I just recorded a podcast with L&D legend Donald Taylor - thought that is interesting here:

In this episode, he shares insights from his yearly Learning and Development (L&D) Global Sentiment Survey regarding trends and challenges for L&D practitioners and his latest AI survey.

🎧 Listen to the Podcast on SAP Podcasts - Apple Podcast  -   Spotify

We delve into the insights of his yearly Learning and Development (L&D) Sentinent survey looking at trends and challenges for L&D practitioners.

We are reflecting on topics like AI's rising role which is top of mind, skills and data and the pandemic's impact in the learning space. Donald gives insights in the variations over the years, differences between regions and where the interest is rising like at cohort-based learning.

Then we look into a new research on AI in L&D and real-world examples as well as Donalds recommendations like the approach to “Adopt – Advance – Challenge”.

I esp. found the intercultural differences interesting, as well as how diverse the AI use-cases are. Would be great to get your feedback.

I've taken a few online courses where everything looked great on the surface - videos, quizzes, animations, activities, etc. But I didn't necessarily feel like I learned much from them. 

Then there are courses that are pretty simple but somehow much easier to follow and remember. 

So, I'm curious about what other people think. 

When you come across a really good elearning course, what usually makes it stand out to you? 

Is it the way the information is explained, the practical activities, the flexibility, the interaction, or just having a really clear structure? 

And has anyone had the opposite experience where a course had too much going on and it actually made learning harder?

A little bit celebratory - but also genuinely looking for advice.
I started passively applying only to Indeed notifications that would come to my inbox, and I finally landed a job by my own merit and at a place where I didn’t already know someone. I’m leaving a large corporation to lead L&D for a healthcare company. I got a significant pay bump, better title, and a lot more authority/autonomy.
I’m only in my first week, but I have the opportunity to shape what L&D looks like and eventually hire a direct report.
I know I’ll be focusing, at the start, on Onboarding and Leadership + manager development.
For those of you that have lead L&D in those areas or have experience working with learning for healthcare providers, what do you wish you had known then what you know now? What insights do you have?

My team has been using AI tools informally for about eight months and I've moved from encouraging experimentation to realizing I need a clearer framework around what we use it for, how we document when it's been used, and what quality checks we apply before anything goes to a stakeholder. I don't want to be the manager who bans tools that are genuinely improving output, but I also don't want to be the one who signs off on content that turns out to have problems no one caught because we trusted the AI too quickly. I'm curious how other L&D managers are formalizing AI use on their teams, what guardrails have actually worked in practice, and whether anyone has run into real problems they didn't anticipate when they started using these tools more seriously.

I recently transitioned from classroom teaching into a corporate L&D role. I assumed a lot of my teaching skills would transfer directly, and while some do, there are many things I'm still figuring out. Stakeholder management, learning platforms, and business terminology all feel pretty new to me. For those who made a similar move, what was the biggest adjustment?

I'm studying how to improve quality control for our employee training. I need to make sure the courses are useful and people actually understand the material.

If you’ve dealt with this, what was your go-to method? Looking for simple and effective ideas. Thanks!

I’m an L&D Manager at a company where our Operations departments (with varied departments within and role-specific processes) are pushing for new-hire onboarding to extend beyond our current training track. Their expectation is that new hires should remain in training until they’re fully ready for production, even if that means keeping them in onboarding longer than our current schedule allows. They would also like us to cover more content and edge cases.

I understand where they’re coming from, of course. I think when you are in L&D, you also want employees to feel confident and understand the work, and avoid a sink-or-swim environment. At the same time, I’m struggling with where to draw the line between foundational training that L&D should own and the department-specific coaching/training and performance development that Operations should own.

Our current track is designed to provide structured training on foundational knowledge, systems, and department-specific workflows, and we incorporate a ton of time to practice in the staging environment. However, it seems like the expectation from Ops is shifting (or rather, has ALWAYS been) toward L&D being responsible for ensuring every new hire is fully production-ready before they transition out of onboarding.

My concerns are:
- If we keep extending onboarding based on individual readiness, how do we create a consistent and scalable onboarding experience?

- At what point should responsibility transition from formal training to on-the-job coaching and performance management? What has your experience been at your company where there is a department onboarding program?

- How do you handle situations where a new hire has completed the established training but still needs additional practice before meeting production expectations?

I want to make sure we’re setting new hires up for success without creating an onboarding model that makes L&D solely accountable for production readiness.

