In my line of work, I have repeatedly been involved in selecting trainers, as well as their training and development. Strangely enough, despite the abundance of business trainers in Ukraine, it is very difficult to find a good, suitable trainer. This is especially true when it comes to sales trainers.
Here, I will share the negative personality types I have encountered, and perhaps readers can add to my observations.
I will also try to analyze these types and provide a guide for selecting coaches. It may not be universal or all-encompassing, but it will be based on my own experience.
I will focus on the positive types in the next post.
1. Passionately eager to be a coach.
It may seem like a dog’s job. Constant business trips, an audience that you sometimes don’t choose, the actual process of conducting the training—it’s an exhausting and “energetically challenging” procedure that often ends with the trainer feeling completely morally and physically drained, the need to be in shape, to “take the hits,” and so on. Yet, there are those who simply dream of becoming a business trainer. Who are these people? They are the underachievers, the insecure types who want to “cheaply” become the leader of some group and revel in that leadership. It’s clear that the training sessions conducted by these individuals are not aimed at helping the audience acquire new skills or knowledge, but rather for their own self-satisfaction. There is a clear mismatch between the goals of the trainer and those of the audience.
2. Psychologist
In my experience, I’ve encountered many individuals who became coaches and already had coaching experience after graduating from university or another higher education institution with a degree in psychology. Sometimes, these individuals even managed to intern at social services, which is actually good news for a recruiter. For some reason, it is believed that a coach must have a background in psychology to be able to manipulate an audience. It is also thought that psychologists possess some sacred knowledge about the motives behind people’s behavior, can read minds, and instill thoughts, among other things. I certainly don’t want to offend the feelings of good coaches who have a psychology degree; however, my experience shows that they became good coaches not because of their initial education, but in spite of it. Why is that?
Let’s start with the fact that even serious professionals in psychology find it very difficult to quickly recall noteworthy publications and books published by psychologists in the USSR. Why? Because there is no school, so to speak. It was destroyed. All the outstanding psychologists of modern times are foreigners. This means that even at the level of education, our psychology students are, so to speak, consuming secondary products.
Let’s continue with the fact that those who remain in the departments to teach and defend quasi-dissertations are often those who dreamed of becoming psychologists, those who chose this specialty when applying to university. Who are these people? I often ask candidates: “So, why did you actually choose this specialty?” “What did you plan to do for work?” They hesitate. They realize that this specialty clearly won’t bring them much money unless, by some stroke of luck, they get the chance to become the trendy psychoanalyst for some oligarch. However, there are definitely fewer oligarchs in the country than there are psychology graduates. So, I drop the second part of the question and focus on why people actually chose to attend this university. And it turns out, oh horror! They chose it because (I quote):
- wanted to understand themselves
- had personal problems and were looking for solutions
- They were insecure and believed that this education would help them find their place in society.
- they aspired to control others without having the means to do so.
How would you feel about someone wanting to enroll in a university’s electrical engineering program just to figure out the wiring in their apartment? It hardly seems logical. An illogical strategic decision is a very serious red flag for any professional recruiter. By the way, it’s precisely these kinds of life events that good recruiters try to identify.
Regarding the motives related to confidence and the desire to control, we return to the typical archetype of the “passionately desiring.”
By the way, when it comes to the question of whether they have solved their problems, the answers can be both “yes” and “no.” It’s also a situation of double loss: If the answer is “yes,” then the motivation to learn has disappeared, and they just end up “getting a certificate.” If the answer is “no,” it means they didn’t study well, or even if they did study well, they still remain an insecure, reflective type.
Once again, I have encountered good coaches with a background in psychology; however, when sifting through a large number of resumes in search of a candidate, having a degree in psychology signals to me that it’s not worth spending time on that person. I can be accused of sexism, but my experience is even more valid if the candidate is a woman.
3. Star
This is a very advanced case, strangely enough. A “star coach” emerges from an ordinary good coach when the ordinary good coach works too much with an audience that is clearly below their level of development. This is the first factor. The second factor is the “filter of good news.” Each of us tends to remember something good about ourselves, and when people speak about us, we collect and internalize the poison of flattery while discarding the seeds of criticism. Moreover, people usually praise rather than criticize to our faces. What happens to the coach?
