical Quality Tools Training, Certified Quality Engineer refi'esher courses, Certified
Quality Manager refresher courses and a mix of quality and motivational items. He
teaches at a major automotive company and for the American Society for Quality, among
other organizations.

Tim K says of his career, “I have developed an expertise in the management and
quality field and enjoy sharing what I have learned with others. I have met people like W.
Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, Armund F eigenbaum, and Philip Crosby, as well as Peter
Senge and Russell Ackoff. Some day, I would like to be known as a person who shared
lessons learned and profound knowledge with the world.”

That Tim K got started on his training career because he was the “low man” in the
group is indicative of the lack of respect that training has had with some management fi'om
time to time. He describes how it was thought of as a “dumping ground.” At the last
minute, he was taken along with a group of more senior people to attend a program and
was assigned the “menial” task of passing along to other employees what he had learned.
No matter—he took that opportunity and turned it into a career that enabled him to enjoy

being at the cutting edge of business change.

Summary

These narratives show the wide variety in the ways people can get involved in a

training career. It is important to note, however, that I selected a very specific subset of

78

trainers for inclusion in this study—those who came into training because they were
subject matter experts who were initially educated and prepared to enter a different field.
I also selected only trainers who were successfirl and well-established in their careers.

About half of the individuals interviewed did not plan on a career that involved
teaching, but were given a training role by supervisors or others because of an
organizational need. The other half saw training and teaching as something they wanted
to do and took positive steps to move away from their original career and put themselves
in a position where they could become trainers because of a particular expertise in a
content area. All, however, loved training and intended to continue in this role.

In an article in People Management, Alison Hardingham describes discovering
similar data about how trainers get involved in training. He ran a course for experienced
and skilled trainers and was struck by the variety of ways each of the ten people in his
class got into training. He pointed out, “This diversity [of entry paths] underlined the fact
that there is no standard career path for trainers” (1997, p, 48). He continued, “For many
of us, that is one of training’s most attractive qualities. Trainers are fi'ee agents: we can be
opportunistic in our career choices (perhaps we have to be), and we have the excitement
of not knowing what lies ahead. Those who like training, and the freedom, opportunism
and uncertainty of the training room, often relish the same themes in their lives” (1997,

p.48).

79

Chapter 5 - Job Experiences of Trainers

Now, we need to look at what the job experiences are like for these trainers who
entered training in such a variety of ways. What is it like to be a trainer? What is the job
like? What does a trainer do in a classroom on a typical day? The introduction in the first
chapter of this study presented the basics of how a trainer’s job is similar to and difl‘ers
from that of an instructor in higher education. This chapter begins by expanding on that
discussion and presents some general information about what the career and job
experiences of a trainer.

Since this is a little-known job, we will then look in some detail at the working
conditions and the routine things these trainers do in their jobs on a day-to-day basis.
These routine activities include how they prepare before they reach the classroom, what
they do when they arrive in the classroom, how they get to know students, how they
teach, and how they end a typical day.

Finally, we will look at some of the cognitive processes that take place during their
teaching experiences. We will look at their awareness of their teaching techniques, how
they learn, and keep up with and update course content. Since so little has been written

about this subject, we will rely primarily on the trainers to tell us about their experiences.

Training as an Unknown Career

The outside world knows little about this occupation. The US. Department of
Labor’s Occupational Outlook Hancflrook 2000-01 Edition does not list “trainer” as a

separate occupation. It mentions trainers only briefly as “someone who reports to a

80

training manager” in a category with human resources and labor relations personnel, and it
assumes they are performing work for their own employer. While it is true that some
trainers fall into this situation, and may even use this path as an entryway into training,
there are a large number of other “trainers” whose job more closely resembles that of a
consultant, in that they share knowledge and work with a wide variety of employers, and
are likely to be either self-employed or employed by a company whose main business is
training.

And, in fact, because I selected trainers for this study who were well established
and successful as trainers, my interviewees tended to be in this category of
trainer/consultants, rather than those employed in training departments. This is because
becoming self-employed is a natural career step for very talented trainers. As training
department budgets become more limited, a trainer can increase his or her income by
either becoming a training manager or return to a line management firnction. The
alternative is joining the ranks of independent providers or joining an independent
training/consultancy company (Hardingham, 1997).

The term “consultancy” is somewhat misleading. According to the same
Occupational Outlook Hancfiook, consultants “analyze and propose ways to improve an
organization’s structure, efficiency, or profits.” While the trainers I interviewed do
occasionally act as consultants, the vast majority of their time is spent in the classroom
teaching students, so they are not just “consultants” and their teaching jobs have little to
do with this occupation.

Because they teach adults in a classroom, they have some things in common with

teachers of adult education or high education. They gather materials, plan lessons, present

81

information, lead group activities, and sometimes assess learners. However, students
come, or are sent by employers, primarily to learn new techniques and gain knowledge,
not to obtain credit toward a degree as do college students, so there is much less emphasis
on testing and exams. Trainers do not “grade papers,” for example.

Training programs can be organized by university continuing education
departments for the general public, professional associations for their members, or private
companies for their own employees. As we know from Training magazine’s 2001 survey,
64% of training dollars are spent on exempt employees and executives, meaning that a
great many of the participants in courses taught by these providers are college graduates
with at least one degree and possibly an advanced degree. (An exempt employee is one
who because of educational level or job responsibility is exempt from certain wage and
hour laws.) Thus, it could be said that continuing education is a kind of business-
sponsored “graduate school.”

Another difference between college courses and training or continuing education
programs is that they meet intensively over a several day period, instead of over a
semester. This is done to accommodate those participants who must travel long distances
to courses and stay in hotels. It is more convenient for business people to attend a two-
day course than to attend one hour per day over several weeks, as is done in higher

education.

Working Conditions

Training, along with higher education teaching, can be an exhausting occupation.

Although courses are “short” and usually last only two or three days long, the class day

82

itself usually is eight hours long, with only a lunch break. Instructors must be on their feet
most of that time and keep up a high energy level, so they appear enthusiastic about their
subject, reflecting the general belief in the field that being enthusiastic improves learning,
or at least provides better scores on end-of-class evaluations—something substantiated by
the Dr. Fox Studies, where students were presented with enthusiastic and unenthusiastic
presenters of content-rich and content-skimpy lectures (Larkins, 1985).

Training instructors are also often responsible for setting up the classroom and
cleaning up afterwards, especially if it is held in a hotel or other location without support
personnel. There can also be important unknowns. Instructors often arrive at a classroom
they have never taught in before. They cannot be sure that equipment is available and in
working condition, or even if the space is really suitable as a classroom. Every trainer has
a horror story of having to teach in an extremely noisy or cramped environment. This
researcher, for example, once attempted to teach a group of Chinese students whose
English was weak in a portable building next to a factory and had to contend with the
noise sandblasting the outside wall next to the classroom. In addition, a large, non-
strategically-placed pillar made it possible to speak to students in only one-half of the
room at a time. Other instnrctors have had to cope with the noises fiom nearby stamping
presses and grinding machines. Crarnped hotel conference rooms and noisy conditions are
not uncommon.

Bob Filipczak of Training magazine, the most popular trade journal for trainers,
addresses the exhaustion that trainers experience. He describes one trainer’s “roadtrip”
schedule: “The road show consisted of 12 hours of classroom training every day, five

days a week, for 12 weeks straight” (1997). I personally knew one trainer who for two

83

months volunteered to teach double shifts in the classroom, five days a week—one shift
from 8:00 AM. to 4:00 PM. and another fiom 4:30 PM. to 12:30 A.M.—an admirable,
through extremely difiicult task. At least this Silicon Valley instructor lived nearby.
However, these are clearly the extremes. Most instructors in business teach only a few
days each week and may not even teach every week. Those who try to teach every day
quickly become what one person I know called a “training machine” and get burned out.
What is a typical, though possibly mundane, day like for trainers? Since all of the
individuals I interviewed are seasoned trainers, they have each developed their own
methods for approaching and managing a teaching day. We will look at their stories
within a fi'amework of a typical work day. Note that not all participants answered every

question I asked or gave the same kind of details as the others did.

Travel

Because most of the trainers I interviewed worked for training organizations or
professional associations or were independently employed, travel is often required because
classes are held all over the country. Trainers are sort of “educational gypsies,” as Paul M
expressed it, because they teach in so many different locations. Even plant trainers often
will travel to other plants owned by the same company to do training. Filipczak describes
trainers who have to be in different cities every night or two, five days a week (1997). All
of my interviewees did some traveling and four traveled substantially. Two had taught
courses in Australia and Europe. Paul M notes, “I live in the middle of ‘no place,’ so
95% of my presentations require air travel, so my seminar day begins by leaving home by
3 :00 pm. the preceding day.” Richard P has taught classes in Luxembourg, Tokyo,

Australia, and Mexico. He says, “If it’s limited, that’s OK. And for example, when I went

84

to Europe, I took a few days before and after and did some sightseeing. I would not relish

traveling a lot of time.”

Preparation to Teach

Most trainers specialize in teaching a handful or two of courses in a general area.
The type and amount of preparation, as is true for any teacher, will depend on how
familiar they are with the material, how many times they have taught it, and how
comfortable they are in the classroom. If I am using well-prepared material, for example,
and have taught a two-day course using this material 30 times in the past year, I will
probably not need much preparation around content, other than finding ways to make it
interesting to participants. An advantage of this repetitive delivery is that it will enable me
to polish content and focus on my teaching techniques.

Most of the instructors I interviewed have regular preparation routines. Some
prepare more than others, however, which may be due to their familiarity with the
particular course they are scheduled to teach. Preparation includes both making sure they
know their content and getting physically and emotionally ready for a long day.

Daniel D says, “Because the classes I teach are structured and similar, not much
prep is needed. The materials are arranged in individual briefcases and are reviewed [by
me] the night before I teach the course.” On the other hand, Vickie L prepares for a
course “by doing lots of reading. I try to keep up on new information through books,
articles, professional organizations. Also, I talk to managers and the people who are
requesting the training, to make sure I am delivering what they need.”

Some of the instructors follow a particular ritual to prepare for teaching. Dawn M

says she prepares both mentally and physically: “I get a good night’s rest, groomed the

85

day before, a healthy green drink and whole vitamins in the morning, along with a fiuit for
breakfast I often do my half-hour breathing program to release stress and clear my mind.
This really helps me give my students my full attention.” She continues, “I dress neat,
attractive and simple. Little or no jewelry; I always wear my hair back, off of my face. I
wear low shoes, to protect my body and ensure my stamina. Sometimes I will drink a
black tea for a little pick-me-up in an all-morning class. Other times I may drink a special
herb tea for mental concentration. I always have a water bottle with me and I sip it
throughout class.”

Paul M also has a ritual: “After I arrive in the hotel, I follow a ritual. I insure
[check] my directions [to the training facility] for the next day if the program isn’t being
held in the hotel where I am staying. Then, after the usual unpacking routine, I repack my
bag that I will use for the next program. Then I spend anywhere from 20 minutes to
several hours reviewing the knowledge I have of that specific client and formulating some
questions for use early in the first day to create dialog early. Good night. The next
morning my ritual includes the first 15 minutes of the Today show and the front, business,
and sports sections of the USA Today. I look for a negotiation lesson from the current
news.”

Pam W says, “A lot goes into the design of the seminar, of course. Research and
statistics are woven into the content. I always have to remain current on information
presented. Once I have a program and materials designed, then I take it on the road.
When I prepare to deliver one of my packaged courses, I make sure I’ve gone over the

material. I weave any local flavor into the presentation.”

86

Richard P also prepares by getting information about the participants ahead of
time. He says the kind of preparation he does depends on whether it is open enrollment,
meaning that students come from a variety of companies or an on-site conduct. He says,
“I do a lot of open enrollment, and I also do classes for individual companies. They get
ABS company, for example, and they say they’re looking for a particular class. So I will
call the person who’s doing the training and ask them, ‘What specifically are you looking
for? What are your particular needs and wants?’ And I’ll talk to them or they’ll put me in
touch with their CFO [chief financial oflicer] and they’ll say they need something
specific.”

Fred C talked about the preparation he had to do when he was teaching his peers
in the plants early in his career. He said, “It was a tough situation because when you are
teaching your peers, they are probably the most critical group you will find. They tend to
expect that you know the information very well, and they tend to be very critical of any
mistakes you may make or any areas that you may have weaknesses in, so I made sure that
I was very, very well prepared to enter the classroom and to have reference material in
mind and people I could call as backup if there was something I didn’t know. And if it
was necessary, to have someone I could get a hold of for that particular piece of

information.”

Getting to the Classroom

Daniel D says he leaves “the house or hotel in time to arrive 30-40 minutes before
class starts so that I can set the room up. Vickie L also arrives “at least 30 minutes prior

to the start of the seminar. I review my equipment, materials, room setup.”

