2026 Research
Learning for AI Fluency
AI adoption is up. Usage is higher than ever.
Neither has produced fluency, because the role-level skills layer underneath has not been built. This research reveals the divide between what leadership believes is working and what employees experience on the ground.
Get the reportThe premise
The skills gap is hiding in plain sight.
Organizations have spent years building development programs, and most still cannot measure whether any of it worked. Then AI arrived. The same broken measurement systems are now being asked to track AI capability at the role level, and they can’t.
The result is a workforce divided. Executives mandate AI strategy from the top. Individual contributors try to execute it from the bottom. Between them sits a measurement void.
What the data makes hardest to ignore is the distance between what executives believe is happening, and what employees are actually experiencing. Across AI direction, manager preparedness, and workforce sentiment, executive confidence and individual contributor reality diverge by fifty points or more.
The opening signal
Three answers to the same question, from inside the same companies.
“My organization is very confident our current approach will prepare the workforce for AI in the next three years”
A 65-point divide on whether any of this is going to work.
Source: Acorn Learning for AI Fluency Survey, n=1,228
Chapter One
The broken promise of development plans.
Development plans are universal yet mostly useless, because organizations are tracking activity, not capability.
Investment in development infrastructure has not produced the returns organizations expect because the design is flawed.
Plans are built without measurable role-level standards, so measurement stops at completion of training. There are no follow-ups. There are no benchmarks. As a result, development plans exist on paper and nowhere else.
Fifty-eight percent of respondents describe their organization’s development plans as somewhat effective, not very effective, or not effective at all. Nearly six in ten organizations are running development programs they consider, by their own admission, partially or wholly insufficient.
of organizations describe their development plans as less than effective at improving capability
struggle to connect learning activity to measurable improvement in the work
treat training completion as evidence of capability, because they have no alternative
Managers cannot guide what they cannot measure.
Development plans depend entirely on the manager-employee relationship, and that relationship is under-equipped. Half of respondents say two-way development conversations happen quarterly or less. Managers are navigating high-stakes coaching responsibilities without the tools or frameworks to do it justice, and the further you sit from the C-suite, the clearer this becomes.
“Managers are very prepared to have meaningful capability conversations”
% who agree, by tier of seniority
Executives are rating a system they don’t sit inside. The 55-point delta is the system telling on itself.
Source: Q8, n=1,228
Chapter Two
AI tools are being rolled out into a vacuum.
Companies are deploying AI without defining what good use of AI looks like at the role level, leaving employees with no target to train toward and no way to know whether any of it is working.
AI adoption has outpaced enablement. AI-related spending is growing at over 50% CAGR. Indirect AI services are projected to reach $255.9 billion in 2026. Meanwhile, only 28% of AI use cases meet ROI expectations.
Companies are deploying tools faster than they are defining how the work should change, and employees are caught in the gap between executive deployment decisions and their own day-to-day reality.
“My organization has a clear, org-wide AI strategy actively being executed”
% who agree, by tier of seniority
AI strategy is declared at the top, not delivered at the bottom.
Q·The strategy declaration gap
Excited at the top, skeptical at the bottom.
The dominant media narrative on AI alternates between fear and excitement. The data shows most employees fall into a third category that nobody is talking about: skeptical and under-supported. Each step down the org chart, negative AI sentiment roughly doubles. Leaders are selling an “AI is exciting” story that frontline employees do not share.
How would you describe the general AI sentiment in your organization?
| Excited | Slightly skeptical | Disillusioned | Scared | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-Suite | 82% | 17% | 2% | 0.3% |
| Manager | 41% | 48% | 7% | 5% |
| Individual | 14% | 58% | 16% | 12% |
Seventy-five percent of employees say AI has made them less than 25% more efficient. General AI proficiency is not the same as role-specific AI competency. 58% of companies report seeing employees who are proficient at using AI tools in general but who struggle to apply AI meaningfully to the specific requirements of their role — this is exactly why AI ROI is failing to materialize.
Chapter Three
Manager readiness is 3.5x worse for AI than for traditional development
Get the ReportWhen asked about traditional capability conversations, 8% of organizations say their managers are not prepared. For AI capability conversations, that figure jumps to 31%. From the individual contributor’s vantage point, the AI conversation problem is roughly three and a half times worse than the conversation problem they were already living with. Managers sit at the execution layer. If they cannot have the conversation, the system cannot function.
The verdict from the people the programs are designed for.
Seventy-eight percent of C-suite leaders are confident their current approach will prepare the workforce for AI in the next three years. Forty-one percent of managers agree. Thirteen percent of individual contributors agree. The programs are built for employees. Employees do not believe they will work.
“Managers are very prepared for meaningful AI capability conversations”
% who agree, by tier of seniority
A 68-point gap. Two organizations, same survey, same week.
Source: Q50, n=1,228
Download the report
Read the full report
Learn what AI fluency actually requires, and the divide between leadership and employees.