The Theatre of Facilitation

I am a software trainer by profession—what I refer to as my “day career.”  It’s my business, my S-Corp, my area of expertise and interest.  Software training works for me in part because it has a business model which is familiar to me:

• I  contact, or am contacted by, one of my agents.  A deal is made for a multi-week presentation.  (I review upcoming auditions.)
• I interview with my potential client (audition for the director), which usually consists of a live or taped example of my performance style.
• If selected for the role, I am sent contracts and other materials, invariably including a script, which I prepare for a train-the-trainer (T-3) boot camp (the rehearsal period).
• During the T3, in addition to the technical material, I am given lots of other useful information regarding dress code (costume), corporate culture (character development), and other role-specific information (director’s notes).
• Invariably I have resources to fall back on, subject matter experts (SMEs) who know more than I about the matters at hand.  (No theatrical parallel here—except that it means I’m not really the expert, I’m only a facilitator, much as an actor is not really the role, not really the person, but is portraying a person, backstory, theme, etc.)  It’s more important that I excel in my role as a facilitator (actor) than it is that I am an SME (the real-life person my character represents).
• During the training itself, there’s clearly a beginning (opening scene), a middle time (the dramatic arc), and an end (climax).
• So many practical elements must be addressed, the size of the audience (house), the mood and the abilities of the students (patrons) as good listeners.  Are they with you, are they learning—and hopefully enjoying themselves?
• At any time necessity may require changes to the script with limited or virtually no prior warning.  
• Anything can and will happen during training (the run of the show), depending on the audience, technical matters, and the instructor (actor) mood and competency in the moment.  The trainer (actor) has to improvise.
• There’s an abruptness to the end of training.  Relationships among trainers and their students, which may have been intense, usually promptly dissipate (when the show’s over, it’s over).  Everyone goes his or her separate ways, though as professionals it’s likely their paths will cross again (they may be cast together in another show).
• Even if the same training course is repeated, the audience is different and the trainer (actor) must respond accordingly.  And different contracts (plays) of course may be wildly different from each other, a universe unto themselves.

There’s some evidence that the software training model is changing, simply because so much self-directed learning is becoming available, and the idea of a person actually training a group of others, even virtually, present only remotely over the internet, is somehow passé, very 20^th century.

Regardless, I enjoy software training in part because it’s the closest thing to live theater I’ve found in the business world.