Hello, and welcome to the AXIOM Insights learning and development podcast. I’m Scott Rutherford.

On this series we focus on driving performance through learning. But this episode is something a little different.

Today we’re going to take a look at the research snapshot report, The Pulse of the L&D Practice 2026.

The report was developed by my team at AXIOM based on a survey that was fielded during the second half of 2025. In the survey, we asked respondents a number of questions about their plans and expectations for the next six to twelve months.

And so the pulse report gives us a sense of how the L&D profession is looking at the first half of the new year. It’s not a trends report; it’s more of a snapshot about how the profession assesses where we are and where we’re going.

One of the most important themes that shows up early — and carries throughout the report — is that L&D professionals look ahead with uneven confidence, and that unevenness is a factor of their organizations reacting to the overall business environment, as well as how organizations are allocating resources to human development in that context.

It surfaces a theme that L&D has struggled with historically, too, which is whether L&D is seen as a capability-builder and enabler of the business, or as a discretionary cost.

So as we begin 2026, the data show that confidence is uneven, and L&D is under some real pressure. Most respondents don’t describe their outlook as pessimistic, but they’re not saying they’re confident, either.

The overall read is a cautious, pragmatic outlook.

Mid-sized organizations tend to be the most confident about their prospects. Smaller companies, nonprofits, and public sector organizations express more concern. And those differences closely reflect financial pressure and perceived resilience.

This matters because L&D operates inside the business. When the business feels pressure, learning feels pressure.

One of the key messages here is that learning leaders are being asked to help organizations adapt — to build capability and reduce risk — not just to fill orders or deliver programs. In many ways, this pressure is a positive: it’s the organization looking to L&D to make a measurable contribution, to show value and performance outcomes.

The survey also looked at priorities for organizational learning.

Respondents in all business sizes, sectors, and industries identified common priorities in a few areas. Upskilling the workforce, developing human and leadership skills, and improving learner engagement — these came through as strong signals.

But the data also showed that while these objectives may be the same as they were a year ago, what has changed somewhat is the environment they’re being pursued in.

As we enter 2026, respondents told us their organizations are turning up the expectations to show outcomes: looking for a faster pace and better return on investment. Engagement of learners is a challenge that was expressed in combination with the need to make effective use of learners’ limited time and attention.

This makes sense in an environment where learner attention can be fragmented and there may not be a lot of slack in worker capacity. For L&D, this can manifest as an execution risk, especially for smaller learning teams. But overall, we’re seeing that priorities are clear, but capacity to activate against those priorities is uneven.

So we also asked where organizations are expecting to invest, and found there’s some tension there, too. Investments in AI are the strongest single signal in the data, followed by investments to support prioritized items like leadership development and learner engagement.

While there is an expectation of some increased investment in learning technologies and platforms (separating out LMSs from AI tools, for example), this showed up as a bimodal response, as some organizations seem to be sticking with the learning tech they have in order to prioritize budget in other areas.

It’s a view that looks at targeted investments centered around tangible wins and incremental improvements, and perhaps deferring larger and more costly platform and operations transformation.

What comes through, though, is a focus by L&D leaders to set clear priorities and to be closely aligned and transparent with the rest of the organization in that process. That transparency is a key ingredient in credibility.

We also took a look at the size of L&D teams and how they plan to resource for the work they’re taking on.

It’s probably no surprise to anyone that AI shows up prominently in the data. What’s interesting is how it shows up.

In most organizations, leadership is looking at AI for L&D as a workplace readiness issue: L&D is being asked to help shepherd the organization through AI adoption, thinking about how worker skills, roles, and expectations will change with AI integration, and developing skills reinforcement to support that transformation.

But within the learning function itself, L&D is looked at slightly differently — as operational modernization. L&D is taking on AI tools to support efficiency and personalization.

But this also flags a gap, as L&D teams are not necessarily receiving their own skills development around AI — creating what feels like a chicken-or-egg conundrum, where L&D isn’t always prioritizing the learning it needs to develop new skills that will allow AI to improve L&D processes — which in turn is what’s needed to support the transformation of the organization.

So we have two related conversations that appear to be conflated — which can lead to confusion or misaligned expectations. That’s a risk that L&D teams are working through.

