We Know Training
We have designed and delivered training programs for more than two decades across industries, organization types, and every imaginable audience. We know what works, we know what does not, and we know that the people doing this work every day face questions that do not always have obvious answers. If you have a question about designing, delivering, or managing training programs, our experts may be able to help. Send us your question, and it may be featured here.
A Little Overwhelmed
Dear Training Expert,
I have just been charged with creating a training program to teach several computer processes to a large team. I am concerned because the group is big, I do not want to teach a lecture-only class, and I am worried that people will work at different paces and I will not be able to manage the process. Help.
Sara H.
Dear Sara,
The concern about pace is the right one to start with, because it is the problem most likely to derail a technical training with a large group. Here is how to address it directly.
Divide the content into discrete sections, one process at a time, with a clear stopping point after each. When participants finish a section, give them a structured practice activity to complete before the group moves on together. This gives faster participants something useful to do while others catch up, and it keeps you from having to manage a room that is in ten different places simultaneously.
Pair people up for the practice portions. A participant who finishes early becomes a resource for the person next to them rather than a distraction to you. This also reduces the pressure on you as the sole source of help in a large room.
Do not try to cover everything in the session itself. Identify the processes people must be able to perform when they leave, prioritize those, and move everything else to a reference document they can use on the job. A participant who leaves able to do the critical tasks and knows where to find guidance on the rest is better prepared than one who was rushed through the full list and retained none of it.
Prepare more than you think you will need. Having an additional challenge activity available for participants who move quickly costs nothing and saves you from managing a room full of people waiting with nothing to do.
No NoDoz Needed
Dear Training Expert,
I lead a mandatory training course that I did not write. The materials are boring and dated. The program consists of slides, readings, and very few activities. I do not enjoy delivering it, and the participants do not seem to like it either. Can this program be saved, or should I just push through?
Mark R.
Dear Mark,
Push through is not a strategy. It produces exactly the experience you are describing, session after session, and it does not serve the participants or you.
You do not need permission to make the delivery better even if you cannot change the content. Start by identifying the two or three things in the program that actually matter, the information participants need to be able to use when they return to the job, and build the session around those. Everything else becomes context rather than content.
Replace passive delivery with activity wherever you can. A slide that presents information can become a problem for the group to work through, a scenario to discuss, or a question to answer before you provide the answer. The content does not change. The experience of encountering it does.
Tell the group honestly that the program is overdue for a refresh and that you are working on making it more useful. Ask them what they need from the session and what would make it worth their time. That conversation tends to shift the dynamic in the room considerably. People who have been asked what they need are more engaged than people who have been told to sit and receive.
If the program is genuinely so far out of date that it cannot be delivered usefully in any form, document that assessment specifically and bring it to whoever owns the program. Describe the gap between the content and current reality, the effect on participant engagement, and what an updated version would need to address. That is a more useful contribution than delivering a bad program indefinitely while hoping someone else notices.
Too Much Content, Too Little Time
Dear Training Expert,
I have too much content for the time available in my course. I end up rushing through the material and participants leave overwhelmed. What can I do?
Derrick L.
Dear Derrick,
A program that covers everything and teaches nothing has made the wrong trade. Rushing through material to reach the end of a content list serves the list, not the participant.
The first task is to separate what participants must be able to do when they leave from what would be nice for them to know. Every training program has objectives, and those objectives describe behaviors, not topics. Use them to cut. If a section of content does not contribute directly to a participant’s ability to perform the target behaviors, it is a candidate for removal or reference material.
Once you have identified what stays, look at how much time each remaining section actually needs. Not the time currently allocated to it, but the time a participant genuinely needs to understand and practice it. If the total still exceeds your time, cut more content rather than compressing what remains. A compressed explanation of something complex produces the same outcome as no explanation at all.
Move foundational information out of the session and into pre-work. Participants who arrive already familiar with the basic concepts allow you to spend session time on application rather than introduction. Pre-work that is genuinely necessary and clearly connected to the session tends to get done. Pre-work that feels like homework for its own sake does not.
Finally, resist the pressure to add content back. Programs tend to grow over time because adding feels responsible and cutting feels like loss. The participant who leaves able to do three things well is better served than the participant who was exposed to ten things and can do none of them reliably.
Handling Disruptive Participants
Dear Training Expert,
I recently led a workshop where two participants dominated the discussion, interrupted others, and steered the session off track. How do I manage this in the future?
Param T.
Dear Param,
Dominant participants are easier to manage when the expectations are set before the behavior occurs rather than after. Open every session with a brief and direct statement about how participation will work: everyone contributes, no one monopolizes, and the group moves at a pace that serves all of them. State it as a given, not a request.
