Firms in Quebec make frequent use of in-house trainers. While describing the education and training provided to production employees, we have often noted the preponderance of mentoring-based ALT through. Mentoring is designed to better integrate new employees into the organization, to teach the tasks to be performed and to standardize work practices. Marchand et al. (2007) stress the effectiveness of a tool such as learner-pairing in transmitting tacit knowledge. Two factors are thought to govern the success of the pairing relationship in their case study of Quebec companies: "pairing requires the commitment and active support of superiors. Also, the training of trainers is important and deserves to be extended to all persons whose duties include conveying professional knowledge" (CPMT, 2007, p. 1; transl.).
The relatively new practice of training mentors, which is geared to the emerging system of providing ALT for new hires, has become a strategic activity, according to some of the businesses studied. Then who are these internal trainers and how are they trained, if they are trained?
Trainers may be recruited on a volunteer basis among employees. In most of the cases observed by Bélanger et al. (2004), however, in-house trainers are experienced employees selected by a superior (their foreperson, manager or a human resources adviser) to train their peers. As a rule, these employee trainers are selected for their technical knowledge and communication skills. In some of the firms studied, they are selected on the basis of criteria that are more or less observable and expressly stated, such as an ability to communicate or a sense of responsibility, while in other companies the selection process is strictly organized (examination, interview, calculation of seniority) and judged against yardsticks set out in the collective agreement. One example of a formalized and highly structured selection procedure is provided by a very large biopharmaceutical company that asked its employees who were interested in taking two-year positions as full-time trainers to submit applications and pass appropriate tests. The employee found to be suitable and possessing the most seniority is given the position in question. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between in-house training given expressly by trainers selected and trained for the purpose, and less structured coaching.
There are situations (Bélanger et al., 2004), regardless of a company's sector or size, where employee-trainers, despite their involvement and the recognition of their status, do not receive any training for their particular role as trainers. Some of these companies are in the process of systematizing this kind of training. For most large firms, however, the training of trainers tends to become systematic and resourced. Some of the firms studied, in which the position of mentor is key, often because training of new hires or for a new position is a priority for them, show their interest by offering certified training and by giving the employee trainer a salary increase.
Training courses for trainers are structured to varying degrees. The most structured types of training observed consist of three parts: a theoretical part, a practical part and a follow-up session offered some six months after the person joins the company. In some types of training, attention is paid above all to mastering a sophisticated piece of equipment, although in most cases, the training of trainers focuses on issues such as communication skills and training strategies. The employee trainer may, for example, have tools such as a training manual that cover all of the content to be conveyed, as well as reminders describing procedures and standards.