It’s one of those “hidden in plain sight” situations. I had a hunch, but I was curious to see what AI would say. The answer isn’t surprising – it confirms what many of us quietly know but rarely discuss.

Whether you’re a senior leader, CEO, or just starting your career, these insights are worth a read (AI-generated analysis) on both why this is the case and why training should also be provided with the same enthusiasm and comparable budgets to the workforce.

The reasoning behind companies prioritising leadership training over frontline or general employee training is multi-faceted, and it’s often rooted in strategic, financial, and organisational psychology considerations. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

1. Perceived ROI

• Leaders have outsized influence: Training a leader is seen as a multiplier because one manager affects the performance, engagement, and development of multiple employees.
• Financial perspective: Upskilling a manager can improve decision-making, team productivity, and retention—producing measurable returns on the investment. For workers, the perceived “ROI per pound spent” is often smaller or harder to measure.

2. Strategic Impact

• Leaders drive strategy execution: Companies often see leadership training as critical for shaping organisational culture, managing change, and driving innovation.
• Workers are assumed to “do their jobs”: Frontline employees are often trained on technical or operational skills as needed, but strategic thinking and leadership are seen as less relevant to their roles.

3. Talent Retention and Succession Planning

• Grooming the future pipeline: Leadership training is often tied to succession planning—investing in people who might occupy critical positions in the next 5–10 years.
• Workers are seen as replaceable: Unfortunately, many organisations view general employees as easier to replace than leaders, which reduces the incentive to invest heavily in their broader development.

4. Cost and Scalability

• Training leaders is smaller in scale: A company might have 50 leaders but 1,000 employees. It’s cheaper and easier to train a few managers intensively than to train thousands of workers.
• Workforce-wide training can be logistically challenging: Organising large-scale training programs, paying for time off, and customising learning for diverse roles can be expensive and complex.

5. Visibility and Prestige

• Leadership programs signal investment in talent: Sending managers to exclusive courses or workshops can signal that the company is serious about leadership and career development.
• Employee training is less “glamorous”: Operational or skill-based training doesn’t have the same prestige, even if it’s equally important for performance.

6. Culture and Mindset

• Top-down focus: Many companies still operate with a hierarchical mindset—change is driven from the top down, and empowering managers is seen as the main lever for organisational improvement.
• Employee empowerment isn’t always prioritised: Developing frontline employees beyond their current roles may not align with short-term business goals or cost-saving mindsets.

The Hidden Risk

• Ignoring broader employee development can backfire: engagement drops, turnover rises, and innovation suffers. Companies that balance leadership and employee training tend to see better overall performance and culture.

In short: leaders are seen as multipliers, employees as units. Training leaders is easier to justify financially and strategically, even if investing in employees could yield longer-term benefits that are harder to quantify.

Here are five compelling arguments for companies to justify investing more in employee training:

1. Boost Productivity Across the Board

• Well-trained employees make fewer mistakes, work more efficiently, and handle customer needs better.
• Example: A customer service team trained in conflict resolution and product knowledge can reduce complaints and increase satisfaction—directly impacting revenue.

2. Reduce Turnover and Retention Costs

• Employees who feel the company invests in their growth are more likely to stay.
• Hiring and onboarding replacements is expensive – often 6–9 months of salary per role – so investing in employee development pays off.

3. Strengthen the Talent Pipeline

• Employee training creates a pool of internal candidates ready to step into leadership roles.
• Promoting from within saves recruitment costs, shortens time-to-fill, and ensures cultural fit.

4. Foster Innovation and Agility

• Continuous learning encourages employees to think critically, solve problems, and propose improvements.
• In fast-changing industries, a workforce that can adapt quickly gives the company a competitive edge.

5. Improve Customer Experience and Brand Reputation

• Employees who are skilled, confident, and knowledgeable deliver better service.
• Customers notice – and are more likely to return or recommend the brand. Well-trained employees become brand ambassadors.

Bottom line: Investing in employees isn’t just “nice to have” – it drives measurable business outcomes in productivity, retention, innovation, and customer satisfaction.

Whether you agree or not, it’s worth reflecting on: Can leadership truly deliver results without an engaged, continuously upskilled workforce? Can employees perform at their best without soft skills? Can staff actively drive innovation and improve