A new report from Chegg, a global learning and workforce skilling company, suggests a widening disconnect between how employers and employees view skills training, and it may be further undermining frontline-heavy industries already under pressure from AI, burnout and staffing shortages.
The Frontline Workers Skills Index, based on over 2,000 employers and employees across 10 frontline-heavy industries in the US, reveals a striking split: while 77% of employers believe their skills training programmes are effective, 71% of employees say the training has had no impact on their pay or role.
In other words, companies think they’re fixing the skills gap. Workers aren’t feeling the benefit.
A Skills Gap Both Sides Agree Exists But Define Differently
At a surface level, there is consensus that a skills problem exists. Both employers and employees agree there are skills gaps in their organisations. However, there lies a deeper divide over which skills are actually lacking.\
Employers say the biggest gaps are in AI and automation skills (36%) and digital or IT capability (24%), reflecting pressure to modernise operations and keep pace with technological change.
Employees, however, see something different. They point to leadership and people management (25%) as the biggest deficiency, followed by communication and teamwork (24%). For them, the issue isn’t just technical readiness – it’s how organisations are structured, managed and supported.
This divergence suggests a deeper mismatch: employers are optimising for productivity and technology adoption, while employees are looking for progression, clarity and career development.
The Hidden Cost of Skills Shortages
The operational impact is already measurable. Nearly one-third of employers (30%) say they spend more than eight hours a week compensating for workforce skills gaps – effectively, a full working day lost to inefficiency. In manufacturing, that figure rises to 46%.
The knock-on effects are showing up in day-to-day operations: increased mistakes and rework (34%), rising stress and burnout (33%), heavier workloads (31%), and longer shifts or overtime (29%).
But the cost isn’t just operational, it’s human. 45% of employers and 35% of employees say they have considered quitting due to stress caused by understaffing or skills gaps. In food services and hospitality, that figure rises to 57% of employers and 43% of employees.
The implication is clear: skills gaps are no longer just a training issue. They’re becoming a retention problem.
AI Is Widening the Gap Faster Than Workers Can Close It
If there is one accelerant in this story, it is AI. Employers are moving quickly: 83% say they feel confident using AI tools in their role, and only 14% say AI is not currently used in their organisation at all. A quarter (25%) say AI use is already becoming an expectation in their role.
Employees, meanwhile, are far less engaged with the technology. More than half (52%) say AI is not used in their role at all, while only 44% feel confident using it.
Perhaps most strikingly, just 3% of employees believe AI proficiency is critical to career advancement, compared to 18% of employers.
The report suggests this is less an ability gap and more an awareness gap – with employees potentially underestimating how quickly expectations are shifting around them.
Training Is working. At least, according to employers
The most contentious finding may be around training itself. Employers are largely optimistic: 77% say their training programmes are effective. Employees are more sceptical, with only 58% agreeing.\
More importantly, 71% of employees say training has had no impact on their pay or role.
That disconnect is important because it means that even where training is being delivered, workers are questioning its relevance and outcomes.
Among those who said training was ineffective, 51% said it was too generic and not connected to day-to-day tasks. Others cited lack of hands-on learning (39%), insufficient coaching (34%) and weak managerial support (27%).
In short: training exists, but it is not always translating into real workplace progression. The gap is less about whether training happens and more about how it is designed. It is too often built around generic content rather than practical skills, coaching and follow-through that turn learning into career progression.
A Structural Problem, Not Just a Skills Problem
Employers are focused on AI readiness and operational performance. Employees are focused on career mobility and advancement. Both are valid, but most training systems were never designed to bridge that gap. As AI continues to reshape frontline industries, that disconnect is likely to become harder to ignore.
The risk for businesses is not just falling behind on skills, but failing to make workers feel those skills actually lead somewhere. Until skills development is connected to visible career outcomes, employers may keep investing in programmes their workers quietly write off.
Whether that means rethinking what training covers — balancing the AI and digital skills employers prioritise with the leadership and people skills employees say are missing — or simply making it more practical and relevant to the day-to-day job, training that serves only one side of the workforce is unlikely to close the gap for either.
