Training, Facilitation, Workshops Aren’t Same
Organizations frequently invest in training, facilitation, or workshops with the expectation that any structured intervention will improve performance, engagement, or collaboration. In practice, these approaches are often conflated, leading to misaligned expectations and disappointing results. Research shows that training, facilitation, and workshops serve fundamentally different purposes, operate through different mechanisms, and produce different effects on employees. Choosing the wrong approach for the problem at hand can limit impact, regardless of the quality of delivery.
Training is designed primarily to build individual knowledge or skills. It assumes a gap between what employees know and what they need to know, and it focuses on transferring information or developing competencies. While training can be effective when tasks are stable and performance expectations are clear, its impact diminishes when work is complex, ambiguous, or relational. Research on learning and organizational fit suggests that employees are more likely to engage with and apply training when it aligns with their roles, expectations, and organizational context (Rane, 2024; Hossain et al., 2024). When training is delivered without sufficient attention to contextual fit or reinforcement, employees may understand new concepts but struggle to translate them into daily practice.
Facilitation operates differently. Rather than transferring knowledge, facilitation focuses on enabling collective sensemaking, alignment, and learning within groups. Facilitators support participants in examining assumptions, coordinating perspectives, and navigating complexity together. Wikström et al. (2021) show that effective facilitators move fluidly between supportive and expert roles depending on group needs, particularly in complex work environments where predefined solutions are insufficient. This adaptability allows groups to engage with uncertainty rather than avoid it, creating conditions for learning that extend beyond individual skill acquisition.
Empirical research supports the value of facilitation in shaping group dynamics and learning outcomes. Jasperson and Hurley (2023) demonstrate that facilitator-led group conversations improve trust, communication, and collective problem-solving by creating structured spaces for dialogue. Similarly, Seeber (2019) finds that facilitation interventions foster learning by improving evaluation and coordination processes, helping groups converge around shared understanding rather than fragment into competing viewpoints. For employees, facilitation can increase psychological safety, participation, and ownership, particularly when challenges involve collaboration, decision-making, or change.
Workshops occupy a middle ground between training and facilitation. They are time-bounded interventions that often combine instruction, interaction, and experiential activities. Workshops can be effective for raising awareness, testing ideas, or initiating conversations, but their impact depends heavily on design and follow-through. Research on workshop-based interventions shows that they can influence behavior and relational dynamics when they are embedded within broader organizational efforts. For example, Seppälä et al. (2023) found that a workshop-based intervention significantly reduced workplace bullying and violence over a two-year period, but only because it was part of a sustained organizational approach rather than a standalone event.
Workshops also function as spaces for shared knowledge creation. Eidenskog et al. (2024) describe workshops as relational and material practices that allow participants to surface tacit knowledge and negotiate meaning collectively. This makes workshops particularly useful for exploratory or developmental goals. However, when workshops are used as substitutes for deeper organizational work, their effects tend to be short-lived. Employees may leave energized or informed, but return to systems and norms that limit application.
The effects of these approaches on employees differ accordingly. Training often increases individual competence but may have a limited influence on relationships or culture. Facilitation tends to strengthen engagement, trust, and alignment by involving employees directly in sensemaking and decision processes. Workshops can support engagement and learning when well designed, but risk contributing to fatigue or cynicism if overused without a clear purpose or continuity.
Research on person-job and person-organization fit further underscores the importance of alignment between intervention type and organizational context. Employees are more engaged and responsive when initiatives reflect how work actually happens and when supervisors support application (Hossain et al., 2024). Misalignment between the intervention and the challenge can undermine even well-intentioned efforts.
The key distinction, then, is not which approach is better, but which is appropriate. Training aligns best with clearly defined skill gaps. Facilitation is most effective when organizations need alignment, learning, or collective decision-making. Workshops are useful for exploration and momentum-building when integrated into a broader strategy. Leaders who treat these approaches as interchangeable risk solving the wrong problem with the wrong tool.
Organizations that achieve better outcomes are those that match their interventions to the nature of their challenges, the readiness of their teams, and the systems in which employees operate. Understanding the differences between training, facilitation, and workshops is not a semantic exercise. It is a strategic decision that shapes how employees experience change and whether organizational efforts lead to sustained improvement.
References
Eidenskog, M., Andersson, R., & Glad, W. (2024). Workshops as a relational material research practice: Creating space for shared knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241297427
Hossain, A., Khatun, M., & Shanjabin, S. (2024). Impact of person-job fit and person-organization fit on employee engagement: Moderating role of supervisor support. Annals of Human Resource Management Research, 3(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.35912/ahrmr.v3i2.1885
Jasperson, D., & Hurley, R. A. (2023). Improving group dynamics with facilitator-led group conversations. Clemson University Press. https://lgpress.clemson.edu/publication/improving-group-dynamics-with-facilitator-led-group-conversations/
Rane, V. (2024). A study of organisational fit in the selection process (Mendeley Data, V1). https://doi.org/10.17632/7v3skhps68.1
Seeber, I. (2019). How do facilitation interventions foster learning? The role of evaluation and coordination as causal mediators in idea convergence. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.033
Seppälä, P., Olin, N., Kalavainen, S., Heikkilä, H. C., Kivimäki, M., Remes, J., & Ervasti, J. (2023). Effectiveness of a workshop-based intervention to reduce bullying and violence at work: A two-year quasi-experimental intervention study. Social Science & Medicine, 338, 116318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116318
Wikström, E., Severin, J., Jónsdóttir, I. H., & Åkerström, M. (2021). Process facilitators shifting between the support and expert roles in a complex work environment intervention in the Swedish healthcare sector. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 36(9), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-10-2021-0382