87

Tim K arrives even earlier, “I much prefer to arrive at the training location at least
an hour or more early to ensure the room setup is conducive to learning and that all
equipment is working. I will usually ensure that my materials are ready the night before so
before the class I only have to put them is place. Depending on how often I have taught
the particular course, I might take a quick look over some of the materials to align the
order. If flip charts are used, I will ensure that everything is ready. I like to use various
props and/or toys during the course to help keep interest up, so these items will be
positioned

Pam W also likes to arrive an hour early: “I’ll be sure to time my travel to anive at
least an hour before the training (if possible) and set up, redo the room if needed, make
bullets on my content (or use the one’s I’ve made before), meet with any other staff and
participants, get a cold diet pop, maybe a water with ice.”

Richard P follows much the same process as the others. He gets to the classroom
early because he expects to have to set the room up. He notes that he “likes to rearrange
the furniture and make sure all the materials are there on time, especially in an unknown
classroom.” Often materials are shipped ahead of time and he has the same problem as
most of the others do—not knowing if they have really arrived where they are supposed to

arrive and on time for class.

Getting to Know the Students
Since most instructors try to adjust their teaching to the specific group attending a

specific course conduct, it is important for them to get to know the students and their

personal and organizational needs as soon as possible.

88

Once everyone has arrived, Daniel D gets the class organized, “I prepare for the
introductions of the students. During that time I try to focus on remembering everyone’s
name. I am typically good for about 20 names in my memory. Next, I begin class
emphasizing participant input.”

Vickie L also makes a solid attempt to get to know her students: “I make sure I
greet the participants and do an introduction of who I am before starting the program. At
the beginning I ask each participant to introduce and share some information about
themselves to the group and ask them what they want to gain from the program. This
allows me to do an initial ‘read’ on the audience and make any last minute changes to the
program. I keep the program interactive, and move around the room to stimulate
participation. Ifthe program has a lunch, I try to eat with the participants, again to get
some idea who they are and what they hope to learn and need to learn.”

Paul M makes sure he arrives before any participants arrive, “So I can greet them,
help them be comfortable with me, and see if I can learn anything fi'om them that will help
with the program. I always stay in the conference room during breaks in case anyone
wants to talk to me in private. It usually happens. People will ask questions in private
that they will not ask in the general session. I enjoy it when I can be of value to them, and
I will learn something that will be usefirl in the program.”

Tim K focuses early on how to modify his materials. He says, “As the class is
starting, I try to get a feel for the group to see how to modify the materials on the fly, if
needed. I try to tailor comments to fit the group and to share the meaning behind some of
the material. Since I have a strong belief that without the history of a topic, you are

doomed to repeating the same mistakes, I will usually interject some history and

89

motivation into the lecture portions of the course. I have learned that getting the
participants to talk works the best for adult learning. To this end, I will continually ask
open-ended questions during the day trying to draw out the participants in the room.”

Pam W also starts off with an assessment of the audience so she can tailor the
content. She says, “Depending on the course I’ll do a demographic, ask for their goals for
the course, do the course goals & objectives, successfirl completion stuff, logistical/agenda
review, do the content, evaluate on paper (skills if due) and verbal, then give out
certificates. Clean up and go home!” She adds that while teaching, she asks herself, “Am
I reaching every one. What else do I need to do to make it easier and practical for folks?
How can I make it better? Are there some local things I need to add?”

Tim K also does his course tailoring during the class because most of the classes
he teaches are open-enrollment and have participants from many organizations. He says,
“So when I start the class, I have each person introduce themselves and I ask them why
did they take the class. And when I’m doing that, I’m formulating in my head what do I
need to emphasize. And I’ve done them [the courses] for so long, I know this is what I’ve
got to do to tailor them to the people there.”

This focus on tailoring courses to a particular audience is important. Peter Senge
in his book on the learning organization stresses the importance of the distinction
between training and learning. He says that training usually consists of a discrete series of
steps used to teach a distinct skill. Learning on the other hand is what happens when
training is integrated into people’s jobs (1994). Almost all of the trainers I interviewed

described steps they took when they taught to ensure that they were teaching skills that

90

were as specific to the needs of the students as possible, so the skills learned could be
more easily implemented on the job.

This course tailoring is a kind of problem-solving each instructor undertakes
before and during class. McKeachie reports that higher education faculty are motivated by
such open-ended problem solving (1997). It is apparently also important to our trainers

because almost all of them mentioned it as a major activity.

End of Day
Daniel D likes to end his day positively: “I never let class [end] early so that that

the students have a healthy respect for the training environment. Often I will review the
day and ask the participants to comment on how the day went for them. I stay to answer
any questions that a participant may have at the end of the day as well.” Vickie L says,
“At the end of the day I review the evaluations and make notes regarding any new ideas or
changes that need to be made for future programs.”

Paul M says, “At the end of the first day, I always hang around the room for a
while. There are two reasons: one is that I am usually too tired at the end of the day to go
anywhere, so I decompress. The second is, people will come back to talk and I want to be
available. These ‘end of day’ sessions are usually good for problem solving.”

Tim K spends a considerable amount of time at the end of class putting things back in
order. “At the end of the session, I will usually ensure that the room is cleaned up and
back in order. Since I tend to use a lot of items, I have to ensure that things are collected
and arranged back into my traveling training boxes. I like to use overhead transparencies
and will tend to write on them, so I usually clean them at the end of the session so they are

ready for the next class.”

91

Cognitive Processes of Trainers

Trainers do not simply delivered “canned” material. Many of them are
accomplished course developers and use instructional techniques which are recognized by
academia as appropriate for adult learners. The trainers I interviewed consider themselves
good teachers and were conscious of what they considered to be good teaching
techniques. Most mentioned getting comments fiom students and “good evaluations” as
evidence of this. Trainers, almost universally, are required by the organizations that
employ them or hire them to use some sort of end-of-class course evaluation form.
Although these are often derisively referred to as “smile sheets,” these are almost always
monitored and kept track of not only by the organization that bought the training, but the
organization that provided it. Getting good scores and comments on these smile sheets
are very important to our trainers, evidenced by several references to it in their narratives,
in spite of my not asking any questions specifically about this subject:

0 Daniel D said he felt good about being a teacher, “When someone comes up or
writes on the evaluation that you are the best instructor they have ever had.
Fortunately I hear this one a lot.”

0 Vickie L says, “At the end of the day I review the evaluations and make notes
regarding any new ideas or changes that need to be made for future programs.”

0 Pam W mentions “the thanks from the participants and good evaluations.”

0 Dawn M told about how she felt good when “Several students have told me and
written in their evaluations that they experienced my class to be the best
educational experience they have ever had.

0 Tim K mentioned the “good comments” he got at the end of classes.

92

0 Richard P talked about getting “rave reviews” and comments, not just scores on
evaluations, “But what I’m talking about is when they write something. You
know, it really made a difi‘erence.”

These comments show that it is important to these trainers to have students give
them positive feedback at the end of class. So while higher education instructors have to
wait until the end of the semester to find out what their students think of them and their
teaching, trainers get this feedback at the end of every class.

We also know that they are aware of their teaching techniques because many of
them noted that they are constantly monitoring and adapting content to the students’
reactions and needs, on the fly, sometimes adding or deleting content as they go. But in
addition to that, they are cognizant of what it takes to be a good teacher. For example,
Tim K talks about how his teaching techniques have changed over the years. He says, “In
my early days, I would use a lot of overheads transparencies and displays to teach fiom.
Today, I tend to use only key point slides and will talk with the audience about the topic
and material. I will continue to use slides, models, and displays to help the learning
process, but usually as I watch the audience for understanding. I have learned that getting
the participants to talk works the best for adult learning. To this end, I will continually
ask open-ended questions during the day, trying to draw out the participants. I am finally
learning to watch the group better to look for understanding. Initially, I relied on the
transparencies to tell the story. Now, I use the materials to work as a fiamework for the
presentation and try to talk with the participants instead of lecturing.”

Richard P has learned that if your presentation is dull, your business audience is

likely to slip out to make phone calls or simply sneak out during a break and not return.

93

He says, “You’re not going to keep them unless you can move them. Getting them to
talk, getting them involved. The minute you start pontificating, you lose them.” He also
talked about rewriting some courses because they were “very, very intensive academic.”
A lot of the participants had walked out of the course and said that the content wasn’t
what they needed, so he was glad to have a chance to rewrite the course. In fact, he has
strong feelings about not liking to teach courses he has not helped to write.

Paul M adds, “I focus on signs of understanding and I try to be sensitive to when a
point isn’t getting through. I am very open, so I will say things like, ‘Hmmmm, I didn’t
get the response I had hoped for on that point, so lets try it another way.’ I know I have
good material, so I work on making it interesting.

Vickie L says she keeps the program interactive, and moves around the room to
stimulate participation. “1 am constantly “reading” the participant’s non-verbal or body
language. I think about how the information can be presented to make it as useful as
possible for them to succeed.”

Daniel D says that while he is teaching he is thinking “How can I best
communicate the subject matter? My preference is to use humor as it warms people up,
relaxes them and helps them to gain knowledge.” He also says he tries to remember
everyone’s name, and begins class by “emphasizing participant input.” He also never lets
a class out early “so that that the students have a healthy respect for the training

environment.”

Trainers as Learners

Trainers such as the ones I interviewed have opportunities not available to many

other people because they deal with such a wide variety of companies and industries.

94

There are two ways courses are held in the training industry: onsite at a specific company
where only employees fi'om that company attend and open enrollment where the course is
likely to be held at a hotel, conference center, or other training facility and participants
come fiom many difi‘erent companies and locations, often traveling long distances to
attend.

When a class is held onsite for a specific company, a trainer will often talk to the
contracting department or management person to determine what specific problems the
company has been having so they can address those issues during class. This is part of the
“tailoring” process several trainers mentioned in their description of their preparation. In
addition to talking to management, the trainer will lead discussion in class with
participants as they ask questions or participate in activities. Participants will talk about
what has been going on in their organization and what they have tried that has worked or
not worked to solve problems. When a class is held open enrollment, there is no
opportunity for an instructor to talk to the student’s management, but the students
themselves commonly bring problems and issues fiom their many organizations with them
for discussion. Other students will often share solutions used by their organizations in
similar situations.

In both of these situations, instnrctors have unique opportunities to gain not only
industry knowledge but to problem solve with real-life problems in the work setting. This
is a tremendous learning opportunity for instructors and causes them to not only adjust
their teaching methods but also add and subtract content from their courses over time.
Vickie L talks about “last minute changes to the program” and “learning fi'om the

students.” Pam W says, “I’ve also met many people from many organizations and have

95

expanded my area of experience and knowledge.” Daniel D mentioned a time when he
had a corporate lawyer speak to his class and sit in on some of the sessions to share some
engineering issues the group had been having. Tim K says he enjoys “helping others and
myself learn.”

In my own situation, I have presented courses to audiences that included, at
different time, both army and air force personnel and was given copies of the writing style
guides used by both services and the writing textbook used by the US. Air Force. I
learned a lot during class about the specific problems they have in writing reports,
especially around the use of titles and acronyms. This occurred personally for me again
with a group I taught who was doing testing for the Russian automotive company. They
had had many complaints from the translators who were translating their engineering
reports into Russian. Since the translators worked in the same building as the class was
being held, we invited two of them to attend the remainder of the two.day session with us
so we could work on solving problems. It was a learning experience for all of us,
including the translators.

In addition to learning fiom their students and from the management of the
companies they visit, trainers, especially those who assist in the development of courses,
must keep up with their fields in order to teach effectively. They read journals and books,
attend conferences, and participate in professional activities to keep current. Pam W
talked about weaving research and statistics into the content and how she always has to
remain current on info presented. Tim K says, “I am continually looking for new learning
opportunities for myself and at the same time trying to pick up items that I might be able

to incorporate into my delivery style.” He was proud that in the course of attending

96

professional functions and seminars he had met the leading people in his field, “people like
W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, Armund Feigenbaunr, and Philip Crosby as well as
Peter Senge and Russell Ackofi‘.” Richard P has built his knowledge mostly from having
“been there and done that” and the relationships he has developed with people who work
in factories.

And finally, Paul M built much of his knowledge on what he learned during his
affiliation with the purchasing professional association and his initial and continuing
contact with Karass, probably the most well-known expert in the negotiating field. When
asked what he does to prepare for a class, he says, “I am the student. Since my specialty
is reduced to negotiation now, I make a real effort to read everything written on that
subject. Even though I often present 2 programs a week, I try to bring something

different into each presentation. That keeps the subject fresh for me, therefore, fun”

Summary

We have learned in this chapter much about what the job experiences of people
who teach continuing education and training programs is really like, including the day-to-
day mundane things. We have also seen that they have some things in common with high
education faculty and other things not in common with them. We have learned that:

0 They have routines for preparing for teaching in a variety of ways—both physically
and mentally. Some prepare by reviewing their course materials, while others
know their materials so well, little review is needed. Many instructors have
routines they go through before teaching—watching a particular TV program,

eating specific foods, or dressing in a particular way.

