Experts Ann Stott and Carla Torgerson answer L&D leaders' 8 most burning questions about evaluation, stakeholder relationships, and business results.

After an inspiring deep dive into the four critical skills L&D leaders need to keep their seat at the table in 2026, experts Ann Stott and Carla Torgerson sat down to answer the outstanding questions from the audience. The result: Actionable takeaways and a toolkit L&D leaders can use immediately to reinforce stakeholder relationships and speak the language of the business. Read on for detailed answers to eight of the most pressing questions facing L&D leaders this year.  

How can I persuade stakeholders that learning will help solve their problem and achieve business results? / Can you share some examples about mapping learning to tangible business outcomes?

Yes! We’ve compiled the following questions and mini-phrasebook to help you address both of these concerns. (Note: Please weave the questions into your conversations with stakeholders; do not treat them as a form or checklist.)

Strategic Questions to Ask Your Stakeholders

1. Revenue and Growth

• Where are we currently leaving money on the table?
• If capability improved, where would you expect to see lift: pipeline quality, deal size, speed, retention, etc.?

2. Cost and Risk

• What’s the cost of not fixing this problem in the next six to 12 months?
• Where are mistakes, rework, or delays showing up financially?

3. Performance Gaps

• What are your best performers doing that others aren’t?
• What are our competitors doing that we aren’t?
• What decisions are people struggling to make today?

4. Behavioral Proof

• What would people be doing differently if this training worked?
  
  

Their answers to these questions will help you create your value narrative and map learning outcomes directly to the business metrics your stakeholders value most. 

Translate Learning Into Business Signals

Words matter. That’s why it’s important to speak our stakeholders’ language. Remember: Our stakeholders think in business signals, not competencies. Below are a few common phrases we use in the L&D world—and their translations into the business language that resonates with our stakeholders.  

‍
Learning Language

Skill development

Capability building

Knowledge transfer

Confidence

Business Language

Better (or faster) decisions

Fewer escalations

Reduced cycle time

Stronger customer conversations

Tell your stakeholders, “We’re not trying to train people—we’re trying to change what shows up in the numbers.”

What established tools exist to guide conversations around whether training will solve the business issue or need?

We should always start by asking our stakeholders about the business problem they want to solve. Revisit with them the six factors that can cause performance issues, and ask them to estimate a percentage value for each factor’s contribution to the problem they are trying to solve.

As learner advocates as well as business partners, this conversation offers us the perfect opportunity to remind stakeholders that a person’s capability is rarely 100% of the issue (or solution).

The SweetRush team likes to engage our client-partners in a whiteboard activity we call “Build the Box” to help shake out the factors contributing to a business problem. We list items such as budget, timeline, performance outcomes, and other project needs. 

Then, we engage all stakeholders in a robust conversation to surface and document their goals for each component of the project. As a result of the activity, we identify any misalignment between stakeholders and any goals that may not be addressed by training and delve into deeper discussions about both. 

I am always hesitant to ask learners whether the training was relevant to their job because, at our organization, enrollment is voluntary. If most learners indicate that it was not relevant, is that their issue for selecting it or our issue for not helping them filter better?

“Was this training relevant to your job?” is a reasonable question—but it works best when the assignment is required, not optional.

When training is aligned to a business or compliance need, relevance is largely a design issue, meaning that:

• The right people are assigned to the training; and 
• The right problem is being solved by the training.

If both of these statements are true, then training relevance should be high by default. So, low relevance scores signal an alignment problem, not a learner problem.

As you mentioned, determining the relevance of self-selected learning can be more complicated. That’s because, when learners have the freedom to choose their own adventure: 

• They often choose courses for personal growth, curiosity, or future roles; 
• The learning may be valuable, but not immediately job-critical; and thus
• Relevance to their job becomes less useful for measuring value.

If training is optional and many learners answer that a training experience was not relevant to their job, it doesn’t automatically mean that the training was poorly designed or that the learner chose incorrectly.

Questions that lead us to a more useful framing of the relevance question in this situation include:

• What was your goal in taking this training? The learning experience may not directly be relevant to the learner’s current role but could support future career growth.
  
  
• When and where do you expect to apply what you learned? The learner may have enrolled in the training with an eye to changes to come—whether those involve future-prepping, a stretch assignment, or a promotion or lateral move.
  
  
• What would make this training more applicable to your work? Learner insights may help us refine the experience for individuals who enroll with longer-term and/or aspirational goals in mind.

