From the research findings there was little doubt that leaders are highly motivated to learn, and that learning cultures are being supported and nurtured within organizations. A huge 95% of respondents reported that they are motivated to continue learning and developing new skills, 88% of participants had already experienced a learning culture that exists beyond formal learning and development opportunities, and 95% agreed that learning will be a continuous, integrated part of working life.

Participants were also overwhelmingly positive about the future of learning (and the future of leadership), with 92% agreeing that their organization is evolving to keep pace with external changes, 87% agreeing that their organization is doing enough to develop the next generation of leaders and 84% optimistic for this next generation of leader.

This is all highly positive, and very good news for those of us in the field of Learning and Development. However, this isn’t the whole story.

This high level of optimism is not shared equally among all levels in the organization. The more positive the view of learning, whether that be access, time allocated to learning, motivation to learn, or view on the maturity of the learning ecosystem and the development of future talent, the more likely that those responses come from a senior leader.

Does this seniority bias reflect privilege? Does the optimism stem from greater access and greater budget? Or is it more systemic and cultural – what Reitz and Higgins (2019) in their research on speaking truth to power call both advantage blindness and an optimism bubble?

The future of learning is bright, but it shines brightest for those at the top.  

Time, or more specifically, lack of time, is the ultimate barrier to learning, right? An initial analysis of the findings from the research would suggest not – a surprisingly high 86% of respondents agreed that sufficient time is allocated to learning and development in their respective organizations. Nearly nine out of ten people felt that they had enough time “given” to them to learn, and this was particularly true for the more senior individuals, who, it could be argued, have the privilege of more agency and control over how they choose to spend their time.

But having time made available (or “given” to you) is not the same as “taking” this time, and this is echoed in the data, with lack of time being the most frequently cited barrier to accessing learning opportunities. So, individuals report having sufficient time given to learning, and yet claim that the lack of time is the biggest barrier to learning. How can both things be true? And how can we address it?

There may be a way forward if we consider what changes people would like to see in how their organization supports learning in the future. One of the most prominent themes that emerged here (second only to more personalized learning) was a clear message around more time and space for learning:

“I think companies are great at talking the talk – ‘Oh, we will give people time to learn’ – but in reality, you ask for this learning time and then you are told it’s too busy.” – HALLI participant

This helps to illustrate what needs to be recognized in organizations as a fundamental time-to-learn paradox – the clash between formal structures and systems generating a feeling that learners have been “given” the time to learn and the individual learner’s dominant and powerful belief (and often reality) that they cannot actually take that time.

Whether through explicit line management support; dedicated learning time during working hours; systems that reward learning in the way we reward productivity; or the mental space to reflect on learning and apply it to daily work, time was seen as a valuable, yet limited, resource that participants wanted support to protect and to spend wisely.

Time is a limited resource – spend it like capital.

The Return on Investment (ROI) of learning is high – when the learning really matters. 90% of participants reported that the learning and development they took part in over the past 12 months was a worthwhile investment of their time, and yet, despite the high motivation to learn, only one in five people had used at least 75% of their learning directly in the work that they do over the past year. If the motivation is there, what other enablers do we need to maximize learning transfer?

When thinking about the pedagogy needed, we can consider the two biggest enablers to the application of learning: relevance to respondents’ day-to day work and opportunities to apply learning in real tasks and projects.

There was a strong call for personalized learning, including personalized learning paths, role-specific development, applicable and practical content and career aligned development.

As one participant said, “I would like to see more personalized and flexible learning opportunities that align with individual career goals, greater integration of AI-driven learning platforms, and increased access to external courses or certifications.”

Pedagogy really matters for ROI. Despite the fact that organizations rarely offer experiential learning or learning communities, such as action learning sets, (just 17% and 12% respectively), both of these approaches were recognized as incredibly effective learning methodologies. 94% of respondents said experiential learning was effective, with 92% for learning communities.

Learning is recognized as a worthwhile investment of time and resources, but to maximize the investment it needs to be practical, applied, related to the day job and be human-centric – it needs to matter.

In other words, ROI is high when the learning matters.