I have seen this in several announcements from one company.

Problem:
The adjective “leader-led” is self-redundant and does not tell you who is doing the leading.

Explanation:
Courses offered by companies before the advent of computers were called “corporate training” or simply “training”.

The advent of computers and authoring tools made “computer-based training” possible.

The advent of the Web and more authoring tools made “Web-based training” possible.

These two phrases forced writers and speakers to look for a special phrase to distinguish non-computer-based training from computer-based training and Web-based training, but “non-computer-based training” was too long and somewhat negative.

This resulted in the creation of the phrase “instructor-led training”.

Unfortunately, this phrase has deteriorated in some quarters into “leader-led training”, which says nothing about who is doing the leading of the training.

For fun, I searched Google for each of the following (with the quotation marks, to avoid variations) and got about the indicated numbers of matches:

• “instructor-led training” — 519,000 matches
• “instructor-led courses” — 85,800 matches
• “leader-led training” — 597 matches
• “leader-led courses” — 410 matches

This tells me that Web authors have used the meaningful “instructor-led” versus the meaningless “leader-led” by a ratio of 601-to-1, which is excellent.

However, this does not mean that “leader-led” as an adjective will not grow in popularity. I believe that the replacement of “instructor-led” with “leader-led” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis.

It is simpler to write or say the two-syllable noun “leader” than it is to write or say the three-syllable noun “instructor”, and “leader” — not “instructor” — is alliterative with “led”.

Solution:
“Instructor-led training”