At the beginning of every year, many organizations go through a familiar exercise. Departments submit their training requests, HR consolidates them, budgets are reviewed, facilitators are identified, and eventually an annual training calendar begins to take shape.
Leadership development may be scheduled for the first quarter. Communication, customer service, technical training, team development, compliance programs, and management workshops are distributed across the succeeding months. Increasingly, artificial intelligence, digital skills, and productivity tools are also finding their way into annual plans.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having a training calendar. Organizations need structure, schedules, budgets, and visibility over their development activities.
The problem begins when the calendar itself becomes the strategy.
A training calendar answers a relatively simple question: What learning activities are we planning to conduct?
A Learning and Development strategy should answer much more difficult questions: What capabilities does the organization need? Where are the most important gaps? Why do those gaps exist? What should employees be able to do differently? What interventions will create that change? And how will the organization know whether those interventions worked?
As organizations enter 2026, the distinction between these two approaches is becoming increasingly important.
The skills challenge is becoming more urgent
The scale of workforce transformation makes a purely activity-based approach to L&D increasingly difficult to justify.
According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, approximately 39% of workers’ existing skill sets are expected to be transformed or become outdated between 2025 and 2030. Skills gaps were identified by 63% of employers as the biggest barrier to business transformation, while 85% of employers indicated that they intend to prioritize workforce upskilling.
The Philippine outlook deserves particular attention.
According to the same report, 68% of Filipino workers are expected to require training to meet evolving skill requirements by 2030, compared with 59% globally. At the time of the research, however, only 38% of workers in the Philippines were reported to have completed training, compared with 50% globally. Employers operating in the country also expect almost three in every ten workers to be upskilled and subsequently redeployed into different roles.
These figures present a significant challenge for Philippine organizations. They also create an important responsibility for the Learning and Development profession.
If a large proportion of the workforce will require new or substantially different capabilities within the next several years, organizations cannot afford to treat L&D simply as a schedule of seminars.
The question is no longer whether organizations should train their people. The more important question is whether they are training people in the right capabilities, for the right reasons, and in ways that actually improve their ability to perform.
More training does not necessarily mean more capability
One of the persistent misconceptions surrounding corporate learning is the assumption that greater training activity naturally produces greater organizational capability.
It does not.
An organization can conduct hundreds of training hours without materially changing how work is performed. Employees can complete multiple programs while continuing to experience the same performance problems. A course can receive excellent evaluation scores while producing very little application in the workplace.
This is partly because the traditional measures used for corporate training tend to focus on activity.
Organizations commonly monitor:
- number of training programs conducted;
- number of employees trained;
- total learning hours completed;
- attendance and completion rates;
- participant satisfaction scores;
- number of certificates issued; and
- utilization of the annual training budget.
These measures are useful. L&D functions need operational data, and organizations should know how their learning resources are being used.
But these figures primarily tell us how much training happened.
They do not necessarily tell us how much learning happened, how much was retained, whether employees applied what they learned, whether managers observed improved capability, or whether the intervention contributed to a business or performance outcome.
A department can therefore have an impressive training report while still having a significant capability problem.
This is where the conversation about L&D needs to become more disciplined.
Not every performance problem requires training
One of the most important competencies of an L&D professional is knowing when not to recommend training.
Consider an employee who repeatedly fails to follow a process. The immediate response may be to conduct refresher training. But what if the employee already understands the process and simply chooses not to follow it?
Consider a department experiencing low productivity. A time management program may appear appropriate. But what if the actual problem is an inefficient approval process that requires employees to wait several days before proceeding with their work?
A manager struggling with employee engagement may be sent to leadership training. But what if the organization’s performance system rewards individual output while unintentionally discouraging collaboration?
Employees may be trained repeatedly on a new system when the real problem is that the system itself is poorly designed.
In each situation, training may create activity without addressing the cause.