- He starts to imagine that he is better than everyone else, that everyone recommends him, that he is “the best of the best.”
- He’s going off the rails. The quality of work from such a coach declines.
- He develops an immunity to criticism because he already has a very high opinion of himself, which means that those who criticize him are incompetent.
- He is trying to negotiate better working conditions for himself amid declining productivity, considering himself a “star.”
- He, especially if his gender matches that of the leader, starts to conflict, fighting for a “place in the pack.”
And finally, his resume ends up on the job market. Whether he has already been fired or not doesn’t matter. It’s possible that he even left on his own, tried his hand at freelancing, and didn’t find success.
When working with my coaches, I always try to recognize the “star syndrome” in a timely manner and have an open, heartfelt conversation with the coach, bringing them back down to earth gently rather than slamming them face-first into the dirt.
4. Developed personality.
Unlike the losers described in the first two options, this is a successful coach. He knows everything and can do everything. He has seen a lot. He seems like someone you could hire. However, there are two serious factors to consider.
He is generally expensive and it’s better for him to be a freelancer than an employee. Even better for him would be to take the next step in his career — to become a training manager or a sales director.
He is looking for a job where he can grow and develop further, as he has a strong desire for personal growth (otherwise, he wouldn’t have progressed).
At the same time, he is a full cup, and you can’t pour anything new into it, especially the corporate culture of your company.
They are difficult to manage. Typically, such people view employment not as an event where they are hired, but as an event where they choose the company.
He is not growing, and therefore, “metaphysically,” he will not be able to inspire the growth of those being trained.
The candidate, as we can see, is unsuitable for the job, but already based on the principle that “too much of a good thing can be bad.”
5. Freelancer
Speaking of freelancers, many HR specialists and recruiters have a dislike for them. There are reasons for this aversion. These individuals have inhaled (whether willingly or not) the intoxicating scent of freedom and will always strive, even when employed full-time, to “pick up side gigs.” They tend to be less loyal to their employers, viewing employment from their own perspective as a strange whim of the client to formalize the relationship through an employment contract. They may feel burdened by the 9-to-5 routine, cynically regard the company’s internal documents, and perceive employment—if we draw an analogy with marriage—from the groom’s point of view rather than the bride’s, and so on. Often, a freelancer is a seasoned professional, and this creates a potent mix with positive feedback. No one wants to hire them because they are seen as inconvenient candidates, and they themselves have long stopped relying on employers, having found no place for themselves within the “9-to-5” framework.
6. HR specialist
In my life, it turned out that most of the coaches I sought were not focused on high-level concepts like “personal growth,” “gestalt therapy,” “team building,” “time management,” “NLP,” “pickup,” “hard negotiations,” “theory of lies,” and so on (I apologize if I offended anyone’s feelings, but you’ll understand why I defined it this way). Instead, they dealt with very practical matters, instilling concrete and measurable skills necessary for successful sales. This stands in contrast to training programs that are built on the idea of “you little mice need to become hedgehogs.” For example, while it’s often said that the client should be at the center of the universe, there is rarely guidance on how to achieve that, and the skill of placing the client there is not reinforced in the salesperson-listener.
And here problems arose. If the training center in the company was under the human resources department, they valued “team building” more, as the HR people, due to the nature of their responsibilities, were not well-versed in sales.
It turns out that a trainer who conducted sales training and was under the supervision of HR simply could not be adequately assessed, as the evaluator didn’t know how or by what criteria to evaluate such a trainer. The HR manager, for example, may not understand what “probing questions” are and how they differ from “leading questions,” why it’s important for a salesperson to quickly formulate such questions during a meeting, how to measure that skill, and what the consequences are of using or not using that skill.
HR managers often consider any training that boosts motivation, creates a “rah-rah” atmosphere, and receives positive feedback from participants as a sales training. Yes, positive motivation in sales is very important, especially when you often find yourself hitting your head against a wall. And yes, such training can temporarily increase sales. However, this is not far removed from gestalt therapy or team building in terms of the strong but temporary effect it has on the audience.
