When to Facilitate, When to Train
The Critical Distinction L&D Often Gets Wrong
Last week, I watched a colleague describe their upcoming workshop as "facilitated training" in the same breath they complained about poor engagement and limited behaviour change from their programmes. The irony wasn't lost on me, though it clearly was on them. We've created a linguistic muddle that reflects a more profound conceptual confusion, one that's costing organisations real performance gains and leaving well-meaning L&D professionals wondering why their carefully crafted interventions fall flat.
If you read this and feel any sense of defensiveness, I ask that you stick with me until the end of the article; you may yet be vindicated. And even if you’re not, read widely and with an open mind, maybe you’ll change your mind, or maybe I’m wrong! Now there’s an exciting idea…
This isn't about semantics or professional territory-marking. When we conflate facilitation with training, we're making the same mistake as a doctor who can't distinguish between surgery and physiotherapy. Both heal, both require skill, but try using a scalpel when you need gentle manipulation, and you'll understand why precision matters. The question isn't whether facilitation or training is better; it's whether you're using the right tool for the job at hand and whether you understand what makes each one work.
The Territory of Training: Building What Isn't There
Training operates in the realm of knowledge and skill acquisition, a structured territory where clear learning objectives meet deliberate instruction. When we train, we're addressing a fundamental gap: someone lacks the knowledge, skills, or competencies needed to perform effectively, and our role is to systematically build that capability (Knowles, 1984). This isn't about unlocking hidden wisdom or facilitating discovery; it's about construction, layer by careful layer.
The trainer steps into this space as an expert who has walked the path before and can guide others along it with confidence. They possess not just knowledge of the subject matter, but understanding of how to sequence learning, how to scaffold complex concepts, and how to help learners progress from novice toward competence. This expertise isn't incidental; it's the entire foundation upon which effective training rests (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
Consider what exceptional trainers actually do, beyond the surface mechanics of presenting information.
First, they create deliberate learning progressions that respect the cognitive architecture of how people actually absorb and integrate new capabilities. They understand that expertise develops through guided practice, not mere exposure, and they structure experiences accordingly (Anderson et al., 2001).
Second, they provide corrective feedback at precisely the moment when learners can use it to adjust their performance, catching errors before they become entrenched habits.
Third, they anticipate common misconceptions and learning obstacles, preparing interventions that address these predictable challenges before they derail progress.
Finally, they model the very behaviours and thought processes they're seeking to develop, making expert thinking visible through demonstration and explanation (Collins et al., 1989).
The magic of good training lies in its systematic approach to reducing the overwhelming complexity of new learning into manageable, sequential steps that build upon one another. When someone needs to learn financial modelling, software configuration, or safety procedures, the trainer's expertise provides the scaffolding that prevents cognitive overload while ensuring nothing critical gets missed.
It’s worth noting that the trainer as an expert should not be misconstrued with the idea that the expertise must be first-hand to said trainer. I firmly believe that someone can be a great trainer, having gained the expertise from an SME (subject matter expert).
The Art of Facilitation: Unlocking What Already Exists
Facilitation dwells in entirely different territory, where the assumption is that participants possess the knowledge, experience, and creativity necessary to solve their own challenges; they simply need the right conditions and processes to access and apply what they already know (Harvey & Kitson, 2015). The facilitator's role isn't to teach or instruct, but to create environments where thinking can flourish, where perspectives can collide productively, and where groups can discover insights that exceed what any individual could generate alone.
This requires a fundamentally different set of capabilities. Where trainers need subject matter expertise, facilitators need process expertise, deep understanding of group dynamics, conversation architecture, and the subtle interventions that keep thinking on track without constraining its direction (Bens, 2017). The facilitator operates more like a conductor than a teacher, orchestrating the contributions of others rather than providing content themselves.
Exceptional facilitators master several crucial practices that distinguish their work from mere meeting management.
First, they design conversations that generate new thinking rather than simply sharing existing ideas, using structured processes that help groups move beyond obvious solutions toward genuine insight.
Second, they remain exquisitely attuned to group energy and dynamics, intervening when discussion becomes circular, when voices are being marginalised, or when the group's thinking has stalled in familiar patterns (Schein & Schein, 2017).
Third, they ask questions that expose assumptions and invite deeper reflection, questions that couldn't be answered with existing knowledge but require participants to think differently about familiar challenges.
Fourth, they create psychological safety that allows people to share uncertain thoughts, challenge conventional wisdom, and build upon each other's ideas without fear of judgment or embarrassment (Edmondson, 2019).
