Last year, in preparation for 2025, we asked 21 learning professionals what one question they think everyone in L&D should ask.

I think we can all agree the past few years have been a trying time for most of us in L&D. It might have been that you lost your job, you had to live in fear of losing your job, you were challenged by stakeholders more than ever, you might have faced the pain of learners not engaging with your work, or you just wondered about the meaning of your work as it currently is.

I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I think knowingly or unknowingly we’re living in times of profound change in our field. While we can make predictions about where we’re heading, we can’t guarantee any specific scenario. So instead of giving you advice for the future, we wanted to provide you with some questions.

So we asked people we deeply admire to answer “What’s one question you think L&D should ask in 2025?”. This is the result of their work and our curation. Enjoy!

Questions to reflect on learning program design

What’s your starting place in learning design?

Most L&D professionals focus on tools, models, and best practices. But Darryn argues that the real question isn’t what you design—it’s where you’re designing from.

Your personal worldview, cultural background, and lived experiences shape every decision you make. But how often do you pause to examine them? Do you know where your biases show up in your learning programs? Whose perspectives are you centering? Whose voices are missing?

He challenges L&D professionals to think like storytellers and ask:

• What do I believe about learning?
• How have my own experiences shaped my approach?
• Am I designing for my learners—or just for people like me?

Great learning design doesn’t start with a framework. It starts with self-awareness.

What meaningful experiences can we design to grow our people?

What’s the real difference between an L&D program that changes lives and one that gets ignored?

Eikris argues that it all comes down to designing experiences—not just courses. In an era where learning is increasingly commoditized, the most effective L&D professionals will be those who understand how to craft moments that engage people emotionally, physically, and mentally.

Her go-to frameworks, inspired by Kaospilot, start with one critical question: What’s the core meaning we want to create? Whether it’s wonder, security, or connection, the entire learning journey should be built around evoking that feeling.

So before you plan your next training, take a step back. Ask yourself: What will this experience make people feel? If the answer is “bored,” it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

Is facilitation still relevant in the AI era?

If AI can generate content, analyze data, and even simulate conversations, do we still need human facilitators?

To explore this question, Lena led an embodied exercise where participants of our event took on two opposing perspectives. First, they stepped into the mindset of someone who believes facilitation is obsolete, embracing the efficiency and automation AI provides. Then, they switched roles, imagining a world where facilitation remains crucial for deep learning, trust-building, and real human connection.

Through this contrast, the group surfaced a key realization: Facilitation isn’t just about delivering learning—it’s about holding space for it. While AI can provide knowledge, it lacks the emotional intelligence, spontaneity, and relational depth that make facilitation impactful.

Lena’s session made it clear: as AI reshapes learning, the role of facilitators won’t disappear—but it will need to evolve.

How inclusive are your L&D programs?

Most L&D teams would say they care about inclusivity. But if you look closely, is inclusivity built into your everyday programs, or is it something you only address in DEI-specific training?

According to Ingeborg, there’s a dangerous disconnect in how we approach inclusivity in learning. The risk? If your programs unconsciously favor certain groups—whether by design, access, or content—you’re not just missing the mark. You might be reinforcing inequality.

To audit your own work, ask:

• Who has access? Are there barriers to participation that disproportionately affect certain groups?
• Whose realities are reflected? Are your examples, case studies, and learning models truly representative of diverse experiences?
• Who benefits most? Have you measured whether all learners find equal value in your programs?

If the answer to any of these questions makes you uncomfortable, it's time to rethink your approach.

How would we design learning experiences if we had NO PowerPoint and NO frameworks?

Take away your slides, your templates, and your favorite models—what’s left?

For Saad, this isn’t a theoretical exercise. It’s a necessary shift. Too often, L&D professionals rely on frameworks that actually create barriers to learning rather than removing them. Instead of focusing on what learners need to do, we get stuck in abstract theories and step-by-step processes that don’t drive real change.

His challenge: Design learning the way people actually learn.

• Start with the outcome.
• Let learners experience it first.
• Let patterns emerge before introducing concepts.

If your learning experiences depend on PowerPoint, they’re probably not experiences at all.

How do we intentionally design for serendipity? 

Some of the most transformative learning moments happen by accident—an unexpected conversation, a chance meeting, a surprising insight. But what if you could design for that?

Megan believes that L&D professionals should think less like instructional designers and more like experience architects. Her team experiments with serendipity by introducing things like:

• “Choose your own adventure” learning paths that create unexpected learning moments.
• Module bidding systems where learners have to “bet” on their learning choices.
• Unstructured spaces that encourage curiosity and spontaneous conversations.

Instead of over-engineering every detail, ask yourself: What if the most valuable moments of learning happened outside of the content?

What if Learning is a Conversation, Not a Course?

Think about the last three things you learned. Were they from a structured course? Or from a conversation?

Srishti makes the case that real learning isn’t about absorbing information—it’s about engaging with ideas. But too often, L&D structures get in the way of that. Instead of building interactive, discussion-driven experiences, we focus on content, slides, and assessments.

She’s experimented with formats where:

• There’s no syllabus. Learners drive the agenda.
• There are no instructors. Only peers and prompts.
• There’s no passive learning. Every session is a conversation.

So, what if your L&D programs looked more like the best conversations people have?

How might we meet our users’ (employees) needs to learn just in time?

Amazon makes it easy to fix a mistake—accidentally ordered the wrong product? A quick FAQ, chatbot, or customer service rep can help you correct it instantly. What if workplace learning worked the same way?

Marie compared employees to product users: they encounter challenges daily, and their ability to learn in the moment determines how effectively they perform. Instead of forcing employees into training sessions they’ll forget, L&D should focus on just-in-time learning through:

• Searchable knowledge bases (like Notion or Confluence)
• Live peer support channels (like Slack communities)
• AI-powered coaching tools that provide real-time feedback

The goal? Meet employees where they are, when they need help—so learning becomes a seamless part of work.

Is there still room for corporate universities?

Traditional corporate universities were built on a model where learning was centralized, structured, and controlled. But in today’s organizations, learning happens everywhere—informally, socially, and often without L&D’s involvement.

Conrado argued that instead of focusing on corporate universities, companies should invest in learning ecosystems—systems that recognize and support all forms of learning, from structured training to informal knowledge-sharing. He introduced the Life-Wide Learning Matrix, a model that maps learning across two dimensions:

• Who drives the learning? (Company-directed vs. employee-driven)
• Where does learning happen? (Formal training vs. informal experiences)

Most corporate universities focus on company-driven, formal learning—but that’s just one small piece of the puzzle. A true learning ecosystem ensures that employees can access knowledge in many ways, whether through peer mentoring, on-the-job experiences, or self-directed exploration.

The key question for L&D isn’t “How do we build a corporate university?” It’s “How do we create an environment where learning thrives everywhere?”

Why don't employees have time for learning?

L&D professionals hear it all the time: “Our employees are too busy to learn.” But Rita challenges this assumption. She argues that the real issue isn’t time—it’s that employees don’t recognize learning in its many forms.

Learning isn’t just sitting through a training session or completing an e-learning module. It happens in meetings, retrospectives, brainstorming sessions, and even casual conversations. When organizations only define learning as structured training, they make it seem like an interruption rather than a natural part of work.

Her advice? Shift the mindset. Ditch the e-learning mentality and integrate learning into workflows. Document and share insights. Create searchable, accessible resources. Encourage knowledge-sharing moments in meetings. When employees see learning as something they do all the time, they stop seeing it as something they don’t have time for.

Questions to redefine your L&D role

What if the L&D team didn't exist?

If L&D disappeared tomorrow, how much would it really matter to employees? Steph raised this provocative question, challenging us to think critically about the true impact of our work.

She pointed out that employees are already learning on their own—through YouTube, podcasts, and even asking ChatGPT. The traditional approach of creating and delivering content might not be as valuable when people can access high-quality learning resources independently.

Steph argues that L&D should reconsider its role—not as the primary source of knowledge, but as curators of the best external content, communicators who help navigate learning paths, and facilitators of conversations that deepen understanding.

Instead of focusing on controlling learning, what if L&D empowered employees to learn how and when they want, supporting them with guidance and resources rather than mandating participation?

What can I let go?

Are you clinging to outdated models, unnecessary complexity, or metrics that don’t matter?

Laura argues that L&D professionals often hold onto things—content, control, jargon—that actually make their jobs harder. She challenges you to identify what’s no longer serving your goals. Could you let go of:

• The need to prove ROI with vanity metrics?
• The obsession with structured courses?
• The belief that learning must be “delivered” rather than discovered?

Letting go isn’t about doing less. It’s about focusing on what actually creates impact.

How we increase our impact with more A.I. (Authenticity and Intention)

As AI becomes more integrated into learning and development, L&D professionals might feel pressure to compete with its efficiency and instant solutions. But Ajay argues that this is a chance to lean into what makes us uniquely human—curiosity, empathy, and storytelling.

He suggests that the real power of L&D lies in spending more time with problems, asking better questions, and listening deeply. While AI might confidently generate content or structure programs, it lacks the ability to engage with the underlying human elements—like motivation, emotion, and social connection.

Ajay challenges us to bring more authenticity and intention into our work, focusing on human-centered approaches rather than automated solutions.

Where in my work will I place my bet on humans?

With AI driving efficiency and scalability in learning programs, there’s a temptation to focus purely on metrics and outputs. But Anamaria reminds us that the real value of L&D isn’t just in content delivery—it’s in fostering human connection and emotional resonance.

She shared how AI can’t replicate the feeling of vulnerability, the experience of overcoming burnout, or the complexity of making tough decisions with real human consequences. In a world increasingly driven by technology, Anamaria encourages L&D professionals to double down on the human aspects of learning—like trust, relationships, and culture—that resist automation.

Her question is a call to action: as organizations invest in AI, where will you invest in human potential?

What are the most overlooked challenges in L&D today, and how can we push ourselves to address them with speed and innovation in a rapidly evolving workforce?

