A trainer that specialises in one field undoubtedly improves and advances that subject, both in method of delivery and acquired knowledge. As delivery improves, perception of the product for those attending the sessions improves. The trainer may have little need to review fresh subjects, therefore trainer stress is reduced and attendees benefit from an expert in that field. However, such trainers may not be in a position to expand into other subjects at short-notice. Admittedly, they may become extremely proficient in their field, but organisational requirements may serve to show that such a trainer will have limited usefulness.
Limitations, such as a lack of ability to diversify and take skilful charge of sessions during staff leave of absence, may well become noticeable. In addition, such trainers may leave the L&D department with a limited range of support material to call upon. After all, there has been no requirement to research and develop other subjects. Consequently, creativity is stifled because, with no new support material being developed, trainers commit themselves to the subject they are proficient at, and new ideas to develop further material for other subjects do not materialise. Further, the trainers themselves may become disillusioned through boredom, which in turn creates its own stress.
It seems evident that the utopia of specialist trainers hides a reality of stifled creativity, a restriction on quality training delivery material, an elevation of stress levels through repetitive teaching, and limited staff support during periods of staff shortage. Organisational constraints will serve to force training delivery staff to be omni-competent. Therefore, L&D departments should consider the worth of omni-competency, which arguably outweighs the disadvantages.
Have you experienced this situation either personally or within your organisation? What impacts did it have on learning, overall organisational performance, and outputs?