HR managers often mistake purely product training for “sales training.” The goal of product training is not to teach selling techniques but to familiarize participants with the product, the product line, and technical specifications. While understanding technical details or having in-depth knowledge of a product can aid in selling, it’s important to recognize that focusing solely on “features” or “benefits” does not always lead to effective sales. The right sales process is not about overwhelming the client with two megabytes of text; it’s about understanding and developing their needs. An excessive focus on features or benefits can either raise concerns about the product’s price or provoke a wave of objections that then need to be “fought,” which is yet another type of “sales training” in the eyes of an HR manager. This manager, not being a sales professional, often finds it more important to combat problems rather than simply prevent them.
So, what’s the point of all this? When selecting a trainer, it’s important to know the environment in which they have worked before, who their direct supervisor was, and what specific training sessions they have conducted. In rare and beneficial cases, the training department is subordinate to the sales structure rather than the HR department, and that’s a good thing. If you are building a sales organization, trainers who have conducted sessions on topics like “body language,” “leadership,” or “negotiation strategies” will not fit your search profile.
7. Speaker
It is divided into two subcategories, formed by completely different principles; however, I will describe it in one section. First, the terminology:
a) Just a talker. A person who loves to talk and knows how to do it, rather than listening. This seems good for a coach.
b) A person who has learned to weave lace from words does not pay much attention to meaning.
The second type usually consists of graduates in philology who have learned not to think, but to create clever phrases. It’s simply a problem of motivation in their studies, and they often don’t even realize what’s wrong with the texts they write or the words they say. Their minds are switched off. The chatbot is switched on. You can often find a lacework of words in the results of domestic journalism, but such people, who have learned to string together specialized terms, appear to be professionals in conversation until you start to find out whether they actually understand the meaning of what they’re talking about.
A mere speaker is at a disadvantage because when working with an audience, it’s essential to keep their attention. A radio or television can only hold attention for a short time. However, a good teacher can engage the class not through their own words, but by asking well-structured questions. A good coach is someone who doesn’t talk a lot themselves but encourages the audience to speak, guiding them to their point through carefully crafted questions.
A speaker can also be easily “knocked off their feet” by questions from the audience. They might either get flustered and lose control, stumble, or start rambling with some nonsense that resembles an answer.
The most important thing is that the speaker is definitely not a sales practitioner, as being talkative does not distinguish good salespeople. As I mentioned earlier, I was mainly focused on finding “sales” trainers.
Who are the recommenders?
Where does such a large number of trainers, who turn out to be incompetent in their field, come from? It’s simple. There’s no one to evaluate trainers. Additionally, we have the magical mantra of “work experience,” and companies tend to hire people with relevant experience rather than those who can actually do the job. It’s important to note that having work experience does not guarantee that a candidate is capable of performing the job. However, in the absence of means to assess such a specific specialist as a trainer, we have to rely on work experience and recommendations. And who are the recommenders? Usually, they are either training participants or organizers who judge based on user feedback, or… well, anyone really, except the trainers themselves. Trainers often don’t have the time to evaluate their colleagues, and even if they do, jealousy, envy, or ego might come into play. Moreover, other users often don’t even know what else could be possible. Having only one Chinese translator in a company makes it very difficult to assess how well they know Chinese. They definitely know it better than anyone else. Yes. But how much better? The same goes for trainers. Especially since trainers diligently collect positive feedback about themselves.
Recipe
Now, the promised recipe, which logically follows from everything mentioned above.
When hiring sales trainers, it’s important to choose individuals who have sales experience and are not initially interested in being trainers. You need to “sell” the idea of training as a career step or a special trust—however you want to frame it. Education is also a key factor to consider. A background in natural sciences and a broad perspective are essential, while “narrow-minded” individuals are not suitable for us. Naturally, the person should also “look like a trainer” in both appearance and demeanor. I won’t elaborate further, but recruiters know how to assess people and their skills.
A salesperson will definitely not be a talker. They won’t be a star, as you will take care of their growth, and while they are growing, you will benefit from the fruits of their labor. There’s no need to be afraid of turning a specialist into a trainer. The real concern is the inability to turn a trainer into a specialist. The most important thing is that a person who knows how to “sell ideas” can “sell” any other training to an audience, not just sales training. But the reverse is not true.