AI Coaching, L&D Pay, and the Content Boom

by Chris Packert | Nov 11, 2026 | Featured, Learning Strategy

Emerge ID Podcast Episode 3 header: "AI Coaching, L&D Pay, and the Content Boom." L&D Insights at Altitude, with the Emerge ID logo above a Rocky Mountain silhouette against a deep blue night sky.

Emerge ID: Award-winning learning design. AI-powered development. Smarter training at a lower cost.

This episode of our podcast, L&D Insights at Altitude, is a little different. Our hosts Nora and Ben cover this month's industry news: the newest numbers from Training magazine, Training Industry, DDI, Gartner, the Learning Guild, and TD magazine, plus a new study in Nature Human Behaviour. For every story, they say who ran the research, how many people were asked, and how much weight we think it can carry. Strong means a named survey or study from a credible group that tells you how many people it asked and how, and isn't selling you something. Moderate means credible and backed up by others, but with a gap, like no published sample size, or research run by a company that sells in that space. Weak means thin evidence, and we don't air it. Here is what our team took from them.

Watch or listen to Episode 3 on YouTube

Prefer audio? Listen to Episode 3 on Spotify, or find the show on iHeartRadio and Amazon Music.

Enjoying the show? If you like our podcasts, be sure to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

AI coaching needs a real manager

DDI released the second installment of its Global Leadership Forecast 2027 on November 10. It surveyed 11,395 leaders and 2,519 HR professionals across more than 1,900 organizations in over 50 countries. DDI sells leadership development, so this is vendor research, not an independent study. HR Dive reported the findings the same day.

Seventy-two percent of HR professionals have used or are considering AI-based learning for leadership development, but only 37 percent of organizations already using it see strong results. Among leaders who got both AI coaching and coaching from their manager, 64 percent rated their development as high quality. Manager coaching alone came in at 45 percent, and AI coaching alone at 39 percent. Only one in four leaders says their manager is an effective coach. DDI's own read is that AI coaching works best alongside a manager, not as a substitute.

Proving it works is another gap: 68 percent of HR professionals say development improved leadership capabilities, but only 51 percent can provide evidence of overall effectiveness. These are people rating their own experience, so it shows a link, not proof that the mix caused better development.

How much weight it carries: Moderate. A large, clearly described sample, independently reported by HR Dive, but run by a leadership development vendor and self-reported.

Our take: before you buy AI coaching, invest in the managers it depends on.

Teach people to check AI, not just use it

Rebecca Burton, a senior principal analyst at Gartner, spoke on October 26 at Gartner's HR Symposium/Xpo, and HR Dive reported her session on November 3. Her topic was cognitive surrender, which Gartner defines as the tendency to stop thinking critically and rely on something like AI to make the decisions and judgments. Her fix is training that makes learners investigate an AI answer: review its claims, then verify them against primary sources that aren't AI. She calls it a hallucination hunt. Gartner's own page says L&D should build critical thinking, intellectual skepticism, and an "untrusted until validated" mindset.

Gartner says the number of skills the average job requires is growing 4.8 percent a year. It predicts that by 2028, 40 percent of employees will first be trained and coached by AI when they start a new role.

For a how-to, the Learning Guild ran a piece by Andreas Ehstand on November 2 about training checking as a second skill. Practice it with seeded errors, and write one line on what was checked and what's still open. He is candid that the training effect of his routine has not yet been established, so treat it as a method to test, not proof.

How much weight it carries: Moderate. A credible analyst firm, with the figures on Gartner's own page and in HR Dive. These are estimates and predictions, and no sample size was given.

Training spend up, outside spending down

Training magazine's 2026 Training Industry Report, its 45th annual edition, came out November 7. An outside research firm surveyed 263 U.S. organizations with 100 or more employees from April through July.

U.S. training spending rose 5.5 percent, to $108.5 billion, and the report says rising costs and inflation were part of that. The money went inside. Payroll was up about 1 percent. Other spending, meaning travel, facilities, equipment, and in-house development, jumped from $22.1 billion to $32.9 billion. Spending on outside products and services fell 37.5 percent, to $10 billion.

Planned purchases tell a similar story. Learning management systems rose to 46 percent, up from 14 percent last year. Authoring tools rose to 40 percent, up from 11 percent. AI technology came in at 46 percent, a new category this year. Games and simulations dropped from 48 percent to 10 percent. The biggest challenge people named was lack of resources or staff, at 38 percent. And for the first time, the largest share, 33 percent, said AI training will get more funding than last year.

How much weight it carries: Strong. A named survey with its sample and method stated, in a long-running series.

Our read, not the report's: teams are buying tools to build more of their training themselves.

L&D pay slipped

The same magazine, on the same day, published its annual Salary Survey of 1,056 L&D professionals, run from late March to June. It is self-reported, and it includes respondents in Canada.

