Learning and Talent Development Comparison Survey 2011

International learning and talent development comparison survey 2011

in collaboration with

and SHRM India 2011

© Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2011 © Chartered LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT Issued: August 2011 Reference: 5580 Issued: August 2011 Reference: LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 1 2011 2 6 7 23 25 27 13 17 20

Appendix 1: Sample profile 30 Acknowledgements 5 Measuring practice: evaluating learning5 Measuring practice: evaluating and talent development learning on 6 Economic situation and expenditure and talent development 3 Leadership development and coaching 3 Leadership development and 4 E-learning Background to survey Background in learning development and talent 1 Trends management 2 Talent Introduction and executive summary Introduction CONTENTS In-house development programmes are viewed In-house development programmes are practice Asked to rank the most effective conferences and learning events were seen as critical. Internal knowledge-sharing events were also ranked highly in all countries for leaders. as most effective by practitioners in all three as most effective and countries. Just under two-fifths of US Indian firms and over half of UK respondents see these approaches to L&TD as most effective. Coaching by line managers is viewed as the intervention by more than half most effective of UK practitioners but ranks lower for US and Indian practitioners when assessing the most L&TD practices. On-the-job training effective measure in ties as the third top most effective UK and Indian responses with around a third of respondents, and is slightly higher for the US. for developing leaders, coaching by external practitioners and attendance at external

the years. That’s how we have come to identify how we have come the years. That’s the issues such as the popularity of coaching, of e-learning proliferation and the development So what of talent management approaches. we see in this initial survey? can trends • • Effectiveness of L&TD practices Effectiveness is The CIPD survey upon which this comparison based looks at the extent and perceived strongly of thirteen L&TD practices over effectiveness Learning and survey report for the UK,

issues are outlined below. as coaching, leadership development, talent management, e-learning, evaluation and the impact of economic circumstances on L&TD. In in approach doing so, we uncover some differences and perspective within the various nations and build the baseline for a future comparison. The key Kong, Taiwan and China. The survey gives an Kong, Taiwan indicative flavour of practice using the CIPD’s look comprehensive suite of survey questions. We at everything from the proliferation of learning and development practice to specific areas such This data gives us an indicative comparison of This data gives us an indicative comparison how L&TD is shaping up across three countries The representing significant areas of the world. survey is the first fruit of a collaboration which we aim to extend into our 2012 survey and which we will expand to other nations, including Hong the Society of Human Resource Management the Society of Human Resource Management extensive (SHRM). SHRM were able to use their network of HR/L&TD (learning and talent and made development) practitioners in the US our survey available to their Indian membership. in practice between different nations. In this in practice between different the UK, survey we compare three countries – trends. the US and India – to investigate these Using the baseline of our 2011 Development Talent we collaborated with our US-based counterpart, Learning and talent development is practised Learning and talent development is practised worldwide but there are subtle differences INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE AND INTRODUCTION SUMMARY LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 2 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 3 2011 Coaching is prominently used in all three The three most common areas of focus for In terms of assessing the effectiveness of talent the effectiveness In terms of assessing view theirIndian organisations are more likely to countries, with more than four-fifths reporting countries, with more than four-fifths the use of coaching. whereas in India organisations more commonly acumen.report gaps in business and commercial identifyThe Indian sample is also most likely to acrossgaps in preparing managers for leading A bigcultures and to help develop global business. focus on helping leaders to manage performance is also an issue. leadership skill gap is innovation, especially critical in mature economies such as the UK and US, and as important in a strong emergent economy such as India. This perhaps reflects a view that innovation is about invention and expensive research and development activity rather than incremental process and product improvements which can lead to big results. leadership development will be enabling the strategic goals, improving the organisation’s skills of leaders to act in a more strategic and future-focused way and helping to develop high-potential employees. practitioners are less likely to favour coachingpractitioners are less approaches such as joband more likely to favour as a talent developmentrotation and shadowing accelerator. programmes are marginallymanagement, Indian retention of high-potentialsmore focused on the record this as the best(more than two-fifths gauge of effectiveness). talent management programmes as effective UK(nearly seven-tenths), compared with the talentand US with around one-half seeing their programmes as effective. staff,in terms of coaching/mentoring/developing US organisations identify gaps in leadership skillsUS organisations identify gaps in leadership Notably low in perceived importance as aNotably low in perceived importance as

