"....at the moment, unfortunately in this economic climate. I can't justify paying extra money for training and as I have to pay something towards the course ,Of course if it was all funded I would be but I was lead to believe that I would have to pay part of it...."

We had learnt of some grant funding for training that a local business development agency was promoting* and were circulating details amongst our prospective clients.

I found this particular reply depressing on two counts:

that spending on training should have to be justified at the moment, as if it were some kind of lavish luxury for the good times only.

that because of the downturn, training has become the government's responsibility and that if they pay for it fine, but if not, we can't do any.

I may be being unfair and reading too much into a polite, "thanks, but no thanks" email, but it got me thinking.

People like me are going to have to raise their game and present people like you with a much more emphatic case for investing in training. We must move away from generalities like "it will help, when the upturn comes" and focus on real, specific and measurable benefits.

Let's try a worked example.

Tracy runs a small business called "Get stuffed". She employs three students to place mailshots in subscription magazines which get posted to members. Each is paid £10 per hour for a £25 hour week. Most weeks they need to work an extra two hour's over time which Tracy pays at 㾸 per hour.

This inefficiency is therefore costing her £72 per week.

Tracy identifies that her local Chamber of Business is offering a time management course at £360. She sends her three staff, Richard, Nicholas and Connor at a cost of £1080. If the course results in an end to overtime she will have recouped her investment in 15 weeks and then she's seeing a return. Not bad.

Alternatively she could spend £750 to undertake my training in coaching skills. If her coaching eliminates overtime she will recoup her outlay in five weeks earlier. Even better.

Now for some further scrutiny:

With three people out of her business undertaking training, Tracy is losing money; this is opportunity cost. When only she is away, this is clearly much less.

How likely is it that the training in time management will give Richard, Nicholas and Connor exactly the information they need precisely at the time they need it? Not very, but Tracy's one-to-one coaching will be - by design - perfectly focused on exactly what they need.

So, Tracy can now coach and has already recouped her outlay. How else will coaching enable her to do more with less?

As a result of the coaching Tracy undertakes her team will become more effective learners. They are likely to find better ways of working and can be expected to produce the same results with less effort.

Her people will become more responsible and upbeat as Tracy uses coaching to get them more engaged in their work; working with greater enjoyment and being far more motivated.

Learning to coach will also mean that Tracy can delegate more work and focus instead on building her business. She will have learnt skills that will last her the rest of her life.

Tracy's management style will now be developing her people rather than holding them back. She can be far less reliant on expensive, formal training.

There will be a better atmosphere at work as coaching builds respect for the individual and creates improved relationships.

Once her team are freed form the fear of ridicule, they will start to come forward with many more creative suggestions of how things can be improved.

Tracy can expect far more commitment from her team when times are difficult or when crises arise. Coaching values people and they return it by the bucket load.

This article is not just a rallying cry to do more coaching training although that would be wonderful. It's also about encouraging a cost-benefit approach to spending on training in these current times.