Performance problems can arise from many sources, including:
- insufficient knowledge or skills;
- unclear expectations;
- ineffective processes;
- inadequate tools or technology;
- poor job design;
- excessive workload;
- conflicting priorities;
- weak supervision;
- inappropriate incentives;
- organizational culture; or
- lack of accountability.
Training is primarily designed to address capability. It cannot compensate indefinitely for problems created by systems, processes, management, or organizational design.
This is why effective L&D begins with diagnosis rather than delivery.
Before developing a program, an L&D professional should be able to establish what the performance gap is, what is causing it, whether learning can reasonably address it, and what successful improvement should look like.
That sounds straightforward. In practice, it requires considerably more professional judgment than simply receiving a training request and finding a facilitator.
“What training do you want?” may be the wrong question
Many annual training plans begin with a Training Needs Analysis or TNA. The quality of that exercise, however, varies considerably.
At its weakest, a TNA becomes little more than a survey asking managers or employees which courses they would like to attend.
Leadership. Communication. Presentation skills. Customer service. Excel. Conflict management. Time management. Artificial intelligence.
These may all be legitimate development needs. But selecting a topic from a list is not the same as identifying a capability gap.
A more useful analysis starts with the requirements of the organization.
What does the business intend to accomplish this year?
What capabilities will those priorities require?
What should a particular group of employees be able to do that they cannot consistently do today?
Which roles are changing?
Which skills are becoming less relevant?
Which capabilities will become more important because of technology, regulation, customer expectations, or changes in the market?
Where are current performance problems occurring?
What knowledge, skills, behaviors, or experiences are missing?
Only after these questions have been examined should the organization decide whether formal training is the appropriate response.
This represents an important change in perspective.
Instead of beginning with training topics, L&D begins with organizational capability.
Learning is also becoming broader than the classroom
There is another reason the annual training calendar is becoming an inadequate representation of L&D.
People do not develop exclusively by attending courses.
Deloitte’s 2025 Global Human Capital Trends highlights what it describes as an “experience gap.” Its research found that 66% of managers and executives believed most recent hires were not fully prepared for their roles, with insufficient experience being the most common shortcoming. At the same time, 73% of executives and 72% of workers said organizations should do more to provide existing employees with opportunities to gain experience.
The implication for L&D is significant.
If organizations need people who can perform rather than simply people who have completed courses, development must include opportunities to apply knowledge in context.
Learning interventions can therefore include formal training, but also:
- coaching and mentoring;
- stretch assignments;
- job rotations;
- simulations and practice environments;
- guided workplace application;
- communities of practice;
- peer learning;
- manager-led development;
- digital and self-directed learning;
- performance support and job aids;
- action learning projects; and
- structured opportunities to gain experience.
LinkedIn’s 2025 Workplace Learning Report reinforces this broader view. Nearly half, or 49%, of learning and talent development professionals surveyed said their executives were concerned that employees did not have the skills required to execute business strategy. The report also found that organizations with more mature career development practices were better positioned across several business indicators.
Importantly, the report connects learning with leadership development, coaching, internal mobility, and career development rather than treating courses as an isolated solution.
For L&D professionals, this requires a shift from thinking primarily about programs to thinking about how capability develops.
Sometimes that will happen inside a training room.
Increasingly, much of it will happen somewhere else.
The role of the L&D professional is changing with it
This changing environment has implications for the people responsible for organizational learning.
Being an effective trainer remains an important professional capability. Facilitation matters. Instructional design matters. The ability to communicate complex ideas clearly and create engaging learning experiences matters.
But L&D is broader than training facilitation.
A capable L&D professional increasingly needs to understand how to assess organizational and individual learning requirements, translate business priorities into capability requirements, design appropriate interventions, select suitable learning methodologies, work with subject matter experts, facilitate learning, use learning technologies appropriately, evaluate effectiveness, and support the transfer of learning into actual work.
There must also be enough professional confidence to tell a stakeholder that a requested seminar may not solve the problem.
