Learning and Development Statistics 2026: Training Spend, ROI, and Skills Gap Data
September 21, 2026 · Human Resources · 6 min read
Learning and development statistics are useful only when the population, year and measure are clear. A training-spend benchmark, an employee survey and an employer forecast answer different questions, and they should not be combined into one universal claim about training ROI.
This 2026 guide focuses on current, traceable evidence about skills change, workforce learning and career development, with the scope of each source kept explicit.
Skills gaps remain a major business concern
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 surveyed more than 1,000 employers representing over 14 million workers across 55 economies. In that survey, 63% of employers identified skills gaps as a major barrier to business transformation over the 2025–2030 period.
Employers expected 39% of workers’ existing core skills to change by 2030. If the global workforce were represented by 100 people, employers expected 59 to need training by 2030. Eighty-five percent of surveyed employers planned to prioritise workforce upskilling.
Source: World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025
These are global employer expectations, not a prediction that every organisation will experience the same amount of skill disruption.
Which skills are changing?
WEF’s 2025 employer survey ranked analytical thinking as the most widely cited core skill. Resilience, flexibility and agility, leadership and social influence, creative thinking, technological literacy, curiosity and lifelong learning also feature prominently.
AI and big data, networks and cybersecurity, and technology literacy are among the fastest-growing skill areas expected through 2030.
The practical implication for L&D is that technology training should not be separated from human judgement, communication, adaptability and problem-solving.
Middle East employees report high AI use and active skill development
PwC’s Middle East Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey 2025 captured responses from 1,286 public- and private-sector employees across the region.
Among those respondents:
- 75% said they had used AI in their jobs during the previous 12 months;
- 69% said they had learned new skills during the previous 12 months;
- 81% said they would prefer a job that offered opportunities to build transferable skills;
- 49% expected technological change, including AI, robotics and automation, to affect their jobs to a large or very large extent over the next three years;
- 45% reported feeling fatigued at work.
Source: PwC Middle East, Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey 2025
These are survey findings from PwC’s regional respondent sample. They should not be turned into workforce-wide percentages for every GCC or Middle Eastern employer.
Career development is closely connected to learning
LinkedIn Learning’s 2025 Workplace Learning Report surveyed 937 L&D and HR professionals with L&D responsibilities and 679 learners across multiple regions.
Forty-nine percent of the L&D and talent-development professionals surveyed agreed that their executives were concerned employees did not have the right skills to execute business strategy. Leadership training was the most commonly reported career-development practice, offered by 71% of organisations in the survey.
Respondents also identified a practical barrier: 50% selected inadequate manager support as one of the top three obstacles to career development.
Source: LinkedIn Learning, Workplace Learning Report 2025
The report’s geography and sample matter. These figures describe its respondents, not all employers worldwide.
Training participation is not the same as training effectiveness
Completion rates can show reach, but they do not show whether people learned, applied or sustained a new capability.
A practical measurement sequence is:
- Reach: Who participated and completed the learning?
- Learning: Can participants demonstrate the target knowledge or skill?
- Application: Are they using it in real work?
- Performance: Did the relevant work measure improve?
- Business outcome: Did the change contribute to a meaningful organisational result?
The further the measure moves from the learning event, the more careful the organisation should be about claiming that training alone caused the result.
Why training-spend benchmarks are difficult to compare
Published training-spend figures often use different definitions. One source may measure direct L&D expenditure, another may include salaries and technology, while another may report per-employee or per-learning-hour costs.
Comparisons are only useful when the denominator, population, year and included costs are aligned.
For internal planning, a clearer dashboard can separate:
- direct programme cost;
- learning technology cost;
- facilitator and content-development cost;
- employee time spent learning;
- manager reinforcement time;
- assessment and evaluation cost.
This produces an organisation-specific cost base instead of importing a headline global market figure that may use a different methodology.
Be careful with universal training ROI claims
Claims such as “training returns $X for every $1 spent” are rarely transferable across organisations. The financial value of learning depends on the problem, intervention, population, implementation quality and outcome being measured.
A stronger ROI approach starts with a defined business problem. For example:
- quality errors;
- rework;
- customer complaints;
- sales conversion;
- time to competence;
- safety incidents;
- manager effectiveness;
- employee retention in critical roles.
Measure the baseline, deliver the intervention, track application and compare the outcome while accounting for other plausible causes.
Internal mobility can make learning more useful
Learning is more valuable when employees can see where new capability can lead. Career paths, project assignments, mentoring, internal job opportunities and manager conversations help convert learning into progression.
LinkedIn’s 2025 report treats career development and learning as connected parts of a skills strategy rather than separate programmes.
Managers need support to reinforce learning
Manager behaviour affects whether learning is applied after a course. Useful reinforcement can include:
- agreeing the behaviour to practise;
- providing opportunities to use the skill;
- reviewing progress after training;
- giving feedback on real work;
- removing barriers that prevent application.
If the work environment does not allow a new skill to be used, course completion alone will not create transfer.
For the broader evidence on transfer, see Why Most Workplace Learning Efforts Fall Short.
What should an L&D dashboard contain in 2026?
| Measure | Question answered | Caution |
|---|---|---|
| Participation | Who accessed the learning? | Not evidence of capability change |
| Completion | Who finished? | Completion can be administrative rather than meaningful |
| Assessment | What was learned? | Use valid, job-relevant assessment |
| Application | Is the skill used at work? | Requires follow-up |
| Manager support | Is the environment enabling transfer? | Support should be measured, not assumed |
| Internal mobility | Does development connect to opportunity? | Vacancies and business structure also matter |
| Business measure | Did the target outcome change? | Avoid attributing every change solely to training |
Use skills evidence to set priorities
WEF, PwC and LinkedIn all point to rapid skills change, but external reports should be the context, not the organisation’s training-needs analysis.
Internal evidence should determine where investment goes. Review role requirements, performance data, future workforce plans, employee capability and the cost of leaving a gap unresolved.
MATSH’s Training Needs Analysis guide provides a structured way to do this.
Bottom line
The strongest 2026 L&D statistics point to significant expected skills change, high employer interest in upskilling and strong employee demand for transferable capability. They do not justify universal claims about training spend, profitability or ROI.
Use external benchmarks to understand the environment, then measure learning against the organisation’s own capability needs and work outcomes.
Sources
Need In-House Training?
We run all our courses as private programmes for organisations across the GCC and Africa.
Request In-House →