97

They arrive to the classroom early to make sure it is set up to their liking. They
check equipment and make sure materials are laid out properly. They arrange the
furniture the way they like it.

They try to get to know participants as soon as they can so they can adjust content
as necessary for the particular group. They adjust content to meet the goals and
specific needs of the individual class group, which shows that they have the same
kind of autonomy to control the classroom as do higher education faculty.

They are conscious of their teaching techniques. They monitor student reaction to
their teaching and adjust methods as needed. They look for ways to improve their
teaching in the same ways teachers in other situation do. They are self-taught for
the most part, but know some things about the techniques for teaching adult
learning.

They are learners who make efforts to keep up with their fields and develop and
modify course content as conditions change. They also have unique opportunities
to learn not only from their students, but fiom the management of the companies
they visit.

Most of these trainers, however, learned to teach by teaching, a sort of do-it-

yourself preparation for their roles. \Vrth one exception, they had no formal education in
how to teach adults. We do not know how they have learned the teaching skills they have.
In addition, because objective testing and assessment of students is seldom done, we really
do not know how well students learn from these instructors. We also do not really know

how well they are teaching, other than the end-of-course evaluation forms, which may or

98

may not adequately measure the quality of teaching. And these forms are not consistent
from organization, so it is difficult to compare data.

Skeptics might also really wonder if the teaching they do is of the same caliber as
done by higher education faculty. Do they treat the subject matter from only a practical
standpoint and ignore theory? Does this mean they do not teach well? Can anyone really
teach something in only one or two days? We have not really looked at the depth of what
they teach, although we do know that it is practical and implementable or the content
would not be requested by the employers who are paying the rather substantial bills.
These questions must wait for future research to be answered.

The next chapter looks at what motivates these trainers to persist in this career.

99

Chapter 6 - Career Motivation and Persistence of Trainers

Considering that training can be an exhausting and challenging career, what makes
trainers who did not originally choose training as a career continue to work as trainers?
We know some things that motivate people to pursue an activity. Getting a paycheck, for
example, keeps some people at their jobs. Most of us, however, are motivated by other
things beyond the basics of money and benefits.

The characteristics of ones job can make it satisfying or dissatisfying. Like other
careers, training has aspects that are both motivating and de—motivating. Hackman and
Oldham (1980) focused on the theory that work is much more motivating when it has the
following characteristics:

0 Skill variety — requires a multiplicity of skills to perform it.

0 Task identity - has clearly identified tasks.

0 Task significance - is recognized as important to others.

0 Feedback - the worker find out immediately how well he or she has performed the
job.

0 Autonomy — what, how, and when the work is done can be controlled by the
worker.

As a career, training has many of these aspects described by Hackman and Oldham:

0 Training requires multiple skills: teaching, public speaking, task organization,

flexibility, and content knowledge, among others.

0 It has clear, identifiable tasks.

100

o It is considered important enough that an employer is willing to pay not only the
direct costs of training and travel, but also the indirect costs of time away fi'om the
job. In addition, instructors are often told by participants how important what they
have learned will be.

0 Trainers typically receive immediate feedback fiom participants through end-of-
course evaluations and student comments.

c In addition, trainers often have substantial control over what is taught and how it is
taught. They often develop or participate in the development of their course
materials. And most certainly, they adapt course material on the fly during every
course session. (Any training manager who tries to get all of his/her instructors to
deliver a course consistently each time it is ofl‘ered will attest to this.)

Trainers also have a high degree of responsibility, one of the motivational factors
Herzberg describes (1987). Trainers generally work in classrooms alone. They are the
primary people responsible for satisfying the needs of participants, whose employers have
paid a substantial amount for tuition and travel and ofl‘-the-job expenses. If an instructor
does not continue to receive high ratings on evaluations, that instructor will not be able to
continue teaching for the provider.

In the interviews I conducted, there were several motivational themes that
emerged:

o The strongest motivation expressed was their belief in the value of the content they
teach. They believe that sharing what they know can make lasting differences in

their students and the organizations that employ them.

101

0 Another important motivation is the enjoyment of the social contact with learners.
In fact, two met their wives in class!

0 They also loved the praise and recognition they get from students.

0 Finally, they enjoyed learning through teaching—continually adding to what they
know. Some of this was through keeping up with their field, but much is learning
fiom those they teach.

In addition to these motivators, the trainers mentioned several de-motivators which
might cause them to quit teaching, including the repetitive nature of training. And finally,
they talked about any considerations they had of other careers. We will look first at the
three motivational themes listed above, as expressed by the trainers I interviewed, and then

look at their de-motivators and considerations they gave to other careers.

Making a Difference Through What They Teach

We all want to feel that our lives have been worthwhile, that some good has come
out of what we have done. Have we done something that we will be remembered for after
we’re gone? Have we made the world a better place?

Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1982) tells us that people who feel competent and
effective in their careers are more likely to put forth a high level of effort. One aspect of
effectiveness is making a difference as a result of ones personal effort. We feel efl’ective if
we know that what we have done has had some positive effect on other people or
institutions. In addition, performing tasks that are recognized as important by others is

one of the motivating job characteristics proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1980). In

102

fact, one cannot “make a difference” unless ones job includes tasks recognized as
important by others.

All of the instructors I interviewed mentioned “making a difference” as one of the
things that meant the most to them as a motivator. Since all taught training subjects that
had immediate application to the work environment, they often got immediate feedback
about how students felt about the usefirlness of what they had learned. A few also got
feedback from past participants or repeat participants on the successes they had had using
what they had learned. In addition, several noted that they enjoyed having students who
were taking a second course fiom the instructor because they often brought back stories
about how they had used what they had learned. In addition, many were asked back by
management and given praise for their teaching.

Following are some of their comments about how important this “making a
difference” was to them:

Tim K said that he gets his greatest enjoyment “being in hunt of a group to deliver
a message that they need to hear.” He continued, “Over the last ten years or so, I have
also done a lot of one-on-one sessions with individuals who want to find some source of
information. I have a lot of knowledge to share, but I usually take the time to share with
them how to learn and to help them brainstorm ways of doing things difl’erently. I have
found that most of our formal education system does not teach people how to learn.
Sharing my learning's with others is very enjoyable to me and this love is one I hope to
nurture until the day I cease existence in this reality.”

Tim K was proud that he has developed a unique expertise that others can use. He

said, ” I am also proud of taking two fields (quality and industrial training), which were

103

considered a dumping ground in the 1960's and 1970's, and combining the fields into my
life's work. I know of few people who can claim to an SME in both fields.”

Paul M was proud of having opportunities to teach a subject that was so useful to
others. He describes, “Probably my most memorable moment was when the president of a
company was introducing me to his new group of 109 people in Detroit. Here is what he
said: ‘You better listen to this man because we owe a lot of our success to what we have
learned from him, and if it were not for him, you wouldn’t be here!’ Basically, I am doing
what I am good at, teaching a subject that I thoroughly enjoy, believing that I do make a
difference.”

Another memorable moment for him was when someone jumped up in the middle
of a class and ran to the phone to change a company protocol or a company proposal. At
one on-site program, an executive vice-president who had been listening, asked him to
stop and sit down because something he had just said could mean a $100,000 profit
improvement, and she needed to work it through immediately with her people attending
the class. He said, “I get enough feedback to know that I make a difference for some
people. Some companies even report improvements in profit based on our training.”

Richard P also noted that he would like to be “known as a person who shared
lessons learned and profound knowledge with the world.” He said of his students: . .
they come to me again and say they’ve used what they’ve learned and it’s worked.
There’ve been a couple like that and that really makes you feel good.”

Bill A said that what motivated him to continue in this career was “Having an
effect on motivating learning in participants; assisting the learning process.” He told of a

specific instance where what he had taught had immediate results. “A clinical seminar I

104

was asked to do, required a month of research and preparation and the presentation came
off in the most comfortable way and reception was excellent. Several nurses at the
hospital where this took place actually were motivated enough to design and implement a
patient-related recovery process that was presented for a state award and a later won a
national award in healthcare quality improvement for one of [the state’s] MH Hospitals.”

Pam W says, “I love to have people be able to take something I’ve suggested and
run with it. I like getting calls that tell me how something I’ve said or done has worked
and made an impact.” Also, she is motivated by “The success of the programs and the
thanks from the participants/good evaluations. Appreciation for the ‘extra mile’ kind of
things I do.” She added. “Many times I’ve trained Sexual Abuse Prevention and have had
folks come up to me after the training and disclose their personal experiences. My clinical
background has allowed me to refer folks to treatment and other mental health resources,
and that has made an impact for me. I love to have people be able to take something I’ve
suggested and run with it. I like getting calls that tell me how something I’ve said or done
has worked and made an impact.”

Pam W pointed out one memorable event where she especially felt that what she
did made a difference. She said, “I’ve done group facilitation for Quality Improvement
teams for a couple of our Governors. I was on the Governors Rapid Response team that
would do problem solving with cabinet level departments and staff. I especially liked
bringing multiple agencies together and trying to break down barriers and work out issues.
The ‘reinventing government’ phase was ‘in’ and this was a busy and exciting time.”

Dawn M said teaching means sharing to her. She especially enjoys teaching things

that bring personal and social meaning to students and make their lives richer. “One

105

[memorable experience] in particular is about a high school student who hated reading,
loved TV and golf. I worked with him and got him reading golf magazines, which he
loved. I entered his world and reading finally opened up to him. Later his aunt told me he
was excelling in school for the first time in his life.” She also said that “Several students
have told me and written in their evaluations that they experienced my class to be the best
educational experience they have ever had.”

Fred C told about some situations that meant a lot to him. “There were all kinds
of situations where people who really lacked some of the basic skills like reading and
writing, who were fimctionally illiterate and who came to us and said, ‘You know, I want
to do something about this and how do I get started?’ And seeing them get involved in
programs and seeing them advance, and realizing, I guess, that learning is more dimcult
for some people than others. Those were the things that really opened my eyes to the fact
that education was that all pe0ple learned at different levels and that we have all difi'erent
levels of pe0ple out there. And it was interesting. It was really gratifying to watch
different people learn and watch them grow and getting excited about education.”

Clearly, sharing and making a difference is an important source of motivations to
all of the pe0ple I interviewed. Seeing that what they had taught people had improved
their lives in substantial ways, made them feel like they had done something worthwhile
and gave them much pleasure. This making a difference in peoples lives is at the root of
why nearly all teachers of any kind continue to teach, whether they be teaching in K-12,

adult and vocational education, or higher education.

106

Social Relationships with Learners

Our work lives provide us with more than the means to earn a living and support
ourselves and our families. We develop social relationships with colleagues and others
with whom we come in contact. Some of these relationships are brief while others last a
lifetime. And in fact, these relationships can give us great pleasure and can be an
important motivator.

Teachers of all kinds develop relationships with students. In K-12 or higher
education, teachers have contact with students for at least a semester and sometimes for
several years, depending on the type and size of the institution. Thus relationships can be
formed slowly and last a relatively long time. Many teachers mention working with kids
as one of the things they like most about teaching. Although training or continuing
education courses take place intensively, but over only a few days, instructors see students
for a few days and then most likely never again. What kinds of social relationships can
these instructors develop with their students and how important are those relationships to
motivating them to continue in their career?

When I asked the subjects of my research what they liked about teaching or what
memorable things had happened to them, I got a variety of responses that showed that
social relationships with learners were very important to them.

All of my respondents mentioned contact with students as something they enjoyed
about their teaching. They liked talking with students before and after class, hearing about
their experiences and learning fiom them, and showing students how to do new things.

Most made sure they got to class early to talk to students and stayed around during lunch

107

and after class. They enjoyed sharing information with others, both in and outside of
class. A couple described themselves as natural-born teachers because of this trait

Daniel D said he got his biggest fulfillment from “. . . helping others. Seeing them
gain knowledge. Also, [gaining] many new fiiendships resulting fiom efi‘orts beyond the
classroom.” He also met his wife through his teaching. “I met my wife through my
occupation when doing a presentation for her stafl‘ at [an automotive assembly plant]. We
have been happily married for 10 years and true soul mates. Despite what some may say,
sometimes you can get your honey where you get your money!”

Paul M also describes meeting his wife in class, “My best [memorable event] is that
I met my wife when she attended on of my programs, and I have met a couple of people
that have become long-term fiiends.”

Tim K emphasized the social aspects of teaching, “I get my greatest enjoyment
from being in front of a group of people to deliver a message that they want to hear when
they want to hear it. The challenge is [when] you have a couple in the room who do not
come with open minds, and I am able to work with them to see the value of the message.”
Tim K also said the most meaningful part of his job was “helping others and myself learn.”

Another instructor, Pam W said that “I enjoy the folks I work with and teach. I
enjoy banter and discussion. I especially like the “”Aha experiences in class.” She also is
motivated by the good evaluations she receives at the end of each session. She also thinks
about her students while in class. She wonders, “Am I reaching every one? What else do
I need to do to make it easier and practical for folks? How can I make it better? Are

there some local things I need to add?”