• • • • • Leadership development and coaching • All three countries are most likely to focus their Talent management activities are particularly Talent This trend towards the integration of L&TDThis trend towards the integration of In terms of their focus in the next 12 months, In terms of their focus US specialists are more likely to spend US specialists are more talent management activities on high-potential employees and leaders. potential programmes are most likely to be adopted for talent development. Indian popular in India. This finding perhaps reflects the greater immediacy of talent management in India given the growth of the economy and the scarcity of talent at all levels, as well as the inherent mobility of the Indian workforce. learning and talent outcomes is another prominent converging theme, as is a closer integration between L&TD and business strategy. anticipate the major changes to L&TD in the nextanticipate the major changes to L&TD two years, with integration between coaching, OD and L&TD the most prominently anticipated shift in practice in all three countries. change management activities, with a slight change management activities, with divergence between the US and the others. of This perhaps reflects the greater maturity OD influences in US L&TD. toand OD is seen when we ask practitioners L&TD strategy, with more than two-fifths with more than two-fifths L&TD strategy, The seeing this as their highest priority. second highest priority is delivering training activity interventions. The third and growing and is working on organisational development perceived effectiveness of this type of learning of perceived effectiveness US. In the UK only one- intervention in the practice. the most effective tenth reports this as three countries will be respondents in all an spending most of their time developing their time designing and implementing the their time designing training/e- delivery of technology-enabled the greater use and learning. This reflects Coaching, in-house development and high- A greater emphasis on measuring and evaluatingA greater emphasis on measuring and alent management

• • T • • • • • E-learning effectiveness, however, is an issue in however, E-learning effectiveness, Indian organisations report the use of a richer Indian organisations use of Indian practitioners also report greater learning, with nearly a fifth reporting the use learning, with nearly a fifth reporting They of these and their attendant applications. UK were thus 20 times more likely than the US to and about 7 times more likely than the L&TD. use these emerging platforms to support national This perhaps reflects their emergent to leap hunger for technology and their ability over some of the stages of technology-based and learning – and perhaps the embeddedness commitment to other approaches in the UK and US. all three countries. Fewer than a quarter in all countries report that the majority of employees complete e-learning courses. This may be because of the lack of integration of some e-learning interventions into the wider L&TD agenda. There is common consent to the view when blended that e-learning is more effective with other types of learning, with nearly nine- tenths in all countries agreeing. variety of e-learning/ICT facilities learning such variety of e-learning/ICT management systems, as webinars, learning wikis. For example, virtual classrooms and using learning libraries about two-fifths report with around a fifth in and wikis compared than half of Indian the UK and US. More using virtual learning respondents report a environments compared with just under for quarter for the UK and just under a third are more the US respondents. US respondents likely to use webinars and virtual classrooms than the other countries. UK practitioners are more likely to favour blended learning, programmes. support emergent smartphone technologies to

• New media and web 2.0 New media and web • • The availability of e-learning is higher for the Indian organisations using e-learning tend to Indian organisations using e-learning E-learning is prominent in all the surveyed E-learning is prominent in all the surveyed In terms of coaching priorities, performance In terms of coaching of respondents in the US and just over one- quarter in India. UK score lowly in their use of e-learning, are UK score lowly in their use of e-learning, reported more widely for the Indian sample. UK than the other countries. Just under two- e-learning to the thirds report that they offer compared with two-fifths majority of their staff, thirds) as opposed to the four-fifths who thirds) as opposed to the four-fifths use it use e-learning in the US and UK, they for a wider variety of purposes. Language learning, business development and product and development, all areas where the US the UK or India at present. range of delivering a wider use it more widely, interventions than UK and US organisations. For example, though Indian organisations report slightly less use of e-learning (two- countries but the take-up is higher in the US, countries but the take-up is higher in where there is much more of a systematic in either approach to learning technology than Supporting L&TD and building leadership Supporting L&TD and other primary objectives capability were the sample was more likely of coaching. The US coaching for learning and to report the use of talent development. management trumps all other purposes in all management trumps more than two-fifths three countries, with that direction. in efforts focusing coaching

• • E-learning • • LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 4 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 5

1.7 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 2011 60.4 22.9 12.7 100 Valid % Valid 5 2 1 16 13 31 556 211 110 921 952 Frequency

the countries mean that we should be the countries mean that we should be cautious in terms of any conclusions drawn. be aware that effective should also We response rates can vary according to the insert questions. For that reason we clearly the base response size below all figures. we have conducted statistical Finally, tests which allow us to be sