What the 2026 L&D trends say, and what they leave out
Your managers finished the training. They rated it highly and got the certificate. Then Monday came, a deadline moved, a client escalated, two people called in sick. And they led exactly the way they always have. This is the quiet problem in leadership development. You buy content and measure attendance. Then we hope behavior changes. successful L&D programs measure engagement and behavior change. even more successful ones add positive psychology games within modules to support leaders practice.
What the 2026 L&D trends say, and what they leave out
Global research from Gallup, Harvard Business Impact and Deloitte points the same way for anyone buying leadership development:
Only 44% of managers have ever received formal training, yet managers drive 70% of team engagement (Gallup, State of the Global Workplace)
64% of organizations are moving to multi-phase leadership programs instead of one-off events (Harvard Business Impact, Global Leadership Development Study).
61% of CEOs expect clear ROI from learning investments, but only 25% of organizations measure anything beyond completion rates (Deloitte, Global Human Capital Trends).
78% of organizations now treat interpersonal effectiveness as a critical leadership competency (Harvard Business Impact).
The direction is clear. Leadership development is moving from events to journeys, and from soft promises to measurable results. But there’s a gap. Most of the conversation is about skills data, AI personalization and dashboards. Very little is about the thing that actually creates ROI: whether leaders practice to behave differently when crises occur.
What L&D buyers should ask before investing in a leadership program
Before you sign off on your next leadership development program, ask the provider:
How does this change behavior, not just knowledge? Look for practice, not only content.
Does it build habits over time? One workshop rarely leads into behavior change
How will you measure impact? Completion rates and satisfaction scores aren’t enough. Ask for before-and-after measurement you can bring to your leadership team.
Is it grounded in science? Behavior change should rest on evidence, not trends.
Who has designed the program? This is very important, you need real leaders from science who developed your leaders program and not another coach.
Does it fit how leaders actually work? Self-paced options matter for busy managers.
Completion of L&D is not change
A mid-level leader can complete a module, but because the program doesn’t have space for real practice, the leader struggles to implement the knowledge in real life. For the organization, this becomes a waste of time and budget.
Also, a learning and development program should not be another task that leaders have to read and complete, this adds more pressure on team leaders.
For these reasons, our Practice Leading Under Pressure program has 7 modules with anonymous assessments and real games grounded in the science of positive psychology where leaders practice making decisions, communicating and delegating all under pressure. They’re invited from day one to practice, not only to reflect. This leads to real behavior change.
The research backs this up. A meta-analysis in Personnel Psychology looked at 65 studies with 6,476 trainees and found that, compared with other training methods, people trained with simulation games had 20% higher confidence after training, 14% higher how to apply the knowledge and 9% better retention.
The same research found that games work best when they’re part of a larger program, not used alone. Trainees learned more when the game delivered material actively rather than passively, when they could play it as many times as they wanted, and when it supplemented other instruction. That’s why our games sit inside modules rather than replacing them.