108

Dawn M also got her energy fi'om the social contact with participants. “I feel very
energized, very positive about being with the participants I love teaching/facilitating and
being with the group. I also love to share my ideas and research with the class. I love
working with people who are there because they want to be there, rather than for credits,
grades or as a requirement by an institution. I find the people want to really learn and
have a joyous, meaningful and practical experience. I love meeting new people and
working together to achieve our goals.”

Since most of these instructors have little contact on a day-tooday basis with other
instructors (no teachers’ lounges in a business setting and little time spent with others in
an omce), it is not surprising that they look for social interaction from students and see it

as important to them.

Praise and Recognition

Positive feedback from students and the respect they received because they were
experts in an area and could teach it well was important to all of the trainers I interviewed.
They liked being up in front of an audience that listened to what they said. Most
recognized a little bit of the actor in themselves in that they enjoyed being a performer.
And they loved praise fi'om students!

As Richard P said when asked what he most enjoyed about teaching, “When
someone comes up or writes on the evaluation that you are the best instructor they have
ever had. Fortunately I hear this one a lot. Or when someone says, ‘Wow, I never heard

it explained that way before. Thanks for making it so clear.’ ”

109

Tim K said, “And I really like that. And that [getting high marks on an evaluation]
gives you a warm firzzy feeling and you’re never too old for that.” He added, “I often
have repeat participants who state they learned well fiom me at another seminar and
wanted to learn more.” All of this positive feedback was important to him because it let
him know he was doing a good job and that his students liked him. Being liked was
important to these instructors and the positive feedback reinforced this to them.

Vickie L enjoys the recognition she gets. “I get a lot of positive feedback from my
participants, telling me they found my presentation to be very helpful in solving problems
and addressing difficult issues in their management role. I often have repeat participants
who state they learned well fiom me at another seminar and wanted to learn more. Also,
many of the participants from my job at the healthcare system have contacted me for
individual consultation in complicated issues and have referred their colleagues to my
seminars or individually for consultation.”

Most trainers also mentioned that they liked the fact that the feedback they got
both fiom evaluations and fiom comments was usually immediate, or at least came soon
after class. Rather than having to wait for months to see if they were appreciated, they

found out how students felt at the end of a two or three day seminar.

Personal Learning

Since the trainers I interviewed for the most part delivered their training to people
from a wide variety of organizations and locations, they had opportunities to meet

hundreds of people each year. Since many trainers made a specific point of getting to

110

know about the students and their problems and goals during class so they could tailor
content, they ended up gaining a great deal of real-world industry knowledge.

As Pam W pointed out, “I’ve also met many people from many organizations and
have expanded my area of experience and knowledge.” Paul M expressed this when he
described part of his preparation ritual, “I know my subject matter well now, so I focus my
preparation on the customer. What is the nature of their business, what is the negotiation
mentality of their business environment, what is their vernacular so I can help them be
comfortable with them, what specific concerns can I address for them? That sort of
thing.”

Tim K expresses this desire to learn along with his students. “I am on a personal
quest to grow my own knowledge about the world around me and how to apply what I
have learned (going from theory to application). I enjoy working with people to learn new
things. I will always try to find some way to share what I know with others. This will
take on various methods as I continue to grow myself and may even lead into an adjunct
assignment with a university using distance learning technology.”

Vickie L learns by doing “Lots of reading. I try to keep up on new information
through books, articles, professional organizations. Also, I talk to managers and the

people who are requesting the training, to make sure I am delivering what they need.”

De-motivators

De-motivators are those things that make it less likely that one will continue to
pursue a particular activity. Two de-motivators mentioned by participants were a heavy

travel schedule and having participants in classes who are being forced to be present.

111

F our of the instructors I interviewed limited their teaching to a relatively local area.
Five, however, had travel schedules that meant spending fi'om 50% to 95% of their
teaching time a plane ride away from their homes. Two mentioned traveling as far as
Europe and Australia. Considering that most of them spent time preparing the night
before, arrived at the training site at least 30 minutes before class, and had to stay after the
class was over to clean up and respond to questions, a training day often lasted ten hours
and was exhausting when combined with travel. Fortunately, nearly most could choose
assignments and also choose not to teach every week, so that “down time” could be spent
at home or in an office.

Participants who are sent to training against their will are commonly known in the
training industry as “prisoners.” Often, they see training as punishment for poor
performance, and indeed, some are sent to training to improve their skills as a result of
poor performance appraisals. Tim K described this when he pointed out that “The
negative side of that [teaching] was when there were people who were forced to go to
training who didn’t want to be there but were doing it at some direction to maintain their
job, and were told to go. That makes a very dificult learning environment.”

Some trainers interviewed were challenged by the task of getting these
uninterested individuals involved in the course and saw this as a personal challenge and a
potential motivator when successful. When it was not possible to get the uninterested
peOple involved, it was, as Tim K noted, “about the worse de-motivator there was.” Tim
K said he disliked “trying to give a message to [some] people who are so close-minded

that they refuse to look at possibilities or to think outside of the box.”

112

Paul M mentioned that one fi'ustration in being an “educational gypsy” was that he
would meet some great people, but the next day they would be gone, and it would be hard
to maintain relationships with past students. Another instructor agreed that, “It’s hard to
develop a relationship with so many students and then never see them again.” In addition,
two interviewees who also performed administrative tasks found that these took too much
time and gave them the most fiustration in terms of having to work with diflicult

[administrative] people.

Repetitive Nature of Instructing Training Programs
What about the repetitive nature of training? Is this repetitiveness a de-motivator?

How do trainers feel about this? As discussed earlier, trainers often specialize in teaching
a handful of courses in a content area. They will then deliver those few courses many
times during a year, sometimes even as often as once a week. This is a substantial
difl‘erence between the job of a trainer and that of higher education faculty, who though
they may teach the same course as often as once each semester, usually teach only two
semesters a year. What is it like to teach the same course or courses over and over?

Also, sometimes instructors teach what are referred to as “canned courses.” A
canned course is one which has a standardized course manual that is given to all course
participants—similar to the textbooks relied upon by some high school teachers or college
faculty. There may even be professionally-made video tapes that explain some course
content. Many instructors also use the same prepared transparencies for every class. And
sometimes all of these materials are developed by instructional designers and standardized

to be used by many other instructors.

113

Does teaching this way become boring and contribute to job burnout? I asked this
question to the trainers I interviewed. Daniel D said he did consider his courses canned.
He said, however, that once he becomes familiar with the subject matter through teaching,
he can add a lot of specific application-related examples that bring it more to life. He said,
“Every class is difl‘erent in their make up and therefore possesses a unique ‘class
personality.’ Because of this, the questions regarding the subject matter vary and
therefore the presentation varies as well. This creates an environment requiring greater
flexibility in how the same material is presented. One thing I noticed after teaching some
courses such as DF A of FMEA for 13 years is that these examples have become more
numerous. I can further tailor these courses to group-specific conducts.”

He pointed out that he teaches sixteen different courses, . . so it really never gets
boring.” He says, “Furthermore, I love what I do! I never wake up in the morning saying,
‘Oh, I have to go teach today!’ Instead, I wake up and say, ‘Oh, I get to go here today,
meet theses new people and share with them what I have learned about this subject.

Richard P said that the outline was the same for the courses he teaches, but he
delivers each class differently based on the backgrounds and needs of the participants,
which is what keeps it interesting for him and the participants. He said, “I have been
approached to deliver ‘canned’ programs and have refused. Ifthe instructor has no
experience in the subject being presented and only has teaching experience, then they
would need canned programs, which in my opinion would be boring and not very efi’ective
for the participants.”

Vickie L said that her courses were consistent, but not necessarily “canned.” She

says that the participants change with each session, and they often come from difl‘erent

114

type of businesses; i.e., retail, manufacturing, banking, health care, etc. This often requires
her to change the examples in the content to meet the needs of the participants. Also, she
may need to spend more time and examples in certain aspects of the program and/or
shorten other areas depending on the knowledge base and skill level of the participants so
the presentation is never really the same. She agreed that delivering the course numerous
times can become boring, however because of the variety of participants, that does not
become a big problem. She says, “When I start to get bored, that's my signal to make
some revisions to the program.”

Pam W said she also really did not consider the courses she taught to be “canned.”
She said, “The repeated classes deliver the same content, but I sometimes do them
differently to capture the experiences of the current participants. Usually, I start out with
a participant inventory and needs assessment (what they hope to get out of the class) and
then personalize [the class] to them.”

The other three individuals who answered this question agreed that it was the
audiences that made each class conduct interesting because they were almost always very
different and came with difl‘erent experiences and needs. The challenges of tailoring their
delivery kept the content interesting to the instructors. Dawn M added that what kept it
from being boring was “being with the people I have never met before.”
Considerations of Other Careers

Several of the people I interviewed said they could not imagine not teaching and
learning and intended to do it until they “cease to exist,” and in fact, two were far beyond
retirement age. At least three could have retired more than comfortably and were

continuing to teach regardless of needing the income.

115

Tim K said when asked about another career, “Since I was old enough to push a
lawn mower, I have worked doing something for hire. I have driven any number of large
vehicles including having a private pilot’s license. I have found that I can be happy
digging a ditch, building something, or working in an office. What I do not like is working
on something that I do not believe in! I have found that sharing with others in a learning
environment is what I enjoy the most. As for teaching: I enjoy working with people to
learn new things. I will always try to find some way to share what I know with others.
This will take on various methods as I continue to grow myself and may even lead into an
adjunct assignment with a university using distance learning technology.”

Daniel D said he had considered careers as a minister and professional pilot. He
said, “I feel a firlfillment when I assist in the ministry at our local church. Although I must
confess that I feel very inadequate at times. Also, [I’ve considered a career] as a
commercial airline pilot. I hold all the credentials: commercial multi-engine ratings as well
as the Airline Transport Pilot certification. All [of this was] obtained through 2200 hours
of flight time with no tickets or accidents.” Regardless of these potential careers, he does
not see himself doing anything else but training for the foreseeable future. The other
interests will remain things he does when he is not teaching.

Fred C said he had never considered another career because he felt that this was
“what he was destined to do.” He said, “I’ve done everything else before. I’ve already
done the other things. No, this is what I anticipate I’ll finish my career doing. At least
somewhere in education.”

Paul M said that he has never really considered another career. He said that even

“If I were to leave [a national training firm], I would still want to teach, so the career path

116

would be the same, the subject matter might change slightly. IfI were to leave [a national
training firm], I would still read and research the subject of negotiation, but I would
become free to publish after my “Non-Compete” agreement had expired.”

Bill A has considered other careers because of salary limitations compared to other careers
but feels he is too close to retirement to switch.

Vickie L said that she has considered management consulting as another career,
but prefers to continue teaching. She points out that, “Much of my recent career has been
guiding managers in handling difi‘icult employees/situations and coaching managers on
strategies for success. I enjoy the classroom environment, but also want to keep current in
the actual business setting. The combination [teaching and consulting] works well for me.
I find the teaching forces me to keep current on new information and the consulting keeps
me connected to real-like situations.”

Finally, Richard P said that since he had already retired fi'om one career, this
teaching would be his last, although he would do it as long as he could. He had “done it

all, already.”

College Teaching as an Alternative
I asked my research subjects whether they had ever taught college classes and how

they felt about that compared to teaching training programs. Only six people responded
to this question, but one of those had never taught college classes.

When asked whether she had ever done any college teaching, Vickie L said she
had but she enjoys the training programs better. She said, “I don't like the grading and
homework aspect of college teaching. I believe the training programs are more rewarding

because most participants can take the knowledge/skill and immediately apply it to their

117

work. I like the interactive part of training and the immediate feedback fi'om the
participants.” Dawn M had also done some college teaching and said “I love college
teaching, too. I don't necessarily love it more or less than training programs.” Both
Richard P and Paul M agreed that they enjoyed college teaching quite a lot, but also enjoy
what they do now equally as well. Paul M saw one advantage to training in that it pays
much better, and gives him more flexibility with his schedule. Pam W had also taught
college classes, but “I enjoy teaching single programs rather than a college course. One

thing is that I make more money [teaching training courses] than teaching at the college.”

Summary

This group of trainers was satisfied enough with teaching not to seriously consider
quitting it to do something else. As a group, they are motivated by many of the same
things that motivate other teachers:

0 A belief in the importance of what they know and desire to share that knowledge.

0 A feeling that what they do makes a difference in the lives of learners.

0 An enjoyment of the social interaction with learners.

0 An appreciation for the praise and recognition they get for teaching well.

0 A desire to learn and keep up with their profession and their industry.

a A general feeling of enjoying what they do and an intention to continue to teach

for the foreseeable future.

