No abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate whether soft-skills trainers and hard-skills trainers have different perspectives regarding their required instructional knowledge and skills. Design/methodology/approach An online questionnaire was completed by 129 soft-skills trainers and 61 hard-skills trainers. The authors used 14 items covering relevant instructional knowledge and skills based on the training literature. Findings An exploratory factor analysis identified the following two factors: managing interactions and instructional activities. A multivariate analysis of variance showed significant differences in the assessments of managing interactions (p = 0.00) and instructional activities (p = 0.01) between soft- and hard-skills trainers. The differences in managing interactions were larger than those in instructional activities. The soft-skills trainers showed higher agreement with all items. Most individual items had medium effect sizes. The differing perspectives of soft- and hard-skills trainers are not an effect of different educational backgrounds. Research limitations/implications These findings suggest that differences exist in the required instructional knowledge and skills depending on whether trainers teach soft or hard skills. Further research should consider the training content. Practical implications Practitioners can ensure that soft-skills trainers meet the respective requirements. Originality/value This study is the first to investigate the differences in soft- and hard-skills trainers’ perceptions of instructional requirements.

No abstract

Zusammenfassung Über die Qualifikationen von Lehrenden in der beruflich-betrieblichen Weiterbildung in Deutschland ist bisher wenig bekannt, da sie in den meisten Erhebungen zum Weiterbildungspersonal unterrepräsentiert und/oder als Teilgruppe nicht explizit ausgewiesen sind. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht daher deskriptiv die Qualifikationen von N = 896 Lehrenden in der beruflich-betrieblichen Weiterbildung und vergleicht die Befunde mit den Ergebnissen anderer Studien. Die Lehrenden gaben ähnlich häufig an, einen Hochschulabschluss zu besitzen (70,9 %), allerdings wurden pädagogische Hochschulabschlüsse seltener genannt (16,5 %). Trainerausbildungen und/oder andere Zusatzqualifikationen wurden dagegen häufiger angegeben (86,4 %). Insgesamt scheinen Lehrende in der beruflichbetrieblichen Weiterbildung ein hohes Qualifikationsniveau zu besitzen, wobei es sich jedoch selten um ausgebildete Pädagog/innen handelt. Im Hinblick auf die Professionalisierung im Weiterbildungsbereich erscheint es lohnend, diese Teilgruppe des Weiterbildungspersonals als solche zukünftig genauer zu untersuchen.

Schlenker’s model of responsibility was used in this study to investigate to what extent leadership trainers consider themselves accountable for the transfer of training. We conducted 15 semi‐structured interviews and evaluated the answers using qualitative content analysis. With respect to the responsibility links of Schlenker’s model, the trainers described two out of three links as being rather strong. The interview data suggest that transfer‐enhancing strategies were mostly clear to the trainers. They also reported feeling personally obliged to support trainees in their transfer efforts. Regarding the third link, the trainers perceived limited control over several transfer determinants. They explained that they could facilitate transfer but not produce it. The trainers identified the trainees, their supervisors, and the organisations as other responsible parties. The concept of trainers as transfer managers was scarcely reported among the data. Our findings suggest that client organisations could strengthen accountability by setting adequate and feasible training objectives and by monitoring their achievement. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications with regard to the promotion of transfer.