The facilitator's expertise shows most clearly in what they don't do: they resist the urge to solve problems for the group, to share their own solutions, or to direct the conversation toward predetermined conclusions. Instead, they trust in the collective intelligence of the group while providing just enough structure to help that intelligence emerge in useful ways.
When Training Triumphs: The Conditions for Structured Learning
Training reaches its full potential under specific conditions that align with its systematic, expert-led approach to capability building. When people face tasks they've never performed before, when safety or compliance demands precise adherence to established procedures, or when complex technical skills require guided practice to develop, training provides the scaffolding that makes learning possible rather than overwhelming.
Consider the context where someone needs to master new software that will become central to their daily work. Here, training's strength lies in providing a logical progression through features and functions, allowing learners to build competence systematically rather than fumbling through trial and error. The trainer's expertise prevents the frustration and inefficiency that comes from attempting to figure out complex systems independently, while ensuring that important capabilities don't get overlooked in the process.
Training also excels when organisations need consistent implementation of specific practices across multiple people or locations. When there's a right way and a wrong way to handle customer complaints, conduct safety inspections, or follow quality protocols, training ensures that everyone receives the same foundational knowledge and develops the same core competencies. This consistency becomes crucial when individual variation could compromise safety, quality, or customer experience.
However, training's systematic approach can become a liability in contexts that require adaptation, creativity, or local problem-solving. When challenges are complex and contextual, when solutions need to emerge from the specific circumstances of the workplace, or when people need to integrate new approaches with their existing expertise, training's structured progression can feel constraining rather than supportive.
The Facilitator's Domain: Where Complexity Demands Collective Intelligence
Facilitation flourishes in situations characterised by complexity, ambiguity, and the need for adaptive solutions that draw upon diverse perspectives and experiences. When teams face challenges that have no clear precedent, when different stakeholders bring valuable but conflicting viewpoints, or when the path forward requires integrating multiple types of expertise, facilitation creates the conditions for breakthrough thinking that no single expert could provide.
Take the common scenario where a cross-functional team needs to improve a process that touches multiple departments, each with their own constraints, priorities, and ways of working. Here, facilitation's power lies in helping the group surface all relevant perspectives, identify connections and conflicts between different viewpoints, and co-create solutions that account for the full complexity of the situation. No trainer, regardless of expertise, could anticipate all the variables at play or provide ready-made solutions for every contextual variation.
Facilitation also proves invaluable when the goal isn't just to solve an immediate problem, but to build the group's capacity for ongoing problem-solving and collaboration. When teams need to develop their ability to work together effectively, to navigate difficult conversations, or to innovate in response to changing circumstances, facilitation helps them learn these capabilities through direct experience rather than abstract instruction.
The approach struggles, however, when participants lack the foundational knowledge needed to engage meaningfully with the challenge at hand. If people don't understand basic concepts, terminology, or procedures relevant to the problem, facilitation can devolve into the blind leading the blind, with good process unable to compensate for insufficient expertise.
The Artful Blend: Orchestrating Training and Facilitation for Maximum Impact
The most sophisticated L&D interventions recognise that complex performance challenges rarely yield to purely training-based or purely facilitation-based solutions. Instead, they require thoughtful orchestration of both approaches, with each contributing what it does best toward the overall goal of capability development and performance improvement.
See, I told you you might be vindicated by the end. We’re not even there yet, and look where we are!
Consider designing a programme to help managers handle difficult conversations more effectively. Training provides the essential foundation: frameworks for structuring challenging discussions, techniques for managing emotional reactions, and language patterns that de-escalate rather than inflame tensions. Without these tools and concepts, managers would struggle to engage productively with practice opportunities.
But training alone leaves managers with theoretical knowledge that may or may not translate to their specific workplace contexts. This is where facilitation becomes crucial, creating opportunities for managers to explore how these frameworks apply to their actual situations, to practice with scenarios drawn from their real experience, and to problem-solve together around the unique challenges they face in their roles and organisational culture.
The facilitated components might involve case study discussions where managers work together to apply training concepts to complex situations, or peer coaching sessions where they help each other prepare for specific difficult conversations they need to have. Here, facilitation helps participants bridge the gap between general principles and contextual application, while building their collective problem-solving capacity for future challenges.
Another powerful combination involves using facilitation to identify learning needs and then designing targeted training to address what emerges. Rather than making assumptions about what people need to know, start with facilitated discussions that help participants surface their real challenges, knowledge gaps, and obstacles to effective performance. This diagnostic facilitation ensures that subsequent training addresses genuine needs rather than imagined ones, dramatically improving both engagement and application.
The Sequential Strategy: Building Platforms for Performance
Many effective development programmes create learning architectures that move systematically from knowledge acquisition through guided application to autonomous performance. This progression maps naturally onto a training-to-facilitation sequence that leverages the strengths of each approach.