They are, however, distinct from other teachers in that they are also consultants,

giving advice to many difl‘erent organizations and the people who work for them. They

tend not to be connected directly with the companies who contract for their teaching. In

118

other words, some are self-employed and the others are usually employed by one
organization, but do their work for other organizations at sites different from their “home
base.” They are both insiders and outsiders, with the advantages and disadvantages that
entails. They have the pleasure of doing a job and then leaving. A disadvantage, of
course, is that they can not influence who comes to training or what goes on after trainees
return to their jobs. Several of my trainers mentioned having people come to class
because they are forced to as a de-motivator.

Another distinction is that they may be said to do “hit and run” teaching. They see
their students for a short period of time and then most likely will not see them again, so
they seldom know “what happened next” about what they had taught. Getting to know

students for only such a short period of time can be disappointing.

119

Chapter 7 - What This All Means

This chapter looks at three major areas explored in this study: the differences
between trainers and other educators, the effects of these difi‘erences on their teaching,

and the dynamics relating to their career persistence.

Factors That Make Trainers Different From Other Educators

There are many factors that make trainers different from other educators. While
other educators are most often employed by non-profit institutions, trainers are employed
by businesses whose purpose is to make a profit. Trainers may also be self-employed in a
sort of consultant role. This results in a different relationship to their direct employers and
employer-clients of those direct employers. In addition, whereas students in higher
education are most often there voluntarily, attendees in training programs most often are
sent to training by management and attend as a requirement of their employment.

Also, while the contact time with students for other educators is usually over at
least a semester, training instructors only see their students over a period of a few
consecutive days, after which the instructor has no firrther contact with them. Training
programs are referred to as “short courses” because of their one-to-five-day length and
their intensity. This section will discuss how these difi‘erences and others are reflected in

the work of trainers.

Trainers’ Relationships to their Employers

As discussed previously in this dissertation, trainers work in a variety of situations,
a common one being in a training department within a company. Larger companies often
have training departments that include instructional designers, desktop publishers,

120

instructors, and other support pe0ple. Large manufacturing companies whose workers are
represented by labor unions may also have union members assigned to the training
department who represent the union’s interests. Smaller companies tend to rely on
individuals within the organization who teach a particular course or two when needed, but
otherwise perform their regular jobs. Other training is likely to be provided by outsider
organizations such as local community colleges. Whether large or small, however, the
trend is for companies to outsource as much training as possible in order to minimize the
size of training departments and save money. Outsourced courses are taught by
employees of the outsourcing for-profit companies, employees of sub-contracted vendors,
or by individuals who are self-employed trainers.

Some other trainers are employed as adjuncts by colleges and universities through
extension centers or continuing education departments or by non-profit professional
associations that focus on programs targeted to their membership. Both of these latter
organizations expect training to bring in enough income to cover costs and often to
support the other activities of the organization. Thus, continuing education and training is
a large, though not well-recognized, employer. Where and how one is employed as a
trainer can make a difference in the freedom or constraints one has in choosing which
courses one teaches or how often one is scheduled to teach. Of the trainers I interviewed
for this study, most were employed by for-profit providers of training or were self-
employed and had contracts with for-profits or professional associations.

Potential for conflict occurs because trainers, like all teachers, tend to be people-
oriented and feel a great deal of responsibility for their students. One of their stated goals

is “meeting the needs of the participants.” Trainers say like training as a career because

121

they like to teach students, and as all of them expressed in their responses to my
interviews, they want students to like them and praise their teaching and expertise.
However, training is conducted at the employer’s expense and on work time, and most
importantly, because the trainer is being paid by the employer and not the student, the
trainer’s first responsibility is going to be to whoever “pays the bills”—the employer of the
participants and his own employer, if that is different. Ifthe needs of the participants are
different from the needs of their employer who has contracted for the training, the trainer
may have to make the unpleasant decision about whose needs to meet in the short time
students are in class. This may be compounded by the fact that while the trainer has a
group of students in a class for only a few days, he or she probably will have much longer
term contact with the employer by teaching other course conducts, or at least hopes to be
allowed to teach firture course conducts, which, since this will mean additional income if
he or she is self-employed or may mean getting kudos for bringing in additional business
to whoever employs him or her. Obviously, if a trainer is employed by a training
company, an association, or a college continuing education department, his or her first
goal is going to be to make sure that his personal employment is continued. Continued
employment is ensured when things go as planned, costs are kept low, and the customers
(usually the training department and management) are happy.

The employer of the participants, however, wants things to go as planned but
doesn’t really care so much about costs being kept low if the course was outsources since
the price was fixed already in the contract. The goal of the participants’ employer is to
make sure that his employees learn what they need to learn to do a job and can apply the

skills immediately so that productivity is improved and profits rise. He also wants to make

122

sure the participants stay in the classroom for the entire time contracted for and are kept
learning every possible minute. Most importantly, the employee’s employer wants to see
direct returns on his monetary investments in training. The trainer’s job in making the
employer happy is to make sure the participants gain the knowledge and skills the
employer has expected them to gain. They also have to be able to directly apply what they
have learned and do so as soon as possible. If the employer doesn’t see any returns on his
investment, he won’t send the next batch of employees to training and the trainer’s

employer will not get repeat business.

Trainers’ Relationships With Learners
Participants of training programs may have different goals than their employers.

They are working adults who need immediately applicable skills, and although they may
enjoy socializing in class, their primary goal is to get the knowledge and skills they came
for and get out of there. They are mostly very purposeful learners, much like non-
traditional college students. On the other hand, although the students are usually willing
to learn something they think will make their jobs easier or will get them a promotion, they
don’t want to sit in a boring classroom any longer than they have to. Boring means
something they don’t want to learn, think they don’t need to learn, or they already know.
Often, they want fun, excitement, humor, and to get out early, especially if they don’t
agree with their employers on the usefulness of the training. However, it is difiicult to
make blanket statements about training participants because they come to the classroom
for a wide variety of reasons which affect how they feel about the training and how likely

they are to be receptive to learning.

123

Although employees sometimes come to training voluntarily, most often they
attend training because they are required to attend by their supervisor or their employer.
We will look first at the mandatory reasons people attend training and how these
situations can result in attitudes that will affect their relationship with the trainer who is
trying to teach them. For example, some training is mandated by employers in order to
meet governmental regulations. Examples of this include health and safety courses such as
hazardous materials handling, workplace safety, sexual harassment prevention, and other
courses that help employees meet federal and state regulations. Also, mandated are
courses that teach people how to use new equipment and new technologies. Examples of
this would be training related to the purchase of computer-operated milling or welding
equipment, or any other new technology such as computer or software training. Training
to implement company-wide initiatives such as team development, statistical process
control, total quality management, and other programs might also be mandated. Large
numbers of individuals, possibly even entire departments or plants, might attend this
required training. Such training is usually fairly well accepted as necessary or even
welcomed by employees, although labor unions or other groups occasionally oppose new
methodologies and technologies because they fear that such programs will reduce or
eliminate jobs.

Other employer-required training could be on company-specific procedures or
processes, such as new employee orientation, timesheet completion, or company-specific
project management. There may also be mandatory training paths for specific groups such

as managers in an organization. While some groups and managers may consider such

124

mandatory training unnecessary and avoid the classroom if they possibly can, others see
them as paths to promotion and welcome attendance.

However, there is another type of mandatory training which is more likely to be
resisted by employees. Often employers tie their performance management systems to
training and if a deficiency in performance or skills is found, an employee may be sent to
training to get these areas “fixed.” Although training is sometimes voluntary in these
situations, at other times employees who fail to take advantage of those opportunities to
improve skills can find themselves being demoted or lose out on promotional
opportunities. Employees often see being required to attend what they consider to be
“remedial” training as punishment. Such attendees become what trainers call “prisoners.”
They can be identified as the participants who take the last seat in the room and slump
down for a nap and are first out and last back when a break is announced. Salaried
employees will react to “punishment” or boring training by being out of the room as much
as possible, talking on cell phones, or disappearing for long periods if their oflices are
nearby. Clearly, people who are forced to be somewhere they do not want to be or who
see an activity as punishment will have a different attitude than those people who see
training as an opportunity. Several of my trainers mentioned having people who are
forced to come to class as a de-motivator. However, several also spoke of the challenges
of dealing with people who don’t come with “open minds” as a motivator and converting
such people as being one of the things they enjoy about their jobs.

There are situations, however, when training is voluntary and employees look
forward to conring to class. Employees who wish to move into the next higher position or

another position in a company often discuss this with a supervisor and ask to attend

125

training programs or other developmental activities that can help them develop the skills
needed to advance to the desired position. Other employees may have been identified as
being on a promotion “fast track” and may be sent as part of their preparation for
promotion. Such voluntary attendees are more likely to approach training positively
because they see it as a means to something they want. Another somewhat voluntary
situation is in fields such as engineering or health care, where employees attend training to
meet state licensing and professional association certification requirements. While initial
licensing or certification may require an exam of some sort, many programs require a
specific number of continuing education credits to be completed within a period of time to
maintain their status. Such students may be required to attend some kind of training but
usually can decide which programs to attend and can often choose not to maintain their
certification. Usually an employer will support such training financially but not require it.

In order to effectively teach, every instructor must engage learners. This can be
difficult in training because of the variety of students and the attitudes they bring with
them. This is made even more dificult when, as in training, the instructor has a very
limited amount of time to do so. There is simply no time to get to know specific students
or to talk with them privately in a one or two-day course. In addition, when the trainer is
an outsider, it is unlikely that he or she knows about the politics and atmosphere in that
particular workplace or why students have come. It is not uncommon for a trainer to
arrive at a site to find a roomfirl of angry and hostile workers. Under such conditions, it is
easy for a trainer to unknowingly step on hidden land mines during a class and make

learners even more hostile.

126

 

Most trainers attempt to overcome these difficulties by arriving to class early
enough to greet participants and talk to them before class, no matter how briefly. This
helps them determine “the lay of the land,” so to speak, and gives them a head start on the
difficult task of developing a positive relationship with students. Another way trainers try
to develop relationships with students is by telling stories. Telling stories connects
trainers’ experiences to that of the learners and makes prepared material more lively and
shows adult learners how knowledge can be applied in their situations. Several of the
trainers pointed out how they adapt the material to specific audiences by adapting the
examples they gave and the stories they tell. “Developing a lot of stories” was something
they learned to do as part of their teaching experiences.

In addition, trainers must cover a set of learning objectives within a relatively short
period of time. There is seldom much extra time built into training to allow in-depth
discussions on a topic or follow lines of discussion that the learners may want to pursue.
Trainers have to cut discussion off when it does not contribute to achieving course
objectives. This is especially difficult with adult learners who prefer to pursue whatever
direction will get them the information that they personally want or need.

It is this necessity to move fast while trying to develop relationships with learners
and achieve the objectives that management expects that is one of the distinguishing
factors that separates the teaching of trainers from college faculty and makes the job of

trainers both difficult and challenging.

Accountability of Trainers

Trainers are accountable to multiple groups—their students; their direct

employers; the employers and supervisors of the students attending the class, which may

127

be different from the trainer’s own employer; their professional peers; and other groups
such as labor unions. As discussed in the previous section, each group has different goals
and wants results which sometimes conflict with the others.

Trainers can keep adult students happy by giving them what they came to get, if
they came voluntarily, and selling them on the value and relevance of what is being taught,
if they were sent involuntarily. This value and relevance must be personal, since it is
themselves that employees are most concerned about. Most employees, however, can also
understand how their personal lives and careers are afl'ected by the success of their
employers, and so can see a secondary value in what they are being taught. Iftrainers do
not “sell” them on this value and relevance, however, adult learners will vote their
displeasure with their feet by walking out. Alternatively, they will show the previously
discussed “uninterested” behaviors of returning late from breaks or spending class time
doing the same things all bored students do—writing notes, nodding off, avoiding eye
contact, among others. They also vote their pleasure or displeasure on end-of-class
evaluations, which are read by instructors and training management. Although the trainers
I interviewed often talked about such evaluations and positive comments as being
motivating, the opposite is certain to be true if the comments are negative.

Students also report back to co-workers and managers on the value of a class and
the competency of the instructor. In most organizations, training is paid out of
department budgets. Because they pay the bills, department managers must be kept
satisfied if trainers expect to keep their jobs or get repeat business. They vote their

satisfaction by deciding to send other employees to training. They also vote their

128

satisfaction by letting the training department, which probably organized the training,
know of their satisfaction.

If the training department is unhappy with a training situation, either the trainer’s
employer or the self-employed trainer will find out. Trainers are employees of some
organization, even if it themselves, and as such, their income is directly attributable to
someone paying their fees or salary. They are also virtually never the sole sources of a
specific training program, and therefore, are replaceable. There is no tenure in the training
industry, so doing well in the classroom or not doing well, directly translates into income
or lack of income. Training is also traditionally an unstable career because it is often the
first thing to be cut when business is slow, so it is especially important for trainers to keep
all of their “pipers” happy, lest they be among those replaced or eliminated.

