'Those firms that invest early will get that exponential benefit from the investment'
This article was created in partnership with The Talent Company.
Canada’s facing a talent crisis – one of their own organizations’ making. According to DDI’s Global Leadership Forecast 2025, 40% of stressed-out leaders have considered leaving leadership roles to improve their wellbeing – directly threatening leadership pipelines. What’s more, 21% of high-potential talent are on the verge of ‘revenge quitting’, while leaders openly admitted that their main skills gaps in 2025 were ‘setting strategy’ and ‘managing change’.
Yet, despite a mass exodus on the cards, investments into leadership development are still somewhat stunted. In a recent interview with HRD, Richard Antosik, Chief Client Officer and Chief Operating Officer at The Talent Company, explained that since the pandemic organizations have yet to return to the pre-COVID levels of L&D investment – and it’s causing internal chaos.
“Coming out of lockdown, and then [following the] Great Resignation, we saw a hold on investing into talent development. Companies were stuck in a ‘wait and see’ approach.”
Once organizations emerged from pandemic-era uncertainty, a talent reckoning followed. Promotions outpaced preparation, and many newly appointed leaders were ill-equipped for what was next.
“[Companies] had leaders who had high expectations but they didn’t necessarily have the skills to operate in the new roles that they had been promoted into,” explained Antosik.
Now, the pressure to upskill is unmistakable - and unavoidable.
“It’s no longer a quiet exodus. It is a thundering exodus,” added Antosik, referring to the Baby Boomer wave of senior leaders leaving the workforce. “We've seen numbers that show upwards of 70% are planning to [retire] in the next three to five years. And with that volume of institutional knowledge heading out the door, companies are being forced to rethink how - and whom - they train.”
In the past, companies might have relied on longer succession planning cycles. Today, however, the urgency is acute.
“Five or six years ago, we could have identified and trained someone on how to delegate or prioritize their time,” explained Antosik. “Now, they have to develop leaders that can do strategic planning, work with boards, manage multiple portfolios - operational, customer success, marketing and so on. [As such], the demands on leaders are going to be much greater, because the individuals that are leaving the marketplace have much more robust portfolios.”
And this shift is not just at the top. Forward-looking companies should be actively shifting investments downward into the pipeline and their home-grown talent.
“[These companies] realize that they need to invest heavily in emerging leaders and high potentials,” added Antosik. “They’re reallocating their spend into those groups. But the smarter move isn’t just who they train - it’s when they start.”
And firms that invest early also get huge benefits from the investment. By identifying successors while they’re still mastering their current role, companies give rising leaders a much-needed head start – as well as a confidence boost which leads to retention.
“They go back and they tell their partner, their friends at the pub saying ‘I've just been highlighted for this opportunity,” added Antosik. “And they immediately put their resume away.”
The emotional impact alone creates stickiness. Morale improves. Loyalty locks in. And, critically, it allows future leaders to start operating at the next level before the promotion.
“Eventually, when they do move into the role, their peers say: ‘It makes sense that she’s been promoted. She’s been operating this way for the past six months’,” added Antosik. “Here, time is of the essence. [They’re] trying to learn while putting out fires and still addressing some of [their] previous responsibilities. The last thing a lot of leaders have time for is to actually learn.”
While the business case is clear, universal access to leadership development remains uneven. The biggest barriers? Executive buy-in and shrinking budgets.
“The number one [challenge], and this probably goes across many investments, is: Is the investment going to actually pay itself back?” added Antosik. “Getting leadership buy-in is [crucial]. Looking longer-term, the most progressive organizations - the ones that typically win across verticals - are the ones that continue to invest, regardless of market condition. It’s just built into their DNA.”
And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Antosik shared a recent case study from a large Canadian payments company that ran multiple leadership cohorts.
“They brought the leaders through as they were ascending into the next role,” he explained. “The results were concrete. Based on observable behaviour, performance in role, assessments and surveys… there was measurable benefit in performance and engagement.”
Here demonstrating ROI is, once again, critical. “They want to see that measurable impact,” he added. “Without it, even well-intentioned initiatives risk fading. Everybody’s excited at the offsite. But if there’s no sustainment all of that investment sort of wanes.”
That’s where structured assessments, manager feedback loops, and longer-term metrics come into play.
“They want to ensure that whatever programming, coaching, onboarding support… they can measure the impact both in the short and then in the mid to longer term.”
Of course, no conversation about leadership development in 2025 escapes the question of AI. Should training be automated, human-led, or somewhere in between? For Antosik, the answer very much depends on what the organizations wants and needs at the time.
“If it’s hard skill training - void of emotion, connection, collaboration - AI or self-directed learning may be a good route,” he explained. “But when it comes to interpersonal leadership skills, the human element is non-negotiable. The skills we’re training bring in the human element and the emotion. Something you can’t read or find in a book or online.
“Usually with hard skill training, think about where AI can help. Soft skill training, has greater impact with human facilitation.”
Still, hybrid models are gaining traction. Antosik cited a blended learning program co-designed with a financial services client. The program integrated live facilitated sessions, peer coaching, self-directed digital resources, and individual assignments including some AI-supported practice.
The results? Rather impressive.
“Ninety-five percent of the participants reported improved strategic thinking and change leadership,” Antosik told HRD. “Ninety percent noted enhanced influencing skills.” And these weren’t self-reported numbers alone.
“We could go back through assessment and quantify these measurable impacts as well. We’ve now replicated it not only within the organization but with other clients too.”
In the years to come, leadership won’t be just about running a team – it’s about readiness, for complexity, for cross-functional decision-making, for transformation at scale. From Antosik’s vantage point, the most competitive companies are shifting away from episodic learning and embracing systemic leadership pipelines. That includes identifying top talent early, supporting them before promotion, and deploying the right delivery model, AI, human, or blended, to drive measurable change.
And while pressures like generational exits and market uncertainty have accelerated the urgency, Antosik remains optimistic – especially for those who’re ahead of the curve.
“Those firms that invest early will get that exponential benefit from the investment,” added Antosik.
