The Trainer’s Dilemma: Idealism vs. Reality

Niraj kumar

19^th September, 2025

This morning, I conducted a training session with senior officers of the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha, at XIM Bhubaneswar. The hall was vibrant with energy, the officers engaged deeply, and their enthusiasm made the atmosphere lively. There feedback was encouraging. But once the session ended, the officers began sharing candid reflections from their field realities - delayed funds, unfinished projects, and administrative bottlenecks. In that moment, I realised that what I considered a transformative session might not withstand the test of the field, where these constraints inevitably shape how programmes are planned, implemented and sustained. I felt a familiar unease. Was I really doing justice as a trainer? Once again, I encountered the classic trainer’s dilemma in programme planning: Should I present the clean, scientific models that look perfect in theory, or should I adapt everything to the messy, constrained realities of daily practice?

Training Panchayati Raj Officers: Balancing Idealism and Reality

This, I realise, is not just a personal struggle. It is what I call the trainer’s dilemma: idealism vs. reality. Across classrooms, training halls, and government offices, this dilemma recurs. If we teach the “ideal model,” it risks sounding detached. If we stick only to constraints, the session loses its transformative power. The real challenge is finding the mid-path, a balance between research-based frameworks and real-world application.

Why Training Often Fails: What Research Tells Us?

For decades, researchers have studied why training fails to translate into workplace results. It has been argued that successful transfer of learning depends on three factors: the trainee (their motivation and prior knowledge), the training design (how content is delivered), and the work environment (supervisors, peers, and organizational systems). Even the best training collapses if the environment is not supportive. It has been found that motivation, opportunity to apply, peer encouragement, and recognition are essential levers. Without them, learning fades away quickly.

Corporate research adds another warning. Beer, Finnström, and Schrader (in Harvard Business Review) called it the “great training robbery”. Companies spend billions, yet without aligning training to business priorities and supportive systems, employees return to old habits. In other words, training divorced from reality rarely delivers impact.

Why Government Training is Even More Complex?

Training in the public sector brings extra challenges, resource shortages, compliance rules, and political pressures. Michael Lipsky’s work on street-level bureaucracy shows how front-line officials inevitably adapt policies to cope with real-world complexity. No matter how perfect the flowchart, the last-mile reality rarely looks the same. Trainers in government programmes cannot ignore this; they must design for it.

How High-Performing Organisations Make Training Effective?

High-performing organisations, whether in the corporate world or government, approach training very differently. They make it a point to link training to measurable outcomes, ensuring that every learning intervention is tied to clear performance goals. They also reinforce skills through ongoing practice and coaching rather than relying on one-off training sessions that quickly fade away. Most importantly, they integrate learning into daily work by embedding it into projects, peer networks, and real-time problem solving. The key takeaway is that effective training is not about adding more content; it is about creating better context coupling, connecting learning directly to what employees actually do and what organizations truly value.

Post-Training Interaction with Odisha Govt. Officers: Lessons from Programme Planning

My Learning, and How I Plan to Do My Next Session?

reflecting on these insights, I have realised that my next training session must create a mid-path that honours research but remains grounded in real issues. In structuring the 90 minutes, I want to begin with the participants’ own problems rather than abstract theories. People engage most when their real struggles, such as delayed funds or incomplete projects, form the starting point. Frameworks will then serve as practical tools for problem-solving, not as rigid impositions.

From there, the focus will shift to transfer rather than mere delivery. Too often, training fails at the point of application. To address this, participants will be encouraged to reflect on the support they can seek from managers, the time they can carve out for new practices, and the motivation they bring. After all, the soil must be ready before the seed can grow.

The session will also link learning to performance outcomes. Unless training is tied to metrics like faster service delivery or grievance redressal, it risks becoming irrelevant when pressures mount. Helping participants identify one or two “north-star” metrics will anchor their learning in tangible and visible results.

Instead of debating endlessly about whether models fit local contexts, the group will engage in micro-experiments. Designing small pilots in one ward or panchayat reduces risk, builds credibility, and generates real evidence for scaling.

To ensure that learning endures, I will also focus on social reinforcement. Training often fades when people slip back into old routines. Creating practice partners, encouraging peer huddles, and involving supervisors for feedback will provide the ongoing support needed to sustain new behaviours.

Finally, the session will close with reflection and personal commitment. Each participant will write down one key learning, one action they intend to try in the next 30 days, and one way they will measure success. This simple exercise reinforces the idea that learning is not a one-time event but a process that unfolds long after the workshop ends.

Final Words

I do not want my next session to be just another classroom lecture. I want it to be an experience where participants walk out with ownership of problems, clarity of outcomes, and practical steps they can apply immediately. More importantly, I want them to leave with a support system to sustain those changes. This is my way of practicing the mid-path, balancing ideal frameworks with ground realities and nudging people toward meaningful change.

Let’s see how it goes.

*****