I specifically chose trainers for this study who had been employed successfirlly for
at least ten years in this career, making it likely that I was interviewing an extraordinarily
competent bunch, especially since some had been employed successfirlly in training much
longer. It is likely that trainers who failed to keep their customers satisfied had moved on
to other careers. It is important to understand to whom trainers are accountable,

however, because it affects their teaching and their career persistence.

Effects on Trainers’ Teaching

Every teacher knows that things that happen outside the classroom can have
substantial effects within the classroom. Teachers of all kinds cannot help but adjust to

outside occurrences and adapt their teaching to counteract any negative effects. This next

129

section will discuss how the econonrics of the training world and dynamics in and out of

the classroom affects the way trainers teach.

Differences in How They Teach
Faculty members in higher education prepare their students for careers and help

them learn to learn. Their focus is on teaching the theory, with the idea that once students
know theory they can apply it whenever it is needed in their later lives. The belief is that
making students into learners will enable them to continue to learn throughout their lives.
Control over what is taught is through individual instructors, with some input from
department committees and other internal groups. Ultimately, if the institution is public,
taxpayers and state government has some say in the institution’s direction, although this
seldom directly affects an individual who does the actual teaching in the classroom. Thus,
higher education instructors make the decisions about what happens in the classroom and
the specific course content. The person who is assigned to teach a course chooses the
readings, determines the assignments, decides the basis for grades, and leads the
discussion in class. He or she may ask for and receive advice from peers, but is mostly
independent in the classroom.

Trainers, on the other hand, are employed by businesses to improve the bottom
line by providing employees with the specific skills and knowledge they need to do their
jobs better and achieve organizational goals. Content is selected by the organization that
purchases the training. The focus is on application and the practical, and if what is taught
cannot be applied to the bottom line, it is likely that such training will not be continued to
be paid for by management. Businesses develop or buy training programs which meet

their needs as determined by functional departments and the local or corporate level

130

training departments. Previous to purchase or development, the training department
reviews course content and expects that what they selected is what will be taught in the
class. In other words, they expect to get what they are paying for.

If something else is what is actually taught in class, it is very likely that the training
department will find out. Class content is monitored through end-of-class evaluations, but
it is more likely that problems with a course will be verbally reported to management and
the training department by the employees who attend it. If a program fails to meet
organizational or employee needs, it gets dumped and another one selected to take its
place. This doesn’t mean that the instructor can’t modify content, as many good teachers
do, but outside control over the classroom is stronger than in higher education, and
instructors are under pressure to keep both course participants and their employers happy.

There are some other similarities and differences in how they teach. Unlike higher
education instructors, instructors of short courses do not assign homework, correct
student work, or give grades. They see their students only for the relatively brief period of
the course, and then probably never see them again. It could be described as “hit and run”
teaching. The problem with this is that instructors most often do not get to see what
students have done with what they have learned. They are also not around if students
need additional help or have questions upon implementation. It can be a major disconnect
and a common complaint of training managers is that employees often do not use what
they have learned.

Six of the trainers I interviewed were familiar with college teaching. Three of the
five trainers who responded about their experiences as college teachers compared to

teaching training classes said they preferred training as a career. Two others liked both

131

careers equally well. Most disliked the grading papers part of college teaching and the
fact that they had to be somewhere at regular times each week. Several also said they
could make more money in training than academia. Vrckie L said, “I don't like the grading
and homework aspect of college teaching. I believe the training programs are more
rewarding because most participants can take the knowledge/skill and immediately apply it
to their work. I like the interactive part of training and the immediate feedback fi'om the
participants.” Dawn M said “I love college teaching, too. I don't necessarily love it more
or less than training programs.” Both Richard P and Paul M agreed that they enjoyed
college teaching quite a lot, but also enjoy what they do now equally as well. Paul M saw
one advantage to training in that it pays much better, and gives him more flexibility with
his schedule. Pam W had also taught college classes, but “I enjoy teaching single
programs rather than a college course. One thing is that I make more money [teaching

training courses] than teaching at the college.”

High Energy Levels on a Consistent Basis
Another difference with college instructors is the focus in training on maintaining a

high energy level during class. Maintaining a level of enthusiasm is seen as a necessary
part of keeping a class interesting and exciting for the participants. Many of the trainers I
interviewed talked about “getting physically and emotionally” ready as part of their
preparation for class. Others talked about getting a good night’s sleep and healthy eating
routines that they used to help them get ready for class. Two trainers described watching
TV in the morning or reading newspapers to find “local flavor” to add to presentations.
They also describe using stress reduction techniques as part of their preparation.

However, keeping up such an energy level over an eight hour day is one of the things that

132

causes a combination of exhaustion and a kind of instructional “high” that requires a
winding down process, described by several interviewees.
Organizational Loyalties

College faculty, especially those with tenure and who have been with one
university for a long time, tend to have loyalties with their institution and their profession
as a whole. Trainers can have very mixed organizational loyalties. They spend a lot of
time in the classroom, instead of in the office, so are likely to feel differently than
employees who spend eight hours a day, five days a week, in one spot. If they teach very
often for another organization, some of their loyalty can be transferred to that
organization. It is interesting in that all of the hours of conversations I had with
interviewees, trainers seldom spoke about their employers. They tended to speak of their
careers as being apart from the organizations where they worked or that employed them as
contractors. Instead, they spoke extensively about their relationships with students in the
classroom, which shows people-focus. A large part of what they see as their careers is
focused on the people they teach and how well they see themselves teaching. This was
also evident in the fact that it was praise fiom students that meant the most to them—not
how well they were thought of by training providers for whom they worked or how much

money they made.

Self and Career Development

Career development in a college or university tends to be fairly predictable and
smooth and is based on teaching ability, the amount and success of research conducted,

the number and type of publications and books printed, and the reputation with peers and

133

others in the field both locally and nationally. Academic vitae commonly stress research
publications and papers presented at conferences.

Career development in training is different because no one in business will pay for
or conduct the kind of research done in academia. Trainers are evaluated on how well
they teach course objectives, their subject matter expertise, amount of experience in the
classroom, and how well they are thought of by previous clients and their peers.
Publication of articles in trade journals and presentations at conferences also are important
because they increase visibility and help trainers get new clients. Educational level does

count, as it does in academia, but it is not a critical part of someone’s qualifications.

Complex Dynamics Relating to Their Career Persistence

People persist in a career for many reasons. Since trainers work in such a different
environment, it is likely that at least some of their reasons for career persistence will be
different from that of other educators. This section discusses what was discovered in this
study about the dynamics that cause these trainers to persist in what some might think is a

difficult job and how they differ and are similar to other educators.

Training a Subsidiary, Evolved Career Choice

Training is not a career where you declare as a child, “I want to grow up to be a
trainer.” In fact, it is a career that you almost certainly didn’t even know existed unless
you personally knew someone who did it for a living. And even then, you wouldn’t have
been able to understand it because it wasn’t something you could observe. In addition, the
closest you can get to a bachelor’s degree in training, is a specialization in human

resources management as part of a bachelor’s degree in business administration. Training

134

is what you find out about as a career after you already have another career, most likely
one in business, although often people who have been other types of educators end up in
training.

All of the trainers I selected for my study were educated for careers other than
training. They all got involved in training because in their previous careers they had
become subject matter experts in areas that business recognized as valuable for sharing
with other employees. About half discovered the possibility of training as a career after
they had been employed in other careers for some time and took steps to enter the field.
Most of that group had always wanted to be teachers but for some reason had never been
able to enter the field and so took up another career. The other half “fell” into training
accidentally because they were willing to try something new that someone asked them to
try. Training was an “adventuresome” career for them because they had never been
trained for it, yet they found they enjoyed it more than their regular jobs. Both of these

groups showed an unusual willingness to try new things and take on new roles.

Training as a Non-Traditional, “New Age” Career
Traditionally, we have thought of a career as a fairly straight-line process. As

described by Super and others, one selects a career, obtains training or education to
prepare for that career, enters the careers after training, moves steadily upward within an
organization where one is given more responsibility and decision-making power through
those moves, reaches a summit of success, and eventually slows down in preparation for
retirement. Such traditional careers assumed that one would work for only one or two
companies throughout ones life and that one would stick to a single career once it had

been chosen. The traditional career development process also assumed that one would

135

 

give loyalty to an employer who would return that loyalty with a promise of lifelong
employment and a pension at retirement. Such stable, long-term employers were common
in the past but are rare today, with one exception being in education. Most teachers in K-
12 especially, remain with the same school district throughout their careers. In fact, many
districts discourage job changing because they start even experienced, newly-hired
teachers lower on the pay scale than teachers who have stayed in the same district. Higher
education institutions do more hiring from the outside and tend not to restrict faculty so
much when hired from the outside, but their employees do have relatively stable careers
within an institution.

However, the new global economy and sociological and technological changes
have deeply affected how careers work in business and industry. Value now is more likely
to reside in “organizational knowledge” and what people know, instead of buildings and
other “hard” capital. As our beliefs, values, and how we see ourselves change, we are
more open to changing not only employers, but careers. Our fast-changing information-
based, “new age” has produced knowledge workers who will have many careers in their
lifetimes. Many people today, especially younger workers, behave like our trainers,
frequently changing employers and careers in order to gain new opportunities.

Many people would be uncomfortable about working, as many trainers do, in such
an unstable workplace where one is so dependent on the whims of so many “pipers” and
with so much uncertainty. Trainers’ job security is based on how much they know, how
well they teach this to others, and the reputations they have developed with students and
employers. Most of the trainers I interviewed preferred the even less stable mode of self-

employrnent, having dozens of “employers” each year, making them indeed

136

“boundaryless” workers. All of this seems puzzling considering the working conditions
encountered by trainers and the fact they could choose to return to their original careers at
relatively high levels within a company. This next section discusses how working

conditions affect the dynamics of the career choices these trainers have made.

Difficult Working Conditions

Training programs are kept short and intensive for two reasons: 1) employers often
want employees to learn skills immediately and aren’t willing to wait the fill] semester it
might take in a college or university, and 2) travel is often required for participants or
trainers and having a course take place over several consecutive days means less money
spent on airfares and hotel rooms. As discussed in the introduction of this dissertation this
means long, exhausting days spent talking in front of a group. This is extremely tiring to
ones feet, voice, and back. In addition to the eight hours per day in front of the students,
the day is often made even longer by the trainer’s being responsible for setting up the
classroom before class, greeting students as they arrive, and being available during lunch
and after class to answer student’s questions while packing up class materials.

Another difficult working condition is that training programs take place in such a
wide variety of places, many of which present challenges to effective teaching. It is true
that some companies have large, separate training facilities with support staff who
manages the facility, sets up rooms for upcoming classes, and provides various services for
instructors, including last minute copying of instructional material, technical assistance
with projectors or computers, and food service. In such a facility, classrooms are
designed for training program delivery and come equipped with screens, transparency

projectors, and student tables and chairs that can be moved to meet the needs of a specific

137

course. In such a training center, an instructor has fewer unknowns and help is available if
any problems occur. Such a situation is “trainer heaven.”

Other, smaller companies may have only one or two fairly well-equipped rooms in
an office facility designated as training rooms. Such rooms, however, may be also used as
meeting and conference rooms, meaning that equipment may be borrowed by other
activities or not left in good condition. Although not as well staffed as a training facility,
help is usually available nearby.

Training also occurs in manufacturing facilities, sometimes in the plant itself in
rooms that vary greatly in temrs of size, location, and equipment. Training rooms in
plants can be noisy because of neamess to equipment and hot because of lack of air
conditioning. I have known of trainers who taught classes in rooms next to booming
stamping presses. I personally taught in thin-walled temporary classroom structures
situated next to loading and delivery docks where large diesel trucks with engines idling
were being loaded by fork lifts. The worst situation, however, was when a maintenance
crew began sandblasting a wall just outside our classroom windows, making it impossible
to shout loudly enough for students to hear me. In addition, adjusting to plant shift times
can be difficult for trainers who are used to regular business hours.

Training can also be held as “open enrollment,” meaning that employees from
many companies travel to a class location other than that owned by their employer.
College and university continuing education departments usually own their own classroom
training facilities or share space with regular for-credit courses because they mostly draw
fairly local audiences. Professional associations generally draw national or international

audiences. They hold some classes in their headquarters’ facility, but many others are held

138

in hotels or “conference centers” around the country to make it easier for participants who
must travel to attend.

Hotel facilities tend to present the most surprises to trainers and contribute the
most to fiustration and poor working conditions. First, it is likely that the individual
instructor has been sent to a hotel and scheduled to a room he or she has never used
before. In addition, hotel staff tends to be focused on managing banquets and events such
as weddings that involve food and beverages, rather than training classes which mean less
revenue to the hotel. Also, because training is not very profitable, if another event is
scheduled at the last moment, the training room may be switched to one which is much
smaller. I once taught 15 people in what was actually a small hotel conference room, with
chairs crammed around one big table so tightly that I could stand on only one side of the
transparency projector and could not move around the room at all. Group exercises were
impossible because of the inflexible seating. Other events can also interfere with training if
they are noisy. Trainers can all tell stories about teaching with a rock band playing outside
in the lobby or the 300 person wedding reception just on the other side of a thin room
divider.

