A CEO does not need to know how to design a learning programme, choose a facilitator or debate instructional methodology. But a CEO should know something far more important:

Is this organisation building the capability its strategy depends on?

That is where I think many conversations between CEOs and Heads of Learning and Development are still too shallow.

The Head of L&D presents the annual report. Programmes delivered. Participants trained. Completion rates. Learning hours. Satisfaction scores. Everything looks active and reassuring.

But those numbers mostly tell us what L&D has done.

They do not necessarily tell us what the organisation has become better able to do.

“A CEO should not manage the training calendar. But a CEO should know whether the organisation is building the capability its strategy depends on.”
Margaret Jackson

If I were a CEO, I would begin by asking the Head of L&D what capabilities the strategy requires that the organisation does not currently possess strongly enough.

If the business intends to expand into new markets, perhaps the challenge is commercial judgement, cross-cultural leadership or the ability to operate in more complex environments. If the organisation is digitising, technical skills will matter, but so will adaptability, data literacy and judgement. If innovation is central to the strategy, the question is not simply whether employees have attended an innovation programme. It is whether managers can create an environment where experimentation and intelligent risk-taking are actually possible.

Once the CEO starts asking about capability rather than courses, L&D moves closer to the heart of execution.

And execution is very much a CEO concern.

The next question should be equally uncomfortable: What evidence tells us this is actually a learning problem?

An executive says, “Our managers need leadership training.”

Perhaps they do.

But why are managers not performing as expected? Do they lack the skill, or do they already know what to do and avoid doing it? Is poor management tolerated? Are workloads unrealistic? Do senior leaders model the very behaviours we are now trying to change further down the organisation?

This is why I continue to say:

A training request is not a diagnosis. It is a hypothesis.

A strong Head of L&D should be able to explain not only what intervention is being recommended, but why learning is the right intervention in the first place.

Sometimes the most valuable answer L&D can give the CEO is:

“I don’t think this is a training problem.”

That is not resistance.

That is professional judgement.

CEOs should also be asking where capability gaps could seriously undermine the strategy.

The World Economic Forum, The Future of Jobs Report 2025 found that 63% of employers identify skills gaps as a major barrier to business transformation. That moves capability well beyond the territory of HR administration. It becomes a strategic risk.

If an organisation is investing heavily in AI but managers cannot redesign work around it, capability is constraining the investment. If a company wants to expand across markets but its leaders cannot manage complexity, capability is constraining growth. If a business wants innovation but its culture punishes experimentation, another innovation workshop will not rescue the strategy.

That is why I would expect the Head of L&D to know far more than which programmes employees attended.

I would expect insight into where capability is strong, where it is weak and where emerging gaps could threaten what the organisation is trying to achieve.

Then comes the question that should make every L&D report slightly nervous:

What are people actually doing differently?

Attendance is easy to count. Completion rates are easy to report. Participant satisfaction is easy to survey.

Behaviour change is harder.

Performance improvement is harder still.

But the fact that something is difficult to measure does not make it less important.

If managers attended coaching development, are they actually coaching? If customer-facing employees completed service training, are customers experiencing better service? If senior leaders participated in strategic-thinking development, are the conversations around the executive table becoming more strategic?

Learning has to cross the bridge from knowing to doing.

Otherwise, the organisation may have purchased an excellent learning experience without building much capability.

Managers matter enormously here.

An employee can attend an outstanding programme and return to a boss who provides no opportunity to practise, dismisses new ideas or punishes mistakes. The formal programme says, “Try this.” The workplace says, “Not here.”

Guess which one usually wins.

So I would also expect the CEO to ask the Head of L&D what managers are doing to reinforce learning, create opportunities for application and remove barriers that prevent employees from using new capabilities.

If the entire learning strategy depends on what happens in the classroom, it is not much of a learning strategy.

There is another question I would love more CEOs to ask:

“What should we stop?”

Organisations are remarkably good at adding programmes and surprisingly reluctant to remove them. Some courses become traditions. Nobody remembers exactly why they started, but cancelling them feels almost disrespectful.

Yet strategic L&D should be able to say, “This programme no longer addresses an important capability. We recommend stopping it and investing elsewhere.”

That is maturity.

L&D should not measure its importance by how many programmes it owns.

Sometimes value comes from knowing what not to do.

Finally, the CEO should ask what capabilities the organisation is building before it urgently needs them.

AI is changing work. Jobs are being redesigned. Technical skills are shifting, while judgement, adaptability, creativity and problem-solving remain critical.

A strong Head of L&D therefore needs one eye on today’s performance gaps and another on tomorrow’s capability requirements.

The function should be able to say:

“Here is what the business will need next, and here is where we are currently exposed.”

That is not training administration.

That is foresight.

Perhaps, then, the real issue is not whether L&D has a seat at the table. It is whether the conversation at the table is good enough.

The CEO should challenge L&D to explain why an intervention matters, what evidence supports it and what should change as a result. L&D should challenge the CEO when the requested solution is poorly diagnosed, when managers are blocking application or when organisational systems are working against the behaviours the business says it wants.

That is a mature relationship.

“When the CEO asks better questions about learning, L&D has to produce better answers about capability.”
Margaret Jackson

So the next time the Head of L&D sits at the executive table, perhaps the CEO should resist beginning with:

“How much training have we done?”

A much better question would be:

“What capability does this business need most? Where are we weak, and what are we doing about it?”

That is no longer a training conversation.

That is a strategy conversation.