55% of HR Leaders Must Prove Learning's Business Impact, Go1 Finds

More than half of HR and learning leaders — 55% — are now expected to demonstrate how learning contributes to business outcomes, and 79% report pressure to prove that impact, according to a new report from learning technology company Go1. Many say the data needed to make the case does not exist in their organizations.

The report, titled The Workforce Enablement Era, surveyed HR and L&D leaders and found that expectations now extend beyond the traditional measures of engagement, compliance, participation and completion. Those legacy metrics remain common, but the report argues they capture only part of the picture.

Why do traditional metrics fall short?

"Activity data can show that learning took place, but it provides limited evidence of what employees can apply in their work," the report stated. In other words, a completed course certificate says little about whether an employee can perform a task when the job demands it.

The gap between what leaders must prove and what they can measure comes down to specific structural barriers. When respondents identified what makes it hard to connect learning activity with business outcomes, overreliance on completion metrics led the list at 38%.

The full breakdown of cited barriers:

• Overreliance on completion metrics — 38%
• Lack of data — 34%
• Disconnected systems — 34%
• Manual reporting — 34%
• Limited executive alignment — 33%
• Limited manager input — 29%
• Unclear business priorities — 26%
• Lack of signals about employee confidence — 24%

"HR and L&D teams are being asked to connect learning with business outcomes, but the data, systems and input from managers and business leaders needed to make that connection are not always available," the report stated.

Ben Eubanks, chief research officer at Lighthouse Research & Advisory, said in a statement released alongside the report that the measurement problem is not new. "The age-old problem of learning has been to connect development to outcomes and value," he said.

Does visibility change confidence in the data?

The research found a sharp divergence in confidence depending on how much visibility leaders have into capability gaps. Among HR and L&D leaders with a great deal of visibility into emerging gaps, 79% expressed strong confidence that current learning metrics show workforce readiness. Among those with some or less visibility, only 13% shared that confidence — a sixfold difference.

The report cautioned that the results "show an association, not causation." It defined readiness as whether employees can "apply the right skills, knowledge and behaviours when their work requires them," and noted that no single measure captures it. Readiness may draw on evidence of confidence, capability, application and behaviour change, plus input from managers and functional leaders.

One L&D specialist in financial services, interviewed for the report, described a practical approach to testing readiness beyond course data. "Through errors and observations, we're able to go out to different lines of business and observe how people are working during training and after training," the specialist said.

That field-observation model represents one workaround for teams whose systems cannot yet link learning records to performance outcomes.

Will activity metrics disappear?

Despite the pressure to prove business impact, surveyed leaders do not expect activity-based measurement to vanish. Nearly half — 46% — believe the future of L&D measurement will split evenly between learning activity and workforce outcomes. Another 34% expect activity to remain the larger focus, while only 20% expect workforce outcomes to become the primary measure.

The report framed the transition as additive rather than a replacement. "For HR and L&D teams, the shift is not about abandoning activity measures," it said. "It is about connecting them with evidence of what people can do and where further support is needed."

For HR leaders, the findings point to near-term decisions on systems integration, manager involvement and executive alignment — the three barriers each cited by roughly a third of respondents. As expectations for outcome evidence grow, teams that pair completion data with observed performance and manager input will be better positioned to meet them.