Hotel furniture and equipment also contribute to a diflicult teaching situation.
Tables tend to be narrower than those provided by training facilities and the space allowed
per participant can be quite small, making it difficult for learners to manage binders and
other course materials while sitting elbow-to-elbow. In addition, banquet chairs are
designed for their ability to be stacked—not sat upon for eight hours. Audio-visual
equipment is often rented through an outside vendor. If bulbs burn out or there are

compatibility problems, no one is available to troubleshoot and fix problems.

139

Occasionally, the equipment does not arrive at all or is missing needed cables and plugs.
Some trainers I know routinely carry their own laptops and projection equipment, along
with extra extension cords. All of these minor inconveniences can add up to a very
intolerable teaching situation.

Not knowing what your classroom will look like or how it will function until you
get there the morning of class, can be a major challenge to training instructors. Nearly all
of the trainers I interviewed described some of these aspects and the need to get to
training facilities early to make sure the room is set up correctly and equipment operating
correctly. However, in the midst of equipment that doesn’t work and a room that is tiny
and so noisy conversation cannot be heard, the instructor cannot throw up his or her hands
and cancel class until next week. Canceling a class at the last nrinute, even for serious
illness, is almost unheard of because of the money invested in participants who have
already taken time off of the job and traveled to the training site, even if it is local. The
pressure fiom the employer to perform well continues and the money that has been spent
on travel cannot be wasted, so the show “must go on” regardless.

In addition to arriving at a classroom the instructor has never seen before, he or
she also is often presented with a classroom full of participants that are as unknown as the
facility. Because they are neither insiders nor management decision makers, trainers can
not decide who comes to training. A university professor has a week or two to get to
know his students. In a two-day course, trainers have only an hour or so to get to know
something about the people they will teach. It is important to do this because the trainer is
expected to adapt a class to meet the needs of the specific audience, and to do it each time

the class is conducted, because even if a class is conducted for consecutive sessions at a

140

single location for a single employer, the students may vary tremendously fi'om conduct to
conduct.

Such adaptation doesn’t mean that the instructor is expected to rewrite the course
with every session. What it does mean is that explanation and the examples must be
adjusted to be meaningful to the students—for example, different cases used for
manufacturing as opposed to an engineering environment. Nearly all of my interviewees
described starting out a typical class day by asking participants to introduce themselves
and give brief information about their expectations and experiences related to the course
content. The instructor does this so he or she can make mental adjustments on the fly as
he or she teaches.

What was learned fiom this study is that the challenges of all of these unknowns
do not deter trainers from enjoying their jobs and continuing to choose training as a
career. They claim to enjoy even the uncertainty and challenge. It is the “hard” things

they enjoy doing well, as much as the easy ones.

Repetitive Nature of Training
Another potential problem for trainers is the often repetitive nature of training.

Businesses want everyone within an organization to do things the same way, for efficiency
and effectiveness in such things as engineering procedures, for example. In addition,
businesses must protect themselves from such things as sexual harassment lawsuits or
meet governmental regulations on such things as health and safety—necessitating teaching
everyone the same content. Because of this business need, training tends to be packaged
in prepared units so that everyone who takes a particular class learns the same content in a

consistent way. In addition, often much money is spent ensuring that courses are as

141

effective as possible. Because training is seldom a one-time thing, it tends to be planned
carefully so that time spent in class is as cost-effective as possible. Courses are often
designed by people with knowledge of what makes good instructional design, and course
materials and instructors guides developed and piloted at great expense. Once a course is
designed and developed, several hundred employees in a company may be scheduled to
take the same class, so a trainer may teach it using the same materials and the same agenda
a couple of days every week for months or even years.

Outside providers of training programs also try to deliver a consistent product as
many times as they can to recoup their development costs and deliver to customers exactly
what they have advertised in their catalogs. For that reason, only a few trainers may be
qualified or certified to teach a particular class and, therefore, trainers tend to specialize in
a few courses. This is especially true when the subject matter is such that it takes
someone who has considerable experience and expertise in the content area, which is
typically true of technical or specialized subjects. Although this is an efficient and
effective way to deliver skills and knowledge, it can make the job boring to a trainer.

How many times can you say the same thing, for example, without sounding dull even to
yourself?

Sometimes such courses are referred to as “cann ” or packaged courses. A
packaged course is one which has a standardized course manual that is given to all course
participants—similar to the textbooks relied upon by some high school teachers or college
faculty. Professionally-made video tapes may even be used to explain some course
content. Many instructors also use the same prepared transparencies for every class,

cleaning them between sessions.

142

This is a substantial difi‘erence between the job of a trainer and that of higher
education faculty, who though they may teach the same course as often as once each
semester, usually teach only two semesters a year. What is it like to teach the same course
or a handful of courses over and over? Where is the challenge of this kind of teaching?
The mundane nature of teaching the same thing over and over can be de-motivating and
may make career persistence among the trainers seem puzzling. Does teaching this way
become boring and contribute to job burnout? I asked this question to the trainers I
interviewed. Daniel D said he did consider his courses canned. He said, however,
that once he becomes familiar with the subject matter through teaching, he can add a lot of
specific application-related examples that bring it more to life. He said, “Every class is
different in their make up and therefore possesses a unique ‘class personality.’ Because of
this, the questions regarding the subject matter vary and therefore the presentation varies
as well. This creates an environment requiring greater flexibility in how the same material
is presented. One thing I noticed after teaching some courses such as DF A [Design for
Assembly] or FMEA [Failure Mode and Effects Analysis] for thirteen years is that these
examples have become more numerous. I can firrther tailor these courses to group-
specific conducts.”

He pointed out that he does teach sixteen different courses, . . so it really never
gets boring.” He says, “Furthermore, I love what I do! I never wake up in the morning
saying, ‘Oh, I have to go teach today!’ Instead, I wake up and say, ‘Oh, I get to go here
today, meet theses new people and share with them what I have learned about this

subject.”’

143

Richard P said that the outline was the same for the courses he teaches, but he
delivers each class differently based on the backgrounds and needs of the participants,
which is what keeps it interesting for him and the participants. He said, “I have been
approached to deliver ‘canned’ programs and have refused. Ifthe instructor has no
experience in the subject being presented and only has teaching experience, then they
would need canned programs, which in my opinion would be boring and not very effective
for the participants.”

Vickie L said that her courses were consistent, but not necessarily “canned.” She
says that the participants change with each session, and they often come fi'om difl‘erent
type of businesses; i.e., retaiL manufacturing, banking, health care, etc. This often requires
her to change the examples in the content to meet the needs of the participants. Also, she
may need to spend more time and examples in certain aspects of the program and/or
shorten other areas depending on the knowledge base and skill level of the participants so
the presentation is never really the same. She agreed that delivering the course numerous
times can become boring, however, because of the variety of participants, that does not
become a big problem. She says, “When I start to get bored, that's my signal to make
some revisions to the program.”

Pam W said she also really did not consider the courses she taught to be “”canned
She said, “The repeated classes deliver the same content, but I sometimes do them
differently to capture the experiences of the current participants. Usually, I start out with
a participant inventory and needs assessment (what they hope to get out of the class) and

then personalize [the class] to them.”

144

The other three individuals who answered this question agreed that it was the
audiences that made each class conduct interesting because they were almost always very
difl'erent and came with different experiences and needs. The challenges of tailoring their
delivery kept the content interesting to the instructors. Dawn M added that what kept it
from being boring was “being with the people I have never met before.”

Thus, these trainers don’t consider their jobs to be boring. It is the challenge of
adapting material and information to different audiences that makes their jobs interesting
and helps them maintain their enthusiasm no matter how many conducts of a course they
teach. It is the differences in the audiences that turn what might be de-motivating into
something which is motivating.

Compensatory Motivators - the Intangibles

In spite of all the difficulties in this profession, this group of trainers was satisfied
enough with their kind of teaching not to seriously consider quitting it to do something
else. As a group, their responses show that they are motivated by many of the same things

that motivate other educators:

A belief in the importance of what they know and desire to share that knowledge.
0 A feeling that what they do makes a difi'erence in the lives of learners.

0 An enjoyment of the social interaction with learners.

0 An appreciation for the praise and recognition they get for teaching well.

0 A desire to learn and keep up with their profession and their industry.

0 A general feeling of enjoying what they do and an intention to continue to teach

for the foreseeable firture.

145

They are, however, distinct from other teachers in that they are also consultants,
providing advice and information to many different organizations and the people who
work for them. There is a substantial amount of prestige connected with being paid so
much to be listened to and classrooms provide large audiences of people who came
specifically to listen to whatever it is that you know a lot about. This is a strong reinforcer
that what you know must be important. And being people-persons, our trainers enjoy
sharing this information with others.

Our trainers also report getting a lot of feedback from management and learners
that what they taught made substantial improvement in processes and business results.
They collect such examples and share them with others in class. In addition, many of them
kept up with their fields through professional associations and conferences and learned
how other companies used the knowledge they shared to improve business processes,
further reinforcing the effectiveness and importance of what they taught.

Because the trainers I interviewed tended not to be connected directly with the
companies who contract for their teaching, they have the advantages of being outsiders.
They have the pleasure of doing a job and then leaving. There is also a fi'eedom connected
with teaching students, but not being responsible for grading papers or giving exams.

In addition, because training is short term, gratification comes more quickly at the
end of each class and is renewed with the next class. Trainers like getting evaluations at
the end of class, instead of waiting for the end of a term or semester as would happen in
higher education. Because over a year they are likely to come into contact with hundreds
or thousands of students, the opportunities for praise are greater than it would be for other

educators who teach fewer students.

146

All of the trainers I interviewed described how much they enjoyed being with
students. Since their students are adults and have more business-related experiences to
share and also since there is a more equal relationship between student and teacher in
training than in higher education, it makes sense that the social interaction will be
significantly different and more enjoyable for all parties. Since the learners in training
classes are already working in a field that is likely to be shared with the instructor, there is
more to talk about and the discussion can be at a different level than is typical in university
settings among teachers and students. It is also important that there is no grading system
in training, since that also makes adult training students more likely to be more open in
conversations with instructors. An example of this relationship is that trainers are more
likely to join their students for lunch than eat alone, something uncommon in other
educational settings.

Another reason why trainers enjoy the company of students may be because that
social interaction among trainers is somewhat limited, except for professional activities
and whatever time is spent in an office between assignments if the trainer is employed by a

vending company.

Summary

All of the trainers I interviewed found their careers in training to be sufficiently
rewarding to motivate them to persist. They have a strong belief in the importance of
what they teach, a feeling of making a difference in lives of learners, enjoyment of social
interaction with students, appreciation of the praise and recognition they get for teaching

well, and a personal desire to leam—motivations certainly recognizable and shared by all

147

teachers. And, although this career has substantial difl'erences with the careers of other
kinds of educators and although it was not a career initially chosen by them, the result is a
career all find immensely satisfying. Several said they could not imagine not teaching and
others were continuing it beyond retirement, when they had more than sufficient resources
to retire comfortably. In addition, nearly all said they have enjoyed it enough that they
have not even considered other careers. Three even said they felt they were “destined” to

teach and would do so as long as they could.

148

Chapter 8 - Research Conclusions

I learned fiom my interviews that these trainers are not very difi‘erent fiom other
teachers in how much they enjoyed teaching and were motivated. Since I had specifically
chosen people who had done this for a number of years and were considered very
successful at it, I suppose it was to be expected that their enjoyment would be so high. If
they had not been happy with this second life career, they most likely would have
remained in the careers for which they were originally trained.

Since I chose trainers who had been successfirl and had persisted in their careers, it
also is not unexpected that the people I interviewed found their careers motivating. They
exemplify Csikszentmihalyi’s ideas about how competence is increased by overcoming
challenges—the “success breeds success” thinking that could explain why good teachers
of all kinds become better over time (1990).

It is also interesting in that in all of my discussions with my research subjects, only
in one instance did anyone mention money as a motivator for their teaching. This supports
the belief that intrinsic motivation is more important to a career than the extrinsic
motivation of money, once their basic needs have been satisfied. However, this factor may
have been more important had I not specifically chosen subjects who were well along in
their careers and “successfirl” by most measurement means.

Importantly, the subjects I interviewed showed much in common in terms of
motivation with faculty in higher education. Of the satisfaction factors listed by
McKeachie (1997) in research conducted by higher education faculty, all of the factors

except for problem solving were specifically mentioned as motivation factors by these

149

teachers of continuing education. Nearly all of them agreed that making a difference,
interaction with students, being appreciated, having a sense of being good at their craft,

having opportunities for learning, and independence as important motivators.