The real accountability question for L&D leaders and teams isn’t:

Did learners choose correctly?

Instead, it’s:

Did we help them choose intentionally?

That’s where better pathways and content guidance matter—especially in self-directed ecosystems.

The bottom line: Relevance is a strong metric when training is assigned for business impact. In self-selected learning, value shows up less in immediate relevance—and more in capability building, readiness, and future application.

Would you follow up a question about job relevance by asking how the learner will apply what they learned? That would lead to Level 3 data, right?

Because Level 3 questions are focused on the behavior actually being performed, not just an intent to perform, the “how you will apply” question is still Level 2. (Following up with learners after the training experience and asking “Have you applied what you learned?” would be a Level 3 question.)

It’s true that confidence and predictive questions get us much closer to Level 3 than typical Level 2 knowledge-check questions and, as such, these questions yield insights that are more meaningful to the business. 

Below are some examples of Level 2 questions that speak to the business by focusing on confidence and prediction of behavior. These can be used immediately after a learning experience: 

• I feel confident that I can apply what I learned in my work. (Yes/No or Likert scale)
• How committed are you to using what you learned in your work? (Likert scale)
• What barriers do you anticipate in using what you learned in your work? (Open-ended)
• I believe I will see an impact in the following areas as I apply this in my work: (Checkbox or Likert scale for each)
  
  • Improved productivity
  • Improved customer satisfaction
  • [Other business metrics you and your stakeholder have identified]
• What positive impacts do you anticipate from consistently applying what you learned in your work? (Open-ended)

Below are some examples of Level 3 questions (with one Level 4 follow-up) that speak to application. These can be used after employees are back on the job:

• I have been able to apply what I learned to my work. (Yes/No or Likert scale)
  
  • If no, or low score: Why? (Open-ended or a series of checkboxes based on the six performance factors shared above) 
  • If yes, or high score: What has been the impact for you? (Open-ended; this is a Level 4 question!)

Would the example Ann shared about more efficient sales training saving time and resulting in a measurable increase in sales calls be considered a Level 3 or Level 4 metric?

This example qualifies as Level 4: It goes beyond individual behavior change and reflects measurable business impact. The metric is:

• Aggregated across the organization, not limited to individual participants.
  
  
• Operational and commercial (time saved, increased sales activity), not just behavioral.
  
  
• Recognizable by leadership and stakeholders as a business performance signal, not simply an individual performance outcome.

To put it concisely: The behavior change itself is Level 3. The resulting time savings and increased sales activity at scale elevate it to Level 4.

What happens when learning from headquarters isn’t the same as learning from the field—and the field learning is prioritized?

When learning for headquarters (HQ) and learning for the field compete, field learning is often prioritized because the connection to business outcomes is more immediate and visible. Leaders can clearly see how it drives revenue, productivity, or customer results.

That doesn’t mean HQ learning is less important—it means its value isn’t always articulated in business terms.

The opportunity with HQ training has to be much more explicit about:

• What value it creates (e.g., better decisions, faster execution, reduced friction)
  
  
• What risk it mitigates, especially for compliance and governance programs
  
  
• How leadership and management programs directly enable business outcomes, not just skill development

The real shift is reframing HQ learning from “support” to business enablement. When HQ programs are designed and measured around the problems they solve—risk avoided, decisions improved, execution accelerated—they compete on the same footing as field training.

So yes, field learning often wins on priority. The answer isn’t to fight that—it’s to rethink and redesign HQ learning so its business impact is just as clear.

What advice do you have for siloed depts with conflicting priorities?

When departments have competing priorities, the starting point isn’t fairness—it’s business impact.

We recommend prioritizing learning investments based on three criteria:

1. Direct connection to enterprise goals for the year
   
   
2. Expected business impact (e.g., growth, risk reduction, or productivity)
   
   
3. Scale and leverage across the organization

If a request doesn’t clearly tie to those three criteria, it doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable. However, it does mean that it may not be the right use of the organizational budget or limited employee time. In those cases, CLOs will often recommend that an individual learning team consider the initiative in their priorities and create the training for a specific team. 

The most important step is alignment with senior leadership, which means getting extremely detailed about what is and isn’t a priority for the year. 

That helps us create a clearer conversation down the road about tradeoffs: If we add X, which approved priority should we reduce or remove?

These conversations shift the decision from L&D saying “no” to leadership prioritizing and making intentional choices about where learning dollars go.

Got a question of your own about L&D strategy? Reach out to share with our experts! 

‍