KPMG: Executives Are Overspending on Tech and Underspending on Talent Development
The News
KPMG US's latest Adaptability Index research paints a worrying picture for enterprise leaders: 57% of business leaders said improving performance and efficiency was a top priority, but fewer than 10% said developing stronger workforce training programmes was a top objective. Executives were twice as likely to invest in new technology as they were in training employees, the study found.
The research, based on a survey of C-suite executives, found that 81% reported increased expectations from boards and owners for their organisations' ability to adapt to disruption. Yet the spending priorities are misaligned. Atif Zaim, KPMG US's deputy chair and managing principal, said many tech investments 'fall flat' because 'new tools alone don't drive performance.' The report notes that AI and technology adoption generally require change management, and firms that don't invest enough in building employee skills often struggle to realise their full value.
KPMG's recommendations include incorporating continuous learning into the company's fabric, championing structured decision-making processes, and investing in strategic partnerships. 'Adaptability is a recipe,' Zaim said. 'It comes from aligning how organisations work, how they develop people, and how decisions are made. The companies getting ahead are moving beyond isolated fixes to disciplined, coordinated execution.'
Why It Matters
For TA leaders, this research hits close to home — because the 'tech overspend' problem often lands squarely in talent acquisition. It's not uncommon to see enterprises invest six figures in a new AI sourcing tool while the recruiting team has no budget for interviewer training, hiring manager enablement, or skills-based assessment design. The KPMG data suggests this pattern is systemic, not accidental, and that it's undermining the ROI of the very technology investments meant to drive efficiency.
The lesson for TA leaders is practical: before approving the next technology purchase, ask whether equivalent investment is being made in the skills and change management required to make it work. A new AI screening tool won't deliver if recruiters don't know how to interpret its output and hiring managers haven't been trained to run structured interviews. The companies that get ahead, as Zaim puts it, are those that treat technology and talent development as a single investment decision, not two separate budgets.
Taking Action
All action is situated in your corporate context. These are starting points, not prescriptions — choose what fits.
Connect
Who to talk with in your enterprise
Your chief learning officer — Share the KPMG finding that firms are twice as likely to invest in tech as in training. Ask them to partner with TA on a 'tech adoption training plan' for the next major recruiting tool rollout — ensuring the investment includes change management and skills development, not just a licence fee.
Your chief financial officer or procurement lead — Propose that every TA technology purchase over a certain threshold must include a corresponding workforce development budget line. The KPMG data gives you a data-backed argument for why standalone tech investments underperform.
Your head of HR technology — Audit the last three TA technology implementations and assess whether adequate training and change management was provided. If adoption rates were below target, the KPMG framework offers a structured way to diagnose why.
Inspect
What to take a closer look at
Run a simple ratio calculation for your last financial year: total TA technology spend divided by total TA training and change management spend. If the ratio exceeds 5:1, you're in the territory KPMG warns about. Specific tool to look at: Your HR technology adoption analytics (most ATS and CRM platforms include user engagement dashboards) — compare log-in frequency and feature usage before and after training interventions.
Reflect
What to think about more deeply
The most interesting question isn't 'Are we spending enough on technology?' — it's 'If we doubled our training budget and halved our new tech spend, would our recruiting outcomes improve or decline?' The KPMG data suggests the answer might surprise most leadership teams, but how many are willing to run that experiment?