Changing Nature of the Training Industry

The training industry has undergone much change and is continuing to undergo
change. In my introduction to this study, I discussed how much more important training
has been to employers in the past two decades because of the globalization of businesses
and the need to maintain competitiveness through enhanced employee skills. Training has
gone beyond the basic requirements of teaching employees how to do their jobs. It now
helps them learn the new technologies and skills that will enable employers to stay in
business and enable employees to remain employed. With the increased importance of
training to the workplace, new standards and expectations for training have evolved.
Training is increasingly expected to show a return on investment. And in fact, training
departments are being required to become more eflicient and efi‘ective, and to prove it,
putting pressures on training department and trainers.

One of my interviewees, Tim K, who had been involved in manufacturing training
for over 35 years, pointed out some of the changes in the nature of training that he had
seen over the years. He pointed out how the differences between training and education
had blurred, “When you look at the training programs we do today, they aren’t like the
training we did 15 years ago. Today’s training programs are on a higher reasoning level
and they encourage problem solving and critical reasoning. The whole difference between

education and training has narrowed over the past years because of the integration of

150

critical thinking skills and the learning skills into the training programs where before [these
characteristics were] only in the educational, the academic kind of programs.” He went
on, “You [as an instructor] go through all the same rigors in training programs as you do
in college programs. You have to prepare, and you have to know what you are going to
do. And you have to have some anticipated outcomes, and you have to have some
measure of proficiency. I mean, all the elements of education are there because there is a
very high demand for the quality of training. It’s changed very significantly.” He also
noted that the content of training has changed to reflect the teamwork aspects of the new
workplace. “And now there is a huge need to work on personalities, and relationships,
and work on teamwork. And [employees must gain] a better understanding of the social
structure—a better understanding of the work environment.”

Another change in the training industry has affected the jobs and roles of trainers.
More companies are finding that outsourcing is the best way to keep costs low and reduce
headcounts, especially during dificult economic times. This has meant smaller training
departments and more outside contractors. General Motors, for example, cut all of its
training departments down to a single salaried trainer at each location and completely
outsources training delivery, training administration, and course development. In his
article on training careers in the 21” Century, Zielinski points out that increasingly
classroom training will be delivered by independent providers who focus on a narrow
subject area, very much like the trainers I interviewed (2000).

A positive change to the training industry is the addition of specific educational
certificate programs and degrees focused on training and instructional design. Subject

matter experts like my interviewees are now able to obtain advanced degrees in training so

151

that they will no longer have to teach themselves the instructional skills they need
(Zielinski, 2000). This means a straighter and more visible path to a training career for

people choosing to enter the field.

Changing Roles of Trainers

Technology is also affecting the roles of trainers. Training is more often being
delivered through satellites and the internet (Workforce, 1997). Many organizations see
web-based training as a means to cut training costs, especially those costs associated with
employee travel and time spent away fiom the workplace. It is felt that the same content
can be taught in self-study online courses in less time than in a classroom. In addition, it is
felt that the expenses around the salaries of trainers will be reduced because, although
development costs are high with web-based training, once a course is developed, it can be
delivered to a very large number of people with little additional costs. A course in basic
electronics, for example, can live virtually forever, unless the principles of electronics
change.

Will classroom trainers be replaced with technology? Some certainly will.
However, it is unlikely that all classroom trainers will be replaced, since personal contact
will always be the preferred way for some learners to learn. It may mean that the market
for trainers will be less than in the recent past. Will the hype over technology-delivered
training persist? Probably. At least the use of technology shows no signs of going away.
Classroom trainers may find themselves, however, part of what are called “blended
solutions,” combining electronic delivery of instruction with a live instructor in a

mentoring or other support role.

152

Future Research

Since almost no research has been done on trainers, there is tremendous

opportunity for researches. We need more quantitative data about trainers of all kinds in

business and industry, not only those who work as instructor/consultants, but also those

who teach courses within the organization that employs them. Such research would

benefit those who either seek to or have developed academic programs in training and

development and the thousands of training organizations that employ such trainers. It

would also be of interest to academic career development organizations within universities

who may wish to make the career known as an alternative to students. Some questions

that need to be answered are:

Basic Data — How many trainers are there? How many are internal to the
organizations for which they present programs? How many are external
vendors/consultants? For what types of organizations do they work? In what
industries?

Career Development — What are the “career paths” for trainers? How many
trainers were subject matter experts before they became trainers? How many
trainers are primarily facilitators of “canned” products? How many trainers come
from educational backgrounds? Are there other paths into training? How can
these career paths be “marketed” to undergraduates or graduate students?
Trainers Roles and Responsibilities — What exactly is it that trainers do? For
how many trainers is teaching in the classroom their primary responsibility? How
many participate in course development? How many conduct needs analyses? For

how many is it a full-time or part-time job? What other responsibilities do trainers

153

have? How have their roles and jobs changed over the years? What changes are
predicted in their roles in the future? What influences are expected to affect these
role changes?

0 Trainers as Educators — How do all of these “untrained” trainers learn to teach?
How effective are they as teachers compared to educators in other fields? How
did they learn their craft? What kind of professional and other educational
activities do trainers participate in? Do good trainers “rise to the top” as one
interviewee suggested? Are there trainer “dropouts”? What makes them quit?

0 Trainer Education — What educational or certificate programs are available to
prepare individuals who wish to become trainers? How effectively do the existing
programs prepare trainers for their jobs? What can be done to improve the
effectiveness of these programs? How can what has been learned about other
teaching fields inform the development of training and employee development
canxns?

No doubt other researchers will find even more areas for research, beyond what I have
suggested. The advantage to such an unstudied field is that the opportunities are wide

open.

154

Reference List

Apps, J. W. (1988). Higher education in a learning society: Meeting new demands for
education and training. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass Publishers.

Arnold, J. (1997). Managing careers into the 21‘" Century. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.

Arthur, M. B., Inkson, K., & Pringle, J. K. (1999) The new careers: Individual action
and economic change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bess, J. L.(editor), (1997). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach
effectively, The Johns Hopkins University Press, London.

Blackburn, R. T. & Lawrence, J .H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation,
satisfaction, Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bujold, C. (1990). Biographical-hermeneutical approaches to the study of career
development. In R. A. Young & W. A. Borgcn (Eds) Methodological
approaches to the study of career. (pp.57-69) New York: Praeger.

Caldcrhcad, J. (editor), (1987) Exploring Teachers" Thinking, London: Cassell Education
Limited.

Csikszcntmihalyi, M. (1997) lntrinsicimotivation amd effective teaching: A flow
analysis. In Bess, J. L. (Ed.) Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to
teach effectively, (pp. 72-91) The Johns Hopkins University Press, London.

Cochran, LR. (1990). Narrative as a paradigm for career research. In R. A. Young & W.
A. Borgcn (Eds) Methodological approaches to the study of career. (pp.71-86)
New York: Praeger.

Cochran, LR. (1997). Career counseling: A narrative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L. (1980) The psycholog of self-determir-zation, Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books, DC Heath and Company.

Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we (10?: The dynamics of personal autonomy, New
York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage
Publications.

155

Eurich, N. (1990). The learning industry: Educationfor adult workers, Princeton, NJ:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Fetterman, D. M., (1988). A qualitative shift in allegiance. In D. M. Fetterman (Ed)
Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: the silent scientific revolution.
gap. 3-19) New York. Praeger Publishers.

Fetterman, D. M., (1988). The quiet storm. In Fetterman, D. M. (Ed) Qualitative
approaches to evaluation in education: the silent scientific revolution. (pp. 277-
285) New York: Praeger Publishers.

F etterman, D. M., (1988, November). Qualitative approaches to evaluating education.
Educational Researcher 17. pp. 1 7-24.

Filipczak, R. (1997, February). Dog Day Afternoon. Training, Minneapolis, MN:
Lakewood Publishers. pp. 61-66.

Fisher, C. D. & Locke, E. A. (1992) “The new look in job satisfaction research and
theory.” In Cranny, C. J ., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (Eds) Job satisfaction.
New YorkzLexington Books.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of Science. In N. K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J., & Wanek, J. E. (1997) “Employee development:
Issues in construct definition and investigation of antecedents.” In Ford, J. K.
(Ed) Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Ganzel, R. (1998, August). Go ahead: Make me learn! Training 35. (8) pp. 42-46.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic
Books. ‘

Gladstein, G. A. (1994). Changing careers: A ten year demonstration of a developmental
life span approach. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Gordon, R. L. (1987). Interviewing: strc‘ttcgy, techniques, and tactics. Chicago, IL: The
Dorsey Press.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
Denzin ’s Handbook, pp. 105-112.

“Industry report 2001.” (2001, October). Training 38. (10) pp. 40-84.

156

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley. '

Hardingham, A. (1997, July). Guiding free agents in need ofcareer structure. People
Management 3. pp. 48-9.

l-Ierr, E. L. (1990) Issues in career research. In R. A. Young & W. A. Borgen (Ed)
Methodological approaches to the study ofcareer. (pp.l-2l) New York: Praeger.

Herzberg, F. (1982). The managerial choice: to be efficient and to be human. Salt Lake
City, UT: Olympus Publishing.

Holstein, J .A. & Gubrium, J .F . (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Huband, F. L. (2000). Lifelong learning for engineers. Proceedings: Industry 2000,
skills assessment and career roadmaps, Dallas, TX: Educational Activities Board
of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Kleinbeck, U., Quast, H., Thierry, H. & Hacker,H. (1990). Work motivation, Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.

Konicek, D. G. (1992). Community college faculty who conduct industry training
activities: A job satisfaction study,” Community College/Junior College Quarterly
16. pp. 361-372.

Larkins, A.G; McKinney, C. W., Oldham-Buss, S., & Gilmore, A. C. (1985). Teacher
enthusiasm, Hattiesburg, MS: Educational and Psychological Research.

Lewis, T. & Peasah, K. (1998, Winter). An investigation of the instructional thoughts,
beliefs, and preferences of selected HRD practitioners. Journal of industrial
teacher education 35. (2) [Online]

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990) Work motivation, In U. Kleinbeck (Ed) Work
Motivation, (pp. 3-26) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

McCracken, G. D. (1988). The long interview. London: Sage University Press.

McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Wanting to be a good teacher. In J. L. Bess (Ed) Teaching
well and liking it. (pp. 19-36) Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. .

Mitchell, K. E., Levin, A. S., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1999). Planned happenstance:
Constructing unexpected career opportunities. Journal o/‘Counseling and
Development 77. (2). pp. 115-124.

157

Mott, V. W. (1996, Winter). Knowledge comes from practice: Reflective theory building
in practice. New directions or adult and continuing education. [Online journal,
WilsonSclect database].

Phillips, L. (1997). Update on compulsory continuing education. Newsletter, Athens,
GA: Lou Phillips and Associates.

Polkinghorne. D. E. (1990). Action theory approaches to career research. In R. A.
Young & W. A. Borgen (Ed) Methodological approaches to the study of career.
(pp.87-106) New York: Praeger.

Powney, J. & Watts, M. (1987). Interviewing in educational research. Routledge &
Kegan Paul, London.

2001 Randstad North American Employee Review. (Survey conducted by Roper Starch
Worldwide). http://www.randstadnacom/global/randstad_survemultshtml.

Schneider, B., Gunnarson, S. K., & Wheeler, J .K. (1992) “The role of opportunity in the
conceptualization and measurement of job satisfaction.” In C. J. Cranny, P. C.
Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds) Job satisfaction. (pp. 53-68) New YorkzLexington
Books. '

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry.” In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Senge, P. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, New York: Doubleday Books.

Spokane, A. R. (1990). Supplementing differential research in vocational psychology
using nontraditional methods. In R. A. Young & W. A. Borgen (Eds)
Methodological approaches to the study of career. (pp.25-3 6) New York:
Praeger.

Super, D. E. (1986). Future trends in adult career development. In Z. B. Leibowitz & H.
D. Lea (Eds) Adult Career Development: Concepts, Issues, and Practices. (pp.
342-360) National Career Development Associations.

Thierry, H. (1990) Intrinsic motivation reconsidered. In U. Kleinbeck (Ed) Work
motivation. (pp. 67-82) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thomas, K. W. (2000) Intrinsic motivation at work. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.

Tofller, A. (1990). Powers/zifi. New York: Bantam Books.

158

Tot‘ller, A. & Tofller Il. (1995). Creating a new civilization: the politics ofthe third
wave. Atlanta: Turner Publishing.

Vondracek, F. W. ( 1990). A developmental-contextual approach to career development
research. In R. A. Young & W. A. Borgen (Ed) Methodological approaches to
the study of career. (pp. 37-56) New York: Praeger.

Walker, C. J. & Symons, C. (1997). The meaning of human motivation. In J. L. Bess
(Ed) Teaching Well and Liking It. (pp. 3-18) Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.

Weiss, R. S, (1994). Learningfrom strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview stua’ies, New York: The Free Press.

The trainers role is turning upside down. (1997, June). Workforce 76. pp.94-105.

Zielinski, D. (2000, January). The shape ofthings to come: Training careers in the 21St
Century. Training. v. 37 no 1, p. 26-28.

159