How they address these needs varies somewhat by the size of the L&D team.

We took a look at how L&D teams are managing their resources to get through the work that’s on their plate, and there’s a strong correlation when we look at the number of people working on the L&D team and their expectations of working with external vendors or consultants.

Smaller teams expect to rely more heavily on external partners, while larger teams have more capacity to absorb the work. Those are differences that reflect capacity.

But we can’t talk about capacity without talking budget.

Budget is the one measure that, overall, L&D professionals expected would be somewhat worse during early 2026. And that makes sense, given other measures of economic uncertainty. Companies and L&D teams are making pragmatic but cautious spending decisions.

On the other hand, challenges measuring the impact from learning are well documented in L&D, and that showed up clearly in our data. What’s different here is that most see this as an area they’re optimistic about — which is consistent with the expectation that L&D will be moving in closer alignment with business goals.

It’s important also to talk about how these constraints work together. Limited budgets can restrict staffing. Staffing can limit execution. Execution can create outcome and measurement gaps, which in turn undermine business alignment and credibility.

What we’re hearing from learning professionals is the ones who are navigating this most effectively are those who are the most candid and transparent — building bridges with business stakeholders, sharing their limitations, and being on the same page about the goals they’re working toward.

For a long time, L&D has given stakeholders measurements based on what could be reported on most directly — and we continue to see things like learner satisfaction, participation, and completion rates showing up as the most commonly reported metrics.

But as the profession continues to evolve, with it comes the expectation that measurement and reporting will grow more meaningful to the organization. Which makes sense, especially in an environment where the organization is guarding its spend closely, resulting in an acute need to align measurement with performance impact.

Whether and how L&D teams measure and report tends to scale along with the size of the L&D team — so as a function of available resources — and access to data — or as a function of the tools infrastructure that’s in place.

In all, larger teams and larger organizations give management access to data dashboards and report more often in terms of management-aligned KPIs.

But the profession is not resting on its laurels. Across all company types, sizes, and industries, we heard that L&D plans to do better.

That improvement in measurement and reporting is expected to come not by measuring more, but in most cases, quite the opposite: it’s a revision of focus to measure fewer outcomes, but making sure they are the right ones.

So how is the L&D function delivering learning?

In our survey, we asked about delivery modalities. Blended delivery is now the standard. Most organizations combine digital e-learning with some mix of instructor-led, virtual instructor-led, and interpersonal learning, whether through coaching, peer learning, or similar.

Capacity for delivery is an important constraint, especially in L&D teams with limited staff, or in organizations where — as we alluded to earlier — there is little slack in the workforce, making it difficult to get learner time and attention.

Some of this tightness is being addressed by bringing in outside vendors, but in a focused and targeted way. In general, L&D teams rely on vendors for technology, for content, and for extension of capacity across all L&D functions, from instructional design to delivery.

When balancing these interests, L&D professionals say the critical element is not necessarily cost, but how well the resources they bring in integrate into the way their work actually gets done — placing specific value on integration and limiting the risk of disruption.

So before we close, let’s zoom back out to look at the bigger picture.

The message of L&D from the second half of last year to the first half of this year is a focus on pragmatism, not reinvention. The prioritization is clear: align L&D with the organization, execute learning programs in an efficient and disciplined way, keeping in mind some ambitious goals but being realistic about resources and capacity.

And that’s probably good, because that can support how L&D reinforces its role as a strategic partner.

And with that, I’d like to share a note about our company and why we undertook this study.

At AXIOM, we support learning teams by extending capacity in a way that aligns with goals — whether that’s staff augmentation or surge staffing, supporting content development or revisions, or helping to modernize the learning or measurement approaches of L&D teams.

And we know that the success of L&D in 2026 won’t come from doing more; it will come from focusing on what’s most important and using the resources at hand creatively.

If you’d like to read through the report, you can download a copy from the episode page of this podcast. Go to axiomlearningsolutions.com/podcast.

And if you’re thinking about how you will resource your learning initiatives this year, the AXIOM team is ready to help support you with options and resources.

So, we hope you found this research to be of value. And thanks for listening to the AXIOM Insights podcast.