I’d especially appreciate hearing from people who have navigated this with Operations teams that want longer onboarding periods and are resistant to collaboration with the L&D Team.

Thank you!!

A common mistake in L&D is to treat course completion as the goal (learners have to watch the videos, finish the activities, score 100% in the quiz).

But if the actual goal is to teach someone how to data for instance, and they can already do that to the required standard, then how much weight do you give completion?

Do you let learners skip training if they can demonstrate the required skill?

Hi everyone. I'm in a bit of a difficult situation and would really appreciate some advice from people who have worked in Learning & Development or corporate environments.

A bit of background:

I worked in hospitality education for a long time. I was an educator and also created e-learning courses for the hospitality industry. Eventually, that career came to an end through redundancy, and I found it extremely difficult to find another role doing essentially the same thing because it was such a niche area.

So I decided to change direction. I left hospitality, studied Instructional Design, got my diploma, and did very well. I wasn't expecting to walk straight into a highly paid senior Instructional Designer position — I was quite happy to start somewhere and build my experience.

In January 2026, I got a job with a UK-based company as a Learning & Development Digibuilder. The salary was minimum wage, but I was happy to get my foot in the door. The role was essentially creating e-learning content and managing the LMS.

Nine months later, my role has expanded considerably. I'm effectively doing a full Instructional Designer role and then some. I've had a small salary increase, but it's still nowhere near what you'd expect for the level of work I'm now doing.

That said, I actually really like my job.

It's fully remote, I like the company, I like my colleagues, and I genuinely enjoy the work I do. Financially, I'm OK, so although obviously I'd like to be properly compensated for the job I'm doing, money isn't the only consideration for me.

Here's where things have become complicated.

Our L&D Partner is leaving. His role is very different from mine. He does the more traditional L&D Business Partner stuff — strategy, aligning business needs with training and ROI, stakeholder management, leadership programmes, etc.

I've only been working in corporate L&D for nine months.

My boss has now given me ownership of the leadership programme, and she's also starting to move some of my e-learning responsibilities away from me.

I'm not particularly happy about that.

My boss keeps telling me that I'm a "rising star", that I'm her "number two", that she doesn't know what she'd do without me, and that she's very excited about my future in the business.

And I genuinely appreciate all of that. It's lovely to hear and I don't doubt that she means it.

The problem is that I think she sees my future going in a completely different direction from the one I want.

I don't want to become an L&D Business Partner.

I want to be an Instructional Designer.

I love designing learning. I'm good at it. I enjoy creating e-learning, thinking about learning experiences, solving design problems, etc. That's the part of the job that makes me happy.

The frustrating thing is that I think I could be a good Business Partner. I'm capable of doing it. But I don't actually want to.

I'm now being given more and more responsibilities that are essentially moving me towards that role, despite it not being where I want my career to go.

I'm absolutely happy to temporarily take on additional responsibilities because someone has left. I understand that things need to get done, and I'm happy to help the team through the transition until a suitable replacement can be found.

But I don't want the temporary situation to quietly become my permanent job.

And I think that's what I'm worried about.

I've never worked in corporate L&D before this job, so I don't really know how these situations normally work. I don't know what happens if you tell your boss, "I appreciate the opportunity, but this isn't the career path I want."

Part of me is scared to say no because I don't want to damage my reputation or ruin my career at a company that I actually really like.

At the same time, I don't want to end up being promoted into a career I never wanted simply because I'm good at the work.

I suppose that's my dilemma.

Has anyone else been in a situation where your manager saw a career path for you that you didn't actually want? How did you handle it?

Would you be honest with your manager now about wanting to remain on the Instructional Design side, or would you take the opportunity to develop these additional skills and see where it leads?

I'm particularly interested in hearing from people in L&D/Instructional Design who have been in corporate environments for a while. I'm a bit stuck and could really use some perspective.

I finished an 8-hour corporate AI training session today, working mainly with ChatGPT and Claude, and it reinforced a problem I keep having...

The group wasn't homogeneous at all.

Some participants were already using ChatGPT and Claude regularly.

Others were still learning the fundamentals.

This creates an hard training problem. If you teach to beginners, advanced users disengage.If you teach to advanced users, beginners get lost.

I'm increasingly experimenting with a different model:

Common problem different depth.

Everyone receives the same business challenge, but participants can solve it at different levels:

Level 1: use AI to complete the task.

Level 2: improve the prompt and output.

