Workera says AI training is rising, but time and useful materials still lag

Workera’s survey of 1,000 employees at large US companies found that frequent AI use and access to AI-specific training have both grown, but workers still report obstacles to building skills. The useful distinction is between offering training and giving people the time and support to become capable.

Workera Watch analysis

What happened

In Workera’s 2026 survey, 67.8% of employees said they used AI tools several times a week, up from 39.9% in 2025. The share offered AI-specific training also more than doubled, from 24.8% to 58.3%.

Yet 56.4% said no time was allocated during working hours to develop AI skills, and 42.5% cited a lack of relevant learning materials. Workera also says 21.5% found training too basic or outdated, up from 16.8%.

The article draws on Workera’s survey and platform data, so these figures describe its reported findings, not a universal audit of every employer. It also says seven in ten people in a set of more than 22,000 domain assessments misjudged their ability by a meaningful margin.

Why it matters

The numbers point to a practical gap: employers may be making AI tools and courses more available without making skill development part of the working day. Counting course completions is easier than establishing what staff can actually do, but it answers a different question.

That matters as AI moves further into everyday work. If employees have no protected time to practise, or the material does not fit their role, a bigger training catalogue may mostly produce a bigger training catalogue.

Our read

Workera’s case for measuring capability rather than attendance is persuasive. Its figures are also the company’s own survey and platform results, so they are a prompt for better questions, not a final verdict on the state of every workforce. The useful test for employers is whether training changes what people can do, and whether the job gives them room to learn it.

What to watch

• Whether employers allocate paid working time for AI skills development.
• Whether training is tailored to the work people actually do.
• Whether future assessments show lasting improvements in demonstrated capability. Workera’s findings make the distinction between access and ability concrete. The full story is worth a look if your organisation is measuring AI readiness by course completions. Is protected time to practise more important than adding more AI training courses?

Discussion spark: Should employers prioritise protected working time for AI practice, or spend first on more and better training materials?

not affiliated with or endorsed by Workera