Training pursues the goals of the organisation, i.e. the organisation decides what their learners need, and delivers fixed subject matter accordingly (where coaching addresses the goals of the learner).
Training is most effective at lower levels in the organisation. Typically training is done in groups, which is efficient in terms of cost of the trainer. However, large-group training is less efficient in terms of opportunity cost of employee time, as training effectiveness usually decreases as class numbers increase. At lower salary levels, this may not be significant; but at executive levels, that opportunity cost is far greater than the fee of the coach or trainer. This is why the fee level is secondary to getting the maximum value out of employee time spent—in other words, hiring the best coach for the task.
I have a long background in training (as a trainee, as a trainer, as an employer of trainers, and as a trainer of trainers). I now don’t do much training, except in the context of Group Coaching. The main reason is that I cannot agree with mainstream training culture, which focuses on volume of content delivered, rather than resulting performance of the trainees; and sees training as a cost, rather than an investment in higher performance.
I prefer a deeper, paced approach, that takes into account different motivations, learning styles, experience and needs; that is integrated with other HR strategies; that delivers hard performance results and a real return on a well structured investment.
If you agree with this philosophy, and would like to talk about highly effective training in my area of expertise, I would be happy to do so.