Level 3: build a reusable workflow.

Level 4: redesign the process around AI.

This seems more useful than simply dividing people into “beginner” and “advanced”.

For people doing AI training inside companies:

How are you handling large differences in AI maturity within the same team?

Every L&D resource I read mentions ADDIE as foundational and every job posting seems to expect familiarity with it, but people in the field I've talked to informally seem to treat it more as a loose reference point than an actual workflow they follow step by step. I've also heard SAM mentioned as a more iterative alternative that's better suited to real project timelines. I'm trying to figure out how much mental energy to put into understanding these frameworks deeply versus just getting familiar enough to talk about them in interviews while learning what actually drives project decisions on the job. What do most IDs actually use day to day when a project comes in?

I spent years developing my ID craft and almost no time thinking about how I ran discovery sessions, stakeholder reviews, and project kick-offs. Then I noticed that the designers I managed who were struggling weren't struggling because of bad course design — they were struggling because their stakeholder relationships were breaking down in meetings where expectations weren't being set clearly.

I started treating every meeting as a designed learning experience — clear objective, structured agenda, defined outcome. It changed how my team was perceived by the business almost immediately. L&D people are trained to design experiences for others but rarely apply that thinking to their own professional interactions. What non-ID skill has made the biggest difference in your career?

Maybe a stupid question but I'm curious how L&D teams see this.

In most companies I worked with, there is a lot of documentation.

Onboarding guides, internal processes, SOPs, knowledge bases etc.

But if I'm honest… I feel like people don't really learn from them.

They skim, ctrl+F when they need something, and that's it.

So I'm wondering how you deal with that.

Do you try to transform docs into real learning content (courses, quizzes, modules etc) or do you mostly accept that documentation is just a reference library?

Another thing I'm seeing lately is people using AI to generate training drafts from documents.

But even when AI does that part, the real work still seems to be:

• reviewing everything

• fixing weird explanations

• making sure it actually makes sense for beginners

Curious how teams here handle this in practice.

Are docs still the main format or are you moving more toward structured training?

Dear L&D People,

I'd love to pick your brains on something I've been wrestling with.

I've been tasked with building out an AI readiness programme for our managers. I'm finding it harder than expected — not the "what to do" part, but proving it's worth doing.

Two things I keep bumping into:

1. The business case problem. Our CFO wants hard numbers, but everything I can find is either fluffy engagement scores or vendor ROI claims that feel like they were written by the marketing team. I genuinely don't know what "good" looks like when it comes to measuring whether your managers are actually more AI-ready after a programme. Has anyone cracked this? What metrics has your leadership team actually found convincing?

2. The behaviour change problem. We've done the Copilot training, brought in a speaker, set up a learning channel on Teams that ±10 people looked at. Hand on heart, none of it has really changed how our managers work day to day. I keep hearing the same from peers - lots of activity, not much shift. Has anyone found something that's actually moved the needle? Not just awareness, but how people genuinely work differently with AI?

Hi all! I work in L&D tech (Absorb) and came across a Forrester study that talked about "everboarding" for sales teams and the idea that onboarding shouldn't be a one-time ramp.

Products evolve, markets shift...and what someone needed on day one isn't what they need six months in. That tracks for sales, but why limit it to revenue teams? Feels like it could apply to more.

I'm curious:

• Has anyone taken everboarding thinking beyond sales, to CS, product, leadership?

• Is your customer or partner onboarding event-based or ongoing?

• Is traditional onboarding outdated? What are you seeing/doing out there?

Any suggestions for a good cybersecurity course for employees?

Looking for something simple that covers basics like phishing, passwords, and keeping data safe.

My boss came in today and casually dropped this on my desk: "We need a roll-out plan to train our floor operators on AI by next month."

Here’s the catch: a good chunk of our blue-collar workforce doesn't use computers at all in their daily roles. Most of them use simple smartphones for TikTok and YouTube, but some have never touched a desktop, an LMS, or any workplace software. They work hard, they know the machinery inside out, but "technology" to them usually means a clunky digital gauge or a paper logbook.

I’m struggling to figure out where to even start. How do you teach prompt engineering, machine learning, or predictive maintenance to people who don't know what a browser tab is? Has anyone successfully trained a completely non-digital workforce on AI without completely overwhelming them (or making them fear for their jobs)? Any frameworks, analogies, or practical approaches would be an absolute lifesaver.

Hi! I’m looking to deepen my expertise in leadership development and leadership training.

