Is It Training or Facilitation?

We often lump training and facilitation into the same bucket, but they’re not interchangeable. In fact, despite appearing like synonyms they come from completely different planets.

Training is all about structured knowledge transfer. The trainer knows exactly what needs to be delivered and how. There’s a plan, an assessment, a neat little arc. A trainer moves individuals from not proficient to proficient (or competent). The trainer owns the knowledge and the map.

Facilitation, on the other hand, is about co-discovery. It might have structure, but it’s less about downloading information and more about creating the conditions for new insight to emerge. Think strategy planning, ideation, team retros… the gold isn’t in what you say, but what the group figures out together. The facilitator owns the process, but the group owns the knowledge and co-creates the map as the session progresses.

Neither is superior, neither is right or wrong. But you can’t run technical training by winging it. And you also can’t run an emergent process as if it’s a structured course.

The mindsets couldn’t be more different:

• Trainer: I’ve got a plan and success means sticking to it and proving that it worked

• Facilitator: I’ve got a process, but ultimately I’m going to guide the group according to what emerges
  

Over the years I’ve noticed that when people say a training was actually good, it’s usually because there was strong facilitation baked in. You don’t have to choose one approach!

This post is a riff on a podcast convo with the brilliant Prina Shah. Listen in to hear perspectives from several facilitators on what they think the difference is and why it matters.