We asked people working in L&D where they want their function to be in three years, and what is standing in the way. On where they want to be, most gave the same answer. What blocks them is a different story.
want their L&D function to be a strategic Center of Expertise in three years, advising the business on performance and capability.
Every other answer trails far behind. A leaner team producing content faster is the second choice, and a well-resourced production team the third. Between them they account for barely a third of the responses. Asked what they want in three years, most did not choose a better version of the job they do now. They chose a different job.
Select an option to see what sits behind it.
rate the idea of L&D as an internal consultancy, advising the business rather than executing its requests, a 4 or 5 out of 5 for how energizing it is.
Four in ten gave it the full five. That is worth sitting with, because the familiar story about L&D is that the function is comfortable in delivery mode and needs pushing out of it. These answers say the opposite. The appetite is already there.
Two thirds feel pressure to prove L&D contributes to business performance.
Not just that it delivered trainingHalf of respondents put that pressure at a 4 out of 5. Set that next to what the same group names as obstacles, and the demand for proof is arriving ahead of the position that would make proving it straightforward.
Around two thirds say the business has changed what it expects from L&D because of AI: faster, more, or cheaper. For half it has come up without dominating. Close to one in five say the pressure has increased significantly.
Asked to choose the phrase that best captures the role they want L&D to play, the answers split across five labels. Different words, same instinct: every one describes a function that advises, enables or partners. None describes a function that fulfills requests.
Ranked by how often each phrase was chosen. Size follows share.
We asked what is stopping them from getting there. No one named software. A few named the skills of their own team. Most named something about where L&D sits in the organization. The answers group into four themes.
Select a theme to read what sits underneath it.
We asked one open question with no options attached: what is the single biggest challenge in your role that you do not think gets discussed enough? Four patterns run through the answers.
Learning is asked for, but the room to do it is rarely created. Answers here return to the same tension between what gets mandated and what the working day actually allows, and to how much of what is built reaches the job afterwards.
Several answers describe L&D working at one remove from the operation it serves, and the difficulty of connecting learning to where the organization is heading rather than to what was requested this quarter.
AI appears less as a capability question than as an open one. The answers touch on how learning and work are merging, what good use looks like, and what the shift means for the people who build content.
Engagement comes up repeatedly, in the form of employees who do not see their own development needs and the ongoing work of making learning feel worth the time it asks for.
Put the answers next to each other and the shape is consistent. Most want the same destination. Most find the advisory role energizing. Two thirds already feel pressure to prove business contribution. And when asked what stops them, most named something about position rather than about what their team can do.
Nearly six in ten want a Center of Expertise, and three quarters rate the advisory role a 4 or 5 for how energizing it is.
Two thirds already feel pressure to show business contribution, and around two thirds say AI has changed what the business expects.
Invited too late. No time for the function itself. Read as operational. Team skills were named too, but far less often.
The answers point the same way: closer to the business, and earlier in the conversation than the point where a request is handed over.