Begin with training when people need foundational knowledge, core skills, or shared frameworks for thinking about challenges. This creates a common platform of understanding that makes subsequent collaborative work more productive. People can't engage meaningfully in facilitated problem-solving if they lack basic concepts or terminology relevant to the challenge.
Move toward facilitation as participants develop initial competence and need to adapt, integrate, or apply their learning to specific contexts. Once people have basic tools and frameworks, facilitation helps them explore how to use these in their particular circumstances, with their specific constraints and opportunities. This application phase is where learning moves from theoretical understanding toward practical capability.
Cycle back to targeted training when facilitated exploration reveals additional knowledge or skill gaps that limit performance. Rather than front-loading all possible learning content, provide just-in-time training that addresses specific needs that emerge through application and practice.
This isn't a linear progression but an iterative cycle where training and facilitation inform and strengthen each other. The key insight is that neither approach alone can create the complex capabilities that modern work demands; training without application remains abstract, while facilitation without foundation lacks substance.
Practical Implementation: Making the Distinction Work
Moving from conceptual understanding to practical application requires developing organisational clarity about when to deploy each approach and how to execute both effectively. This starts with diagnostic questions that help L&D professionals match interventions to actual needs rather than defaulting to familiar approaches.
Before designing any intervention, ask: Do participants have the basic knowledge and skills needed to address this challenge, or do they need to acquire new capabilities? If knowledge gaps exist, training provides the foundation. If people have relevant expertise but struggle to apply it effectively in context, facilitation offers a better path.
Consider the nature of the desired outcome: Are you seeking consistent implementation of established practices or adaptive solutions to complex challenges? Training excels at creating consistency and building specific competencies, while facilitation generates creative solutions and builds collaborative capacity.
Examine the role expertise plays in the challenge: Is there a clear body of knowledge or established best practice that participants need to master, or does the solution require integrating diverse perspectives and contextual knowledge? When expert knowledge provides the answer, training delivers it efficiently. When the answer emerges from collective intelligence, facilitation creates the conditions for discovery.
For trainers moving into facilitation, the biggest shift involves releasing attachment to being the expert with answers and instead becoming an expert at creating conditions where others can find their own answers. This requires developing new skills: designing group processes, asking powerful questions, managing group dynamics, and holding space for uncertainty and emergence.
For facilitators expanding into training, the challenge lies in developing sufficient subject matter expertise to provide credible instruction and guidance. This doesn't mean becoming the world's expert in every topic, but it does mean understanding content well enough to sequence learning effectively and anticipate common misconceptions or obstacles.
The Performance Imperative: Why This Distinction Matters
This isn't academic categorisation; getting the training-facilitation distinction wrong costs organisations real performance gains and wastes resources on interventions that can't deliver their intended outcomes. When we use training to address challenges that require facilitation, we create frustration and cynicism as people receive solutions that don't fit their specific contexts. When we use facilitation for problems that require training, we waste time with groups that lack the foundational knowledge needed for productive collaboration.
The performance-first lens that should guide all L&D decisions becomes particularly crucial here. The question isn't whether an intervention feels engaging or innovative, but whether it builds the capabilities people actually need to perform more effectively. Training and facilitation each have distinct contributions to make toward performance improvement, but only when deployed in alignment with their natural strengths and appropriate contexts.
As the workplace becomes increasingly complex and collaborative, organisations need people who can both master new capabilities quickly and adapt their expertise creatively to novel challenges. This requires L&D professionals who understand when to teach and when to facilitate, when to provide answers and when to create conditions for discovery.
The choice between training and facilitation isn't about preference or philosophy; it's about precision. And in a world where performance increasingly depends on both individual expertise and collective intelligence, getting this precision right becomes not just helpful, but essential.
How might you apply this distinction to a development challenge you're currently facing? Where might training's systematic approach serve your people better than facilitation's emergent processes, and where might the reverse be true?
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., ... & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Bens, I. (2017). Facilitating with ease! Core skills for facilitators, team leaders and members, managers, consultants, and trainers. John Wiley & Sons.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Harvey, G., & Kitson, A. (2016). PARIHS revisited: From heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implementation Science, 11(1), 33.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
I am not 100% comfortable with Knowles’s work; the whole idea of adult learning being fundamentally different to any other kind of learning is a tricky idea. It’s the same cognitive process, but the context is undeniably different. However, his work doesn't, for my money, limit itself to this when perhaps it should. I suggest reading it yourself, then coming to your own conclusions. Remember, just because it’s referenced here does not mean it’s perfect, just that I considered it sufficiently valuable on this point.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.