This is one reason the Institute of Learning and Development (ILD) advocates the continued professionalization of Learning and Development practice.
The profession should not be defined solely by an individual’s ability to deliver a good presentation. It should be defined by the ability to make informed decisions about how people learn, how capabilities are developed, and how those capabilities contribute to stronger organizations.
Professional certification can support this development by providing practitioners with a structured framework against which their knowledge and competencies can be developed and assessed. ILD’s Certified Learning and Development Professional (CLDP), for example, is intended for practitioners progressing beyond individual training delivery toward the broader responsibilities involved in designing, implementing, managing, and evaluating workplace learning.
The value of certification, however, should ultimately be demonstrated in practice.
A credential matters when the professional behind it can ask better questions, make better learning decisions, design more appropriate interventions, and contribute more meaningfully to organizational capability.
That is the standard L&D should increasingly expect of itself.
From an annual training plan to a capability agenda
None of this means organizations should abandon annual training calendars.
They remain useful planning tools.
The better approach is to ensure that the calendar is the output of the strategy rather than the strategy itself.
An organization planning its 2026 learning agenda could begin by identifying several high-priority capability areas and connecting each to a clear organizational requirement.
For example, instead of simply listing “Leadership Training,” the organization could identify a need to improve the ability of newly promoted supervisors to manage performance, provide feedback, delegate work, and handle employee issues.
Instead of listing “AI Training,” the organization could identify specific employee groups and determine which AI-enabled tasks could improve their productivity, what responsible-use competencies they require, and what new judgment or verification skills become necessary when AI is incorporated into their work.
Instead of “Customer Service Training,” the organization could examine where customer experience is breaking down, determine whether the cause is knowledge, behavior, process, authority, technology, or some combination of these, and design the intervention accordingly.
The resulting learning plan may actually contain fewer courses.
That is not necessarily a weakness.
It may indicate that the organization has become more selective about where formal learning can create value.
The real question for 2026
Organizations will continue to count participants, training hours, courses, completion rates, evaluation scores, and learning expenditures. They should.
But these should not be the only indicators used to determine whether an L&D function is effective.
The more consequential questions are harder:
Are employees becoming more capable?
Are they applying what they learn?
Are managers observing meaningful changes in performance or behavior?
Are critical capability gaps becoming smaller?
Is the organization better prepared for changes in technology, jobs, customer expectations, and the wider economy?
Can L&D demonstrate where it contributed?
These questions move Learning and Development beyond the administration of training and toward its more important purpose.
For Philippine organizations, the need is particularly pressing. If nearly seven in ten workers may require training to meet changing skill demands by 2030, there will be enormous pressure to deliver more learning over the next several years.
ILD believes the profession must resist the temptation to equate that pressure with simply conducting more programs.
The country does need more opportunities for people to learn. But it also needs stronger L&D practitioners, better diagnosis, more deliberate learning design, greater workplace application, and much clearer connections between development and performance.
A training calendar can tell an organization what is happening next month.
A strong L&D strategy should help determine whether its people will be ready for what happens next.
Useful Links & Resources
World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025
A comprehensive global reference on changing jobs, workforce strategies, skills disruption, reskilling requirements, and emerging workforce capabilities. The report also includes country-level information for the Philippines.
https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025
World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025, Full Report
Useful for the Philippine-specific workforce findings referenced in this article, including the projected proportion of Filipino workers requiring training by 2030.
https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_Report_2025.pdf
LinkedIn Learning, 2025 Workplace Learning Report
Research examining the skills crisis, career development, organizational learning, leadership development, internal mobility, and the changing priorities of L&D teams.
https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/workplace-learning-report
Deloitte, 2025 Global Human Capital Trends
Global research examining major workforce and organizational challenges, including the experience gap, AI, management, human capabilities, and the need to rethink workforce development.
https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/human-capital-trends/2025.html
Leave a Reply