When a participant goes long, interrupt them with a specific phrase and redirect immediately. “Let me stop you there and bring in some other perspectives” is direct, professional, and does not require an explanation or an apology. Follow it with a question directed at someone who has not yet spoken. The redirect becomes the norm rather than an exception when you use it consistently from the first session.
If the behavior persists through the break, address it privately. Be specific about what you observed and direct about what you need to change. “During the morning session you spoke over two other participants and redirected a discussion I needed to keep on track. This afternoon I need you to hold your comments until others have had a chance to respond.” That conversation, handled without drama and without delay, resolves most cases. The participant who continues to disrupt after a private and direct conversation is a different problem, and managing the group around them while minimizing their impact is the practical solution.
Virtual Training Fatigue
Dear Training Expert,
I lead virtual training sessions and participants seem disengaged. Cameras are often off and participation is low. How can I make my sessions more engaging?
Elena K.
Dear Elena,
Cameras off and low participation are symptoms, not the problem itself. The problem is almost always one of three things: the session does not require participation in any meaningful way, participants do not feel that their contribution matters, or the format asks more of people’s attention than the content justifies.
Address the first by building participation into the structure of the session rather than inviting it at the end of long stretches of presentation. A session in which someone speaks for twenty minutes and then asks if there are questions has not created a participatory environment. It has created a presentation with a question period. Break the content into shorter segments and follow each one with a structured activity: a question directed at a specific person, a problem for small groups to work through in a breakout, a poll that requires a decision rather than a preference.
On cameras, set the expectation at the start of the program and explain why it matters. Participants who understand that their presence in the room affects the experience of the people around them tend to respond differently than participants who were simply told to turn the camera on. If camera-off is a firm policy problem rather than a culture problem, bring it to the program owner rather than managing it alone session by session.
Keep sessions shorter than you think you need to. Virtual attention spans are not a personal failing of your participants. They are a genuine constraint of the medium. A ninety-minute virtual session with structured interaction throughout produces better outcomes than a three-hour session that loses the room halfway through.
Designing for Mixed Skill Levels
Dear Training Expert,
My participants have a wide range of skill levels. Some get bored because the material is too basic while others struggle to keep up. How can I accommodate everyone?
Maya N.
Dear Maya,
A session designed for the middle of a wide skill range serves nobody particularly well. The participants who need more move too slowly. The participants who need less move too fast. The design problem is real and it does not have a perfect solution, but it has several practical ones.
Find out the range before the session begins. A short pre-session survey or a conversation with whoever is sending participants gives you enough information to make decisions about where to set the baseline and how much range the session needs to cover. Surprises on the day of delivery are harder to manage than known variables addressed in the design.
During the session, use paired or small group activities that mix skill levels deliberately. A participant who understands the material well enough to explain it to someone else has demonstrated genuine mastery. A participant who is struggling benefits from a peer explanation that meets them where they are rather than a repeat of the formal instruction. This structure serves both.
Build extension activities for participants who move through the core content quickly. These should be genuinely challenging, connected to the objectives, and available without fanfare so that faster participants can move to them without the group treating it as a signal that they have finished ahead of everyone else.
What to avoid is slowing the entire session to accommodate the participants who are struggling while the rest of the group waits. Address the gap through individual support, pairing, and extension work rather than through pacing that serves the slowest participant at the expense of everyone else. Both groups deserve a session that is worth their time.
Dealing with Know-It-Alls
Dear Training Expert,
How do I handle participants who think they know everything and challenge everything I say during training?
Justin M.
Dear Justin,
The first thing worth determining is whether the challenges are substantively wrong, partially right, or actually correct. A participant who challenges your content and is right is not a problem to manage. They are a resource to use. Acknowledge the contribution, incorporate it, and move on. A facilitator who is visibly comfortable being corrected or supplemented by a knowledgeable participant builds credibility rather than losing it.
The participant who challenges content that is accurate, who derails discussions with tangential expertise, or who speaks over other participants to demonstrate what they know, is a different situation. Address it the same way you address any dominant participant. Acknowledge the comment briefly, redirect the conversation to the group, and move forward. “That is one perspective. Let us see what others in the room think” is sufficient. Do not debate and do not over-acknowledge. Either response rewards the behavior and invites more of it.
If the participant has genuine expertise that the group could benefit from, give them a specific role that channels it productively. Ask them to lead a small group discussion on a section they know well, or to share a specific example from their experience at a defined point in the session. Expertise directed toward a useful purpose is considerably less disruptive than expertise looking for any available opening.
What does not work is hoping the behavior will moderate on its own or managing around it without addressing it. The rest of the group notices both the behavior and your response to it, and they draw conclusions from both.