… someone decided to come to the farmers’ aid and invented this tool, which is more ingenious than their pitchforks. That is how Moceanu’s pitchfork came to be, since that was the inventor’s name. It consists of two parts: the wooden part (which he shows us) and the metal part! So, let’s briefly recap: Moceanu’s scythe was invented by Moceanu. It consists…” “…of two parts,” the voices of the listeners were suddenly heard. Amused and surprised, the man smiled to himself. “The wooden part…” he said… “…wooden,” the audience finished… “and the iron…” “…part,” our voices rose. “Gentlemen,” the man exclaimed (and for a moment rested his chin on his chest in satisfaction), “it is a true pleasure to be in the company of intellectuals.”
Then he moved on to the practical demonstration, using that basket to weave a basket…
…and the next day he set up shop again. “Let someone tell me,” he began, “who invented Moceanu’s basket.” “Moceanu’s basket was invented by Moceanu,” our team replied immediately in unison. “It consists of two parts,” the man continued. “The part…” “…wooden-bone,” we spelled out… “And the part…” “iron-bone,” we sang on. “Gentlemen, I am pleased to note that the intellectual is called that precisely because it spares you from unnecessary explanations…”
from “The Most Beloved of Earthlings” by  Marin Preda

The Explosion of the Training Industry

The training market has finally exploded in Romania as well: companies offering all kinds of programs have sprung up like mushrooms after rain; major foreign brands (for whom—after years of struggle in the saturated Western market—Eastern countries represent a true breath of fresh air) are trying to conquer new territory; young graduates—or even those still in school—are proclaiming themselves trainers, just like teachers who, after comparing their teaching salaries to what they can charge as trainers, have changed their titles.
Consequently, amid the resulting confusion, organizations, associations, certifications, requests for approval, proposed standards, and attempts at regulation have begun to emerge… In short, the usual chaos that ensues when an unregulated market emerges and everyone tries to carve out their own piece of territory, perhaps attempting to position themselves as the more comfortable arbiter who can decide who has—and who does not have—the right to operate in the market. Nothing new under the sun.

Since I’ve now returned to Monte Carlo to my job as a real estate agent and find myself in the role of trainer only from time to time—and especially only when I feel like it (in Romania, I give more free lectures at student associations than training sessions at companies)—I view all this activity with a certain detachment; however, I’d like to share some thoughts on training that I hope you’ll find unbiased.

How Training Is Different From School

First of all, what do we mean by “training,” and how does it differ from school?
Is there a difference, or is it just cooler to use American terms?
While reading and discussing, I’ve heard all sorts of opinions—some interesting, others nonsensical, and others downright ridiculous.
The most amusing one is that training differs from school because it involves interactivity and learning by doing (or experiential learning).
That’s absolutely fantastic and very telling: do some people really believe there’s such a thing as learning without doing?

This is due to a criminal school system, which has convinced us since childhood that if we read a book on subject X and can recite it in front of a teacher, we have become competent in subject X.

The Illusion of Competence

That would mean—and I’ve realized that many believe this—that if you’ve read some books on boxing, you’re competent in boxing. Naturally, your self-preservation instinct will tell you not to step into the ring; but that won’t stop you from claiming to teach others what you know and proclaiming yourself a boxing trainer. Maybe even with a certification…

But aside from these (albeit very common) absurdities, I don’t see any reason to use the word “training” even when it comes to acquiring practical skills. At some point, if I want to learn how to drive a car, I don’t go to a seminar on “high-performance driving training” or “unleash the driver within,” but rather to a regular driving school (though, in the future, who knows… maybe we’ll end up with a new profession: driving coach…)
And this applies to most skills that produce results and where you can’t hide behind words, explanations, or justifications.
A helpful way to understand the term might come from a company’s standard internal training: every company has its own procedures, which, obviously, can’t be learned in school. So, no matter how prepared and experienced you are, when you join a new organization, you need a training period to learn the specific procedures that will allow you to perform your role successfully. But usually, this type of training is conducted by someone within the organization, or by an external firm that has been collaborating with that company for decades and knows exactly what is required for each role, so that’s not really what we’re interested in here.

So, when we look at the typical situation where an external firm—which knows little or nothing about its client—proposes a standard training program on communication, objectives, leadership, coaching, motivation, or so-called soft skills, what are we talking about? Is it useful? Is it something that can be taught? Is it something the company will benefit from? But what about the individual?

The answer is, unequivocally, yes: a company, large or small, constantly exists in a delicate balance between the demands of the firm and the demands of the individual, which often conflict.

This isn’t the place to delve deeper, but it’s clear that when this balance is disrupted, performance drops, people don’t work well, and both profit and quality suffer.
Therefore, anything that can improve, in any way, individuals’ ability to understand themselves and relate in a healthy way to themselves, the company, and the other elements of the system, can only be positive.

But…

While it is very simple to conduct training on defined and well-established procedures (even if they are complex), soft skills are very difficult to shape, very difficult to explain, and, moreover, very difficult to transfer to someone else.

Soft Skills Are Difficult to Transfer

Even if some people, using trendy theories full of fanciful neologisms (which, in any case, arrive in Romania decades late), claim to be teaching behavioral procedures, the result—when there is one at all!—leaves much to be desired (especially since many act like the boxing expert I mentioned above…)

The truth is that, in most cases, the techniques learned at these seminars, although understood by the participants, do not produce any significant change. Because, in many cases, the problem isn’t a lack of technique, but a lack of the will to put it into practice—which often boils down to New Year’s resolutions: yes, I know I need to diet a bit, go to the gym, stop yelling at my coworkers, meet deadlines, do this, do that, do the other… , but the next day the seminar notebook is put in a drawer and forgotten there.

Why Authenticity Matters More Than Technique

For what my opinion is worth, I believe that technique, in any field, counts for no more than, say, 20%, and no matter how well mastered, it will be completely useless without the right mental attitude!
-It’s useless to know karate techniques if you don’t know how to unleash your fighting spirit: a street kid will beat you up.
-It’s useless to know how to play an instrument if you lack musicality: any street musician will be more pleasant to listen to.
-It’s useless to know the techniques of rhetoric if you don’t know how to put passion into what you say: people won’t follow you.
-It’s useless to know all the formulas of macro- and microeconomics and all the marketing techniques if you don’t have business sense: you’ll always be on the verge of bankruptcy.
-It’s useless to know rapport techniques: if you’re not interested in others, it will show.
-It’s useless to know all the psycholinguistic tricks and manipulation techniques by heart: if you don’t have a salesperson’s personality, you won’t sell anything.
And so on.

That’s the bad part, and learning other techniques won’t fix it. Especially not in the 2–3 days that a typical training session lasts!

The good news is that these traits, which seem innate and reserved for a lucky few, are actually available to everyone—even to a much greater extent than we dare to imagine.
So, finally, I’ll say what I believe is the true task of a trainer: not to teach theories, techniques, or procedures (even if that’s sometimes necessary), but to succeed in connecting people with the part of themselves that already knows, that is already perfectly capable of doing things, and that is waiting for nothing more than permission to express itself. As I’ve written countless times—and I don’t care if I’m repeating myself—most people have spectacular talents and potential, which are blocked by a lack of confidence, insecurity, fear, laziness, and so on.

Unlocking Human Potential

So the true task of a trainer is to help others express their true potential.

Training isn’t really training if, alongside new skills, it doesn’t also foster personal growth.

But… (here’s another “but”…)

To do this, it’s not enough for the trainer to be prepared; they must lead by example and demonstrate what they preach through their own life, otherwise they won’t succeed.

And this is where difficulties can arise: anyone can read books or attend seminars on marketing, martial arts, or music, and then repeat what they’ve heard, with decent results. But to bring out others’ authentic talents—such as business acumen, determination, communication skills, competitiveness, and so on—there are no shortcuts: it will only work if the trainer has gone through such experiences themselves. Otherwise, they will never succeed!

Trainers Must Embody What They Teach

I’m not getting into a debate, especially since I’m pursuing some personal fantasies about consistency, but if someone comes along and introduces themselves to me as a trainer and personal coach—as happened to me a while back—a guy with a beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other, and a huge beer belly, I think maybe we have different opinions about what personal development means. And this is just the most trivial example that comes to mind; I’m not making a list that every reader could easily compile on their own.

In conclusion: school is what school has always been, and we don’t really have much to do with it.

Learning a trade—whether ordinary, routine, or high-level; generic or specific to a company—still doesn’t concern us: these are already well-established procedures developed over time, and it would be very difficult to improve them unless we’re in the industry ourselves.

Information, Formation, or Liberation?

On the other hand, when it comes to soft skills, yes, we can truly make a difference in others’ lives and offer people—under the guise of certain techniques—a push toward personal growth and development, as well as the ability to tap into talents and potentials that people may not even realize they possess. But… of course, only if we heed, despite our own limitations, Gandhi’s famous quote: Be the change you wish to see in the world.

Best regards,

Bruno

P.S. Perhaps someone has wondered why I included Marin Preda’s quote at the beginning.
If they can’t see the connection, I wonder why they’ve read this article this far…