Q: We are working under a somewhat antiquated model internally, as we have four full-time corporate trainers / instructors to our department, who are members of the college faculty and are fully workload to teach for us. Beyond that, we also utilize a large pool of part time (eg: “adjunct”) trainers. Due to internal college bureaucracy (a strong instructors union contract), in past years, these part time trainers largely all came from inside the college – eg: they teach on campus and then would do side work for us. However, due to widespread legislative changes in the past year in WI, we are now able to have much more latitude in using more conventional adjunct trainers (eg: working professionals who wish to also teach for us on an “as needed” basis). As such, we have in our department from a management level been actively searching and recruiting for new instructors to tap into, and with that, we have developed new rules, guidelines, and procedures for our trainers, so that there is some uniformity developed, and so that especially the new instructors have clear guidelines and understand the expectations surrounding them in representing us. Having said all of that… We had from management decided that all of our trainers should be referred to as “corporate trainers”… We feel that corporate trainers not only most closely resembles the job description of what our trainers actually do, but also that it has the most marketing appeal to the general business marketplace. However, when we branded our team of trainers, “corporate trainers”, the four full time instructors threw a fit. They felt that “trainers” was a diminishing term, and instead, wanted to be known as “instructors” or “faculty” or “content experts”… This is much background information, but I wanted to paint a picture so that you could best advise us here. We are turning to LERN, to get your counsel as to what the generally accepted industry terminology is for trainers/instructors. Is it “corporate trainers?” Or is something else more appropriate? We feel that the terms they are using like “instructors” and “faculty” sounds way, way too academic, and has little-to-no appeal to the business community (eg: our customers). We also feel that “content experts” is a bit more academic-side sounding (“subject matter experts” more appropriate) but that that is more of a descriptive term / a verb, rather than what they actually are (eg: when we are recruiting for new trainers, we are advertising for new “corporate trainers” rather than new “content experts”)… Help! Can LERN please advise me what good, generally accepted industry terminologies are for trainers / instructors, and some rationale behind it?
A: . It is important to position your program in the most advantageous way, because you have to be competitive in the marketplace. This idea is not always clearly understood by faculty. Within academia, as you know, rank is very important. Even faculty with the lowest rank (instructor) might feel diminished if they were given a title that has no academic rank at all (trainer) and which does not necessarily require the same level of expertise or education as “instructor.” I have done some research on terminology used by other colleges and universities, and the term “instructor” is more widely used for corporate trainers who provide their services through higher education institutions (colleges and universities). The term “trainer” is more commonly used for non-academic organizations who provide training services, such as private consulting firms, for-profit organizations, etc. Some options are that you might consider using terminology such as “Instructor and Corporate Consultant,” “instructor and corporate trainer,” or “training facilitator.” Both the term consultant and facilitator actually enhance the perceived value of the individual’s knowledge, although facilitator is not as strong a term. A consultant or a facilitator is someone who has expertise, or specialized knowledge and skills, and this is communicated in the use of those terms. These terms also reflect more accurately the direction the field is moving. Increasingly, training is becoming a more customized activity in which the very specific needs of the client form the basis for instruction and is thus a more consultative relationship. How you identify your instructional staff is probably less important in your overall branding strategy than how you define your services relative to the competition.