3 Surprising Truths About What Makes a Great Trainer (According to an International Standard)

Introduction: The Expert Who Can't Teach

We’ve all been there: sitting in a training session led by a brilliant subject matter expert who, despite their deep knowledge, can't seem to make the material stick. They might be a leader in their field, but the session is confusing, dry, and ultimately ineffective. It’s a common frustration that highlights a critical gap: expertise in a subject is not the same as expertise in teaching it.

This very problem is what international standards aim to solve. While it may not be a household name, ISO 29993 is a global standard for learning services created specifically to ensure that training is delivered by people who can actually enable learning outcomes, not merely present content. It provides a framework for quality that cuts through the noise.

Buried within this standard are some powerful and counter-intuitive lessons about what truly defines trainer competence. Let’s explore three surprising truths from ISO 29993 that can change how you think about quality training.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. It's Not About the Degree—It's About Relevance

First, ISO 29993 offers a more intelligent and flexible toolkit for assessing trainers by redefining what it means to be "qualified." The standard views qualifications not as competence itself, but as evidence that supports competence. This subtle but powerful shift moves the focus away from the assumption that a university degree is the ultimate mark of a good trainer.

According to the standard, a "qualification" can be demonstrated through education, professional certification, or relevant experience. The key is that its appropriateness depends entirely on the context—the subject matter, learning outcomes, and learner profile. The strategic purpose is to ensure learners receive "accurate, relevant, and professional instruction," which means the best qualification for a technical trainer might be years of field experience, not a PhD.

This distinction is crucial because it moves the evaluation from a rigid, "check-the-box" approach to a meaningful assessment of fit. In fact, the standard explicitly calls out a Common Audit Error: expecting academic teaching qualifications where they aren't required, proving how deeply ingrained the degree-as-competence myth can be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Competence Isn't a Credential, It's an Action

The second truth builds on the first: having the right qualifications is not the same as being competent. ISO 29993 draws a sharp line between the two, defining competence directly as, "The ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results."

Critically, the standard clarifies that competence goes beyond qualifications to include tangible behaviors:

• Practical ability
• Teaching or facilitation skills
• Communication effectiveness
• Contextual understanding
• Professional behavior

This means competence isn't something you have on a resume; it's something you do. It must be actively and systematically evaluated through methods like observing delivery, gathering learner feedback, or conducting peer reviews. For L&D strategists, this is a powerful mandate to build systems that verify performance, because as the standard warns, a major Red Flag for auditors is "Assuming competence solely based on past reputation or seniority." This focus on demonstrated action is what makes "learning outcomes achievable in practice."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Responsibility for Quality Can't Be Outsourced

Many organizations rely on a network of freelance trainers and external experts. It’s a flexible model, but it comes with a non-negotiable responsibility. As a function of quality assurance and brand protection, L&D leaders must recognize that outsourcing delivery does not outsource responsibility.

ISO 29993 is unequivocal: external personnel must meet the exact same competence standards as internal staff. This requires robust processes to verify the competence of external partners before engagement and to monitor their performance over time. This system is not just about compliance; it is the mechanism by which "learner trust and confidence are maintained" and "learning quality is sustainable over time," regardless of who is delivering the session.

Ultimately, whether a trainer is a full-time employee or a one-time contractor, the organization must be able to answer the fundamental question that lies at the heart of these requirements:

"Are the people delivering this learning capable and credible?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: From Credentials to Credibility

The core theme running through these principles is a fundamental shift in perspective. A world-class standard for learning services prioritizes demonstrated, relevant competence over simple qualifications on paper. It emphasizes action over titles and credibility over credentials, ensuring the focus remains on the only thing that truly matters: the learner's success.

The next time you select a learning partner, will you be satisfied with a resume, or will you demand to see their system for verifying competence and delivering results?

Share This Article

Found this useful? Share it with your network: