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.<\/p>\n
This 2026 guide focuses on current, traceable evidence about skills change, workforce learning and career development, with the scope of each source kept explicit.<\/p>\n
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\u20132030 period.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Source: World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025<\/a><\/p>\n These are global employer expectations, not a prediction that every organisation will experience the same amount of skill disruption.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n AI and big data, networks and cybersecurity, and technology literacy are among the fastest-growing skill areas expected through 2030.<\/p>\n The practical implication for L&D is that technology training should not be separated from human judgement, communication, adaptability and problem-solving.<\/p>\n PwC’s Middle East Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey 2025 captured responses from 1,286 public- and private-sector employees across the region.<\/p>\n Among those respondents:<\/p>\n Source: PwC Middle East, Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey 2025<\/a><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n LinkedIn Learning’s 2025 Workplace Learning Report surveyed 937 L&D and HR professionals with L&D responsibilities and 679 learners across multiple regions.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Respondents also identified a practical barrier: 50% selected inadequate manager support as one of the top three obstacles to career development.<\/p>\n Source: LinkedIn Learning, Workplace Learning Report 2025<\/a><\/p>\n The report’s geography and sample matter. These figures describe its respondents, not all employers worldwide.<\/p>\n Completion rates can show reach, but they do not show whether people learned, applied or sustained a new capability.<\/p>\n A practical measurement sequence is:<\/p>\n The further the measure moves from the learning event, the more careful the organisation should be about claiming that training alone caused the result.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Comparisons are only useful when the denominator, population, year and included costs are aligned.<\/p>\n For internal planning, a clearer dashboard can separate:<\/p>\n This produces an organisation-specific cost base instead of importing a headline global market figure that may use a different methodology.<\/p>\n Claims such as \u201ctraining returns $X for every $1 spent\u201d are rarely transferable across organisations. The financial value of learning depends on the problem, intervention, population, implementation quality and outcome being measured.<\/p>\n A stronger ROI approach starts with a defined business problem. For example:<\/p>\n Measure the baseline, deliver the intervention, track application and compare the outcome while accounting for other plausible causes.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n LinkedIn’s 2025 report treats career development and learning as connected parts of a skills strategy rather than separate programmes.<\/p>\n Manager behaviour affects whether learning is applied after a course. Useful reinforcement can include:<\/p>\n If the work environment does not allow a new skill to be used, course completion alone will not create transfer.<\/p>\n For the broader evidence on transfer, see Why Most Workplace Learning Efforts Fall Short<\/a>.<\/p>\nWhich skills are changing?<\/h2>\n
Middle East employees report high AI use and active skill development<\/h2>\n
\n
Career development is closely connected to learning<\/h2>\n
Training participation is not the same as training effectiveness<\/h2>\n
\n
Why training-spend benchmarks are difficult to compare<\/h2>\n
\n
Be careful with universal training ROI claims<\/h2>\n
\n
Internal mobility can make learning more useful<\/h2>\n
Managers need support to reinforce learning<\/h2>\n
\n
What should an L&D dashboard contain in 2026?<\/h2>\n