L&D teams are often stuck in reactive mode—taking orders, delivering courses, and operating under outdated assumptions. Heidi called out some of the biggest challenges that hold L&D back:

• Misalignment with business strategy. If L&D roadmaps are dictated by intake forms instead of business needs, we risk becoming disconnected from the company’s true priorities.
• Outdated frameworks. Many learning models were created decades ago, in workplaces that no longer exist. Are we critically evaluating whether they still work?
• Focusing on deliverables instead of solutions. If someone asks for a 30-minute e-learning, do we stop to ask whether it’s the right solution—or do we just build it?

Her challenge to L&D? Be braver. Be bolder. Be intentional. Push back when requests don’t make sense. Question assumptions. Set your own learning goals as a team, and align them with the business from the start. If L&D truly wants to drive change, we have to stop waiting for permission.

What is the role of L&D if the purpose of work is changing?

If AI can handle routine tasks and automate knowledge-sharing, what’s left for humans? And if the nature of work itself is shifting, what does that mean for L&D?

Lori explored how AI is redefining productivity, shifting the focus from efficiency to creativity, emotional intelligence, and complex problem-solving. She highlighted the growing divide between knowledge workers, who will have more time for innovation, and service workers, who may not experience the same freedom. L&D will play a key role in bridging that gap, ensuring that everyone—not just leaders—has access to development.

She predicts that AI coaching tools will become standard, replacing traditional SCORM-based training with real-time, personalized learning. But no matter how advanced AI gets, L&D’s most important role will be nurturing the uniquely human skills that can’t be automated. The challenge is clear: Will we keep focusing on outdated training models, or will we redefine learning for the future of work?

How can we leverage emerging tools (like generative AI) to innovate our learning content while ensuring it remains accessible and inclusive for a diverse and global audience?

AI can help L&D scale content creation, personalize learning, and translate materials across languages. But it also introduces biases, usability challenges, and accessibility risks.

DJ laid out a dual challenge: how do we embrace innovation while ensuring AI-driven learning doesn’t exclude or disadvantage certain learners? She recommended:

• AI audits to check for bias and accessibility compliance
• Multiple learning formats (transcripts, captions, alternative interfaces)
• Feedback loops to continuously improve AI-generated content

The key takeaway? AI isn’t inherently inclusive—it’s only as good as the humans guiding it. L&D must take responsibility for ensuring that AI-powered learning works for everyone.

How do we intentionally disrupt outdated L&D practices in an unpredictable business world?

Businesses used to operate like well-oiled machines—stable, predictable, planned years in advance. That world no longer exists.

Moritz argued that this disruption presents an opportunity for L&D to challenge outdated assumptions. If organizations can no longer predict skills needs five years ahead, should we still be designing fixed leadership models and rigid learning paths? Instead of standardized frameworks, L&D should focus on agility, adaptability, and diverse leadership styles.

The question isn’t just how L&D supports businesses through change—it’s whether we’re bold enough to rethink our own methods in the process.

Questions about increasing L&D’s impact

What if we stopped training people to ‘cope’ with change and started teaching leaders to lead it better?

Organizations love resilience training. When employees struggle with change, the common response is to teach them to adapt better. But Natalie argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed.

The problem isn’t that employees lack resilience—it’s that leaders don’t know how to lead change effectively. Research shows that 80% of change initiatives fail, often due to poor communication, lack of transparency, and failure to involve employees in the process.

Instead of expecting employees to cope, L&D should focus on training leaders to communicate clearly, foster trust, and navigate change with empathy. When leaders step up, change doesn’t feel like something to endure—it becomes an opportunity for growth and innovation.

How do we know we are successful in driving organizational learning?

How do we measure the success of L&D? Completion rates? Feedback surveys? None of those tell us whether learning is actually improving performance.

Bo tackled this fundamental challenge, arguing that we need to rethink our definition of impact. Instead of focusing on learning activities, L&D should measure success by looking at business outcomes and employee growth. Are we solving real business challenges? Are employees more capable, engaged, and confident in their roles?

To answer these questions, she suggested collecting both qualitative and quantitative evidence—from leadership priorities to employee feedback. True success isn’t just about creating learning programs. It’s about ensuring that learning is embedded in the company culture, accessible to everyone, and driving real change.

What illusions can we break through to strengthen our impact on employee growth, engagement, and success?

L&D is often trapped by its own illusions—outdated assumptions about how people learn, what drives engagement, and what it means to develop talent. Sarah challenged L&D professionals to examine the beliefs they take for granted and ask: What if we’ve been wrong all along?

She pointed to some of the biggest illusions in L&D today:

• Change is optional. In reality, change is constant, and adaptability should be embedded into every aspect of learning.
• Engagement is a separate goal. Engagement isn’t an add-on—it’s a direct outcome of well-designed, relevant learning experiences.
• Development follows a linear path. The idea of a single career ladder is outdated. Growth today looks more like a lattice—interconnected and non-linear.

Sarah urged L&D professionals to move beyond just delivering training and start shaping the systems, structures, and cultures that enable real development. By breaking free from old models and collaborating more with organizational development (OD) teams, L&D can go beyond skills training and help organizations evolve.

Her challenge: What illusions are holding you back from making a real impact?