5 min read · Transformation
Most organisations know they need to transfer knowledge. They invest in training. They build programmes. They fly people in, run workshops, hand out certificates.
And six months later, the knowledge hasn't transferred.
I've seen this pattern across dozens of organisations — from global automotive groups to mid-sized European companies. And after years of designing and delivering Train-the-Trainer programmes across four countries and four languages, I've come to a clear conclusion:
The problem isn't the content. It's the model.
Most Train-the-Trainer programmes are built around a simple assumption: if you teach someone the material well enough, they'll be able to teach it to others.
This assumption is wrong.
Knowing something and being able to transfer it are two completely different skills. A brilliant engineer can be a terrible trainer. An expert who knows everything about a process can fail to communicate it to someone who thinks differently, works in a different language, or comes from a different organisational culture.
The knowledge exists. The transfer fails.
When I work with organisations on Train-the-Trainer programmes — as I do currently with BOND across pilot dealerships in Germany, France, the UK and Italy — the first thing I establish is this: we are not just training content. We are training the ability to read a room, adapt in real time, and make ideas land in a specific cultural and organisational context.
That means trainers need three things that most programmes don't teach:
First: cultural intelligence. What works in a German dealership does not automatically work in a French one. The same message, delivered the same way, lands differently depending on the audience's relationship to hierarchy, feedback, and learning itself. A trainer who doesn't understand this will deliver a technically correct session that produces no change.
Second: the ability to handle resistance. Every training session contains at least one person who doesn't want to be there, doesn't believe in the programme, or has been through three similar initiatives that went nowhere. A good trainer doesn't ignore this resistance — they work with it. They name it, address it, and turn sceptics into the most valuable people in the room.
Third: feedback loops. The best trainers I've worked with don't wait for the post-session evaluation form. They read the energy in the room continuously and adjust. They know when to slow down, when to push, when to stop and ask a question that changes the direction of the whole session.
Here's something that almost never gets discussed in Train-the-Trainer design: language.
In multinational programmes, the default assumption is that English is enough. Everyone speaks English. We'll run it in English.
This is a mistake that costs more than organisations realise.
When someone is trained in their second language, their cognitive load increases. They're processing the content and the language simultaneously. Nuance is lost. Questions that should be asked aren't asked because forming them in a second language is too effortful in the moment.
In my work with BOND's project, I conduct sessions in German in Germany, French in France, English in the UK, and Italian in Italy. Not because I'm showing off. Because it works. People learn faster, engage more deeply, and retain more when they're not fighting the language at the same time as the content.
It's not always possible to run multilingual programmes. But it's always worth asking the question.
Most organisations measure training success by completion rates and satisfaction scores. Did people attend? Did they rate it highly?
These are the wrong metrics.
The right question is: six months after this programme, what is different about how these people work?
That question is harder to answer. It requires follow-up. It requires observation. It requires being willing to hear that the programme didn't work as well as hoped — and understanding why.
The organisations I've seen build genuinely effective Train-the-Trainer programmes are the ones willing to treat training as a long-term investment in behaviour change, not a short-term event to be completed and reported.
Before you design your next Train-the-Trainer initiative, ask three questions:
Are we training content or capability? If the answer is only content, the programme will underdeliver.
Have we thought about cultural and linguistic context? If the programme is designed for one culture and deployed in five, expect inconsistent results.
How will we measure behaviour change, not just attendance? If you can't answer this, you don't yet have a success metric worth measuring.
Training is not an event. It's a process. And like every process, it only works when it's designed for the people it's meant to serve — not for the organisation that needs to report it complete.
Michele C. Fuhs is a senior advisor and global keynote speaker working with organisations on transformation, Train-the-Trainer programmes, and organisational development across Europe.
→ Read more Insights · → Work with Michele