The average salary fell 2 percent, to $97,014. The average raise, not counting promotions or job changes, was 3.1 percent. Instructional designers averaged $87,864. Thirty-nine percent said their organization cut budgets in the last 12 months, and 9 percent froze salaries. Forty-five percent said their pay is low for their responsibilities, and only 10 percent said they are well paid.

For those of us in the mountains, the Mountain region averaged $89,298, up from $85,747. The Pacific region still leads at $110,804, though it dropped nearly $8,000. Seventy percent said they wouldn't choose another career, down 6 percent from last year.

How much weight it carries: Strong. A named survey with its sample and field dates stated.

AI helped them perform, not learn

A randomized controlled trial in Nature Human Behaviour, published October 26, studied 487 management consultants. One group got access to an AI chatbot, plus training on how to use it. Then participants tried data science tasks outside their skill set.

On the tasks, the AI group scored higher than the control group on all three. They still didn't perform as well as expert data scientists, but they did better. Afterward, when they answered technical questions without the AI, the researchers found no evidence the AI group knew more. The authors compare AI to an exoskeleton: it boosts what you can do while you're wearing it.

How much weight it carries: Strong. It is peer reviewed and randomized, with a large, clearly stated sample. A few cautions: everyone worked at one consulting firm, most of the authors are or were employees of that firm, and one works for the company that makes the AI tool. The journal discloses that. The data was collected in 2024, with an earlier AI model.

Our take: doing the task with AI isn't proof you learned it. If your training uses AI, also test people without it.

The AI content boom

In the Learning Guild on October 28, Tiffany Baltazar wrote that AI lets learning teams produce much more content, but more content doesn't necessarily mean more value. What goes wrong: redundant courses, conflicting information, crowded catalogs, and outdated resources. In her words, the cost of creating learning content may be falling, but the cost of managing it is not.

It is a pattern, not one opinion. Benji Wittman wrote in TD magazine on November 2 that operating and scaling learning has become the new bottleneck. And Training Industry's Trends 2027 report says companies are focusing on revising existing content, not only building new programs. Baltazar says someone has to track ownership, trigger reviews, and decide what gets revised, consolidated, or retired.

How much weight it carries: Moderate, based on agreement. There is no new survey behind this one, but several independent practitioner sources agree.

Six takeaways

  1. AI coaching worked best with a real manager. Most managers aren't strong coaches yet.
  2. Teach people to check AI, not just prompt it.
  3. Training spend went up, but spending on outside products and services fell by more than a third.
  4. Average L&D pay slipped 2 percent. Nearly four in ten saw budget cuts.
  5. AI can help people perform a task without helping them learn it.
  6. The AI content boom makes retiring content part of the job.

The ID Angle: what this changes on Monday

First, if a program uses AI coaching, design the manager's part too. Give managers a short guide and a reason to check in. Second, build AI checking into practice. Give learners an AI answer with planted errors and have them find and verify them, then measure whether they actually catch them. Third, before you build anything new, check what already exists, and put a review date and an owner on every asset you launch.

Your turn

Pick the story that hit closest to home and tell us what you're seeing. Has AI coaching actually helped your people, or does it only work with a real manager in the mix? Are you teaching people to check AI output, or only to prompt it?

Post your answer in the comments wherever you're listening. You'll find all our platforms on our social media page. The best questions and stories from you may shape a future episode.

Let's build training that works

Emerge ID helps teams build training that works: from custom courses and learning products, to LMS and website hosting and development. Start with a free 20-minute review by visiting emergeid.com/podcast.

Emerge ID is led by a United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee Coach Educator of the Year with 30+ years of experience in learning and development.

Find more episodes of L&D Insights at Altitude every two weeks.

Show notes: Episode 3 chapters

Runtime 13:13. Chapter times match the YouTube video.

  • 00:00 Cold open
  • 00:25 Welcome
  • 01:47 AI coaching needs a real manager
  • 03:30 Teach people to check AI, not just use it
  • 05:00 Training spend up, outside spending down
  • 06:33 L&D pay slipped
  • 07:50 AI helped them perform, not learn
  • 09:23 The AI content boom
  • 10:43 Recap
  • 11:21 The ID Angle
  • 12:00 Your turn

Hosted by AI voices. Research by the Emerge ID team.

Opinions ("our take," "our read," the takeaways, and The ID Angle) are the Emerge ID team's, not the sources'.

Sources cited in Episode 3

This image shows the author of the blog posts.

Written by Chris Packert

Chris Packert is the founder and CEO of Emerge ID, a learning architecture and instructional design company that helps organizations design, build, launch, and improve meaningful learning experiences. With more than 30 years of experience across K–12 education, higher education, workforce development, military distance education, and sport education, Chris brings a practical, systems-based approach to learning strategy. His work focuses on helping teams clarify performance needs, create accessible and engaging learning solutions, implement effective learning technology, and measure impact beyond completion data. Through Emerge ID, Chris partners with organizations to turn complex learning challenges into clear, usable, and measurable learning experiences.

More Posts by Chris

Related Posts

0 Comments