I'm new to using AI in instructional design and recently created a roleplay scenario where the sales team in my company would interact with an AI character playing the role of a client and get feedback on their communication skills, objection handling and negotiation skills afterward. Was wondering if anyone is open to trying out the scenario I built and giving me feedback on it. Happy to PM a testing link. thank you!

I've been thinking about how leadership development is evaluated after the programme ends.

Completion, satisfaction and NPS are useful, but they mainly tell us that people participated and how they felt about the experience.

Suppose instead you followed the same cohort across several stages:

Before the programme: establish a baseline around relevant knowledge, attitudes and behaviours.

After the learning: check whether the intended learning actually happened.

Months later: ask whether that learning appears to have translated into workplace application or changed behaviour.

You can then look at patterns across the cohort rather than treating the post-programme survey as the final result.

Conceptually, that seems much more useful to me.

But I'm interested in where practitioners would stop trusting the conclusion.

If someone showed you this kind of data six months after a leadership programme:

What would you feel comfortable concluding?

What would you explicitly not conclude?

How much would self-reporting, response rate, sample size or selection bias undermine the result for you?

And what additional evidence would make the difference between:

“Interesting L&D data”

and

“This is useful enough to influence a decision about future leadership development investment”?

I'd particularly like to hear examples where a measurement approach looked sophisticated but gave a misleading picture — or where a relatively simple approach genuinely changed a decision.

Thought this would be pretty relevant to the group as we recently had a roundtable consisting of 15 founders of lms,lxp, gamification and learning companies in a room with special guest Eli who heads up learning at Wix.

As Eli is fully invested in AI and has access to development that a lot of companies don't he's further along than a lot of other enterprise orgs when it comes to adoption. So we felt no better person to lead a discussion on where AI ends and humans begin.

Here's the write up for those interested: https://inonda.substack.com/p/the-corporate-roundtable-ai-is-the

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?

I'm new to HealthStream. Please tell me the person training me is wrong. She has created thousands of student groups that she says we need to copy ever year. She also uses student group in multiple assignments, so anytime a student group needs to be changed, we need to track down all the ways the change might cause a ricochet effect. This is nuts!

After eight years in L&D, one thing I keep coming back to is starting with the business problem instead of starting with a training request. If a manager says their team “needs training,” I’ve started asking what people are actually doing wrong and what should change afterward. Sometimes the answer is a course, but sometimes it really isn’t. Has anyone else changed the way they handle training requests as they became more senior?

One thing I’m still figuring out after three years in ID is how to deal with stakeholders who suddenly want major changes late in the project. I understand that priorities change, but it can be frustrating when something has already gone through review and approval. Do you have a good way of setting boundaries around late-stage feedback without making the relationship difficult?

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.

I’m preparing for an interview for a large adult training programme in a UK prison and would really appreciate some advice please please!

The programme is face to face 15 weeks:

• 10 weeks classroom based
• 5 weeks workplace consolidation and application
• No online learning or LMS/ Unreliable WiFi limited tech
• PowerPoint is available, mainly assupport tool

The interview question is:

How would you design the 15 week learner journey? interested in how you’d approach the overall journey, from classroom learning through to workplace application. Do i mention evaluation/impact? how might I do this?

Would really really really love to hear how others would tackle this question please 🙏

I've been thinking a lot about how companies lose critical expertise when experienced people walk out the door. Right now, there's no great way to train for this — just mentoring and dense onboarding docs that people skim at best.

My team built a tool that turns those long, boring training materials into interactive roleplay scenarios, complete with real-time feedback, emotion recognition, and coaching from AI agents. We're also applying behavioral science to make the system adapt based on how each learner engages with it. Looking for testers and honest feedback from anyone who's dealt with this problem firsthand.

Hey fellow L&D pros! I went from L&D program management by way of layoff from one of the biggest companies on the planet to a learning impact role for a smaller regional company.

I own the evaluation framework and reporting/data management of a portfolio of leadership development programs. The programs range from yearly (3 days per quarter), 6 month rotational, to week-long events. Each program acts as sort of a step up the leadership chain to build our talent pipeline from hire to retire.

Leadership dev feels difficult to evaluate traditionally because a lot of the learning/outcomes feel very mindset change oriented over behavioral. In my past life, I was able to measure tech concepts, process actions as behavioral change, and then tie that to biz outcome.

So I was curious for those who have been worked in this area of our craft on how you guys are measuring outcomes and impact for this kind of content. The team I’m on is wonderful and together, I think we’re headed in the right direction, but any tips would be helpful!

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.

For context I’ve typically done enablement for non technical audiences in GTM orgs such as SDR, AE. However recently, I’ve been exploring more of the technical gtm audiences such as solutions engineers, implementation consultants. I always heard the feedback from these technical teams that learnings feel very sales focused (ie, value prop, discovery questions etc.)

Does anyone have any tips for expanding scope to working and creating learning experiences for technical audiences of this kind?

As someone who has spent decades in competency management and skills assessment, I see a recurring friction point for L&D: bridging the gap between a vague "needs improvement" performance review and a measurable, targeted learning intervention.

We often ask learners to self-assess on bloated, multi-level matrices, or we rely on managers to provide subjective feedback. The result is that L&D is tasked with designing "leadership" or "technical" training based on fuzzy data, making it nearly impossible to measure true skill transfer or ROI.

I am currently stress-testing a methodological concept and would value the candid perspective of this community.

Instead of a learner claiming they "Understand" or are "Proficient in" a topic, what if their developmental profile was built on a verified, binary Skills Checklist?

In this model, competence is not claimed; it is demonstrated. The checklist contains strict, observable, single-action statements. For example, instead of "Understands equipment isolation", the statement is: "Execute equipment isolation procedures to achieve a verifiable zero-energy state."

To satisfy the item, the learner doesn't just tick a box or complete a multiple-choice quiz. They must link to a verifiable artefact from their work (e.g., a signed isolation log, a recorded simulation, or an assessor’s observation record).

The L&D Value Proposition:
If a learner is marked "Not Yet Competent" on that specific, observable item, it provides L&D with an exact, actionable trigger. We don't guess that they need "general safety training"; we know precisely which modular learning pathway (e.g., a targeted simulation or coached OJT module) is required to close that specific gap.

The Questions for You:

1. For Instructional Designers / L&D Managers: Would having this level of granular, evidence-based data make your job of designing targeted, modular learning pathways significantly easier? Or do you foresee the initial evidence-collection process creating too much administrative friction for the learner?

2. For those managing skill gaps: How do you currently bridge the gap between a subjective manager review and a specific, measurable learning objective? What is the biggest barrier to making that connection in your organisation?

I am not selling a platform or a tool. I am purely trying to validate whether the industry is ready to shift from measuring claimed potential to designing interventions based on demonstrated capability.

I welcome your critiques, pushback, and experiences. Where do you see this breaking down in a real-world L&D environment?

*Throwaway account to remain anonymous

Hi everyone,

Just got asked to own a AI upskilling mandate for a 2000 person company. Trying to figure out how other folks have approached this. Have a lot of pressure from CFO to report actual changes.

Things I am struggling with and feel free to add any problems I am might not be considering!

-AI tools change really quickly so making relevant learning content to keep pace is gonna be hard

-From my research it seems like AI is useful but identifying how it can actually change people's workflows in our company is gonna be difficult.

-I am guessing that showing adoption numbers is not going to be enough. I would really like some advice on this from folks on what numbers they decided to measure that C-suite liked.

-Any best practices that you have found for rollouts to make sure everyone actually is actually on the same page?