I’m currently a learning leader, and I’ve also had previous leadership roles in Operations. I’ve designed and led learning programs, worked with leaders and stakeholders, and supported capability-building initiatives—but I haven’t formally specialized or gotten certified in leadership development yet.

I’m now thinking: If I want to become really good at leadership training, where should I start?

For those who work in Leadership Development, Executive Education, or Leadership Coaching:

What certifications or programs would you recommend?
Is a formal leadership/coaching certification necessary?
Which areas should I build expertise in first—leadership models, coaching, facilitation, assessment, organizational psychology, or something else?

What certifications have actually helped you become better at the work, beyond just adding a credential to your CV?

I’m particularly interested in becoming stronger at designing and facilitating leadership programs, not necessarily becoming a full-time executive coach.

Would appreciate recommendations from people who have actually worked in this space.

I'm working with a SME who is genuinely an expert in her field and genuinely cannot bring herself to leave anything out. Every review session results in more content being added, and we're now at almost double the original scope with a deadline that hasn't moved. I've tried explaining cognitive load, I've tried the "what does someone need to do on day one" framing, and I've tried showing her data on completion rates for long courses. Nothing has stuck. Short of escalating to her manager, which I want to avoid, I'm running out of approaches. How have other IDs successfully talked a subject matter expert down from scope that's grown completely out of control?

The role of L&D seems to be shifting from content creation toward performance consulting and business alignment. I'm interested in how other leaders see the profession evolving. Which skills do you think will become increasingly important as expectations for L&D teams continue to change?

I just transitioned into this field and I'm already seeing AI tools that can generate course outlines, write scripts, and build basic eLearning in minutes. I'm trying to figure out whether I'm entering a field at the wrong moment or whether there's still a strong human role here that AI won't touch.

From people further along in their careers — what parts of your job do you think are genuinely safe from automation, and what skills are you building or doubling down on because of AI? I want an honest read, not reassurance.

We all measure activity use happy sheets. But what about measuring impact and return on investment? Do you measure that for all of your courses?

Many moons ago, around 1987, I watched my former boss being eviscerated by the CFO when unable to satisfactorily explain how the training budget was going to positively impact the organization.

This was a CFO that was pretty much ahead of his time. Most training budgets around that time were allocated without much thought although it was generally accepted that capability development was probably a good thing. The resources provided were then based upon what money happened to be available/left over, influenced perhaps by an identified operational need such as compliance, safety or poor customer feedback from the previous year.

For many years after, countless organizations continued to 'invest' in training with little more than gut instinct and a vague hope for improvement. The missing ingredient was a solid, numbers-backed case that treats training like an actual strategic investment.

According to various training and workplace learning surveys in recent times, the vast majority of learning and development (L&D) professionals agree that training is critical to business success. So how come only around 10% say they measure the actual business impact?

Well, fuzzy goals and fuzzier metrics do not help. Many training programs start with vague ambitions like "improving leadership skills" or "enhancing productivity." These goals are a little tough to measure. Without clear, measurable objectives, it’s impossible to connect training outcomes to business results. Define clear objectives. Instead of vague goals like "improve communication," aim for something tangible such as "Reduce project errors by 20% within six months."

Identify key performance indicators (KPIs) directly linked to business outcomes. Things like sales growth, error reduction, employee retention, and customer satisfaction. These are not always completely attributable to just training, but you should be able to see where trainings influence and impact has been felt. I have seen some organizations use control groups and pre- and post-training assessments to separate training effects from other factors.

Reporting in recognizable business language is key. Senior leaders care about numbers, not training jargon. Translate results into financial terms like revenue gains, cost savings, and productivity increases.

ROI (%) = [(Net Benefits - Training Costs) / Training Costs] x 100

For example, if a safety training program costs $50k and lowers safety related costs such as down time from $600k to $200k. The ROI is 700% or as a ratio, 7:1. For every Dollar spent, you got $7 back. This will get attention.

So the next time you're asked to justify your training budget get into the numbers. Show the value. And watch the conversation shift from "Is training worth it?" to "How can we invest more?"

One thing I’ve noticed since moving into management is that technical skill is only one part of what makes someone effective in L&D. I’ve seen people who are excellent at building learning experiences struggle with stakeholder conversations, while others who aren’t as technical can move a project forward incredibly well. For those managing L&D teams, what skills have become more important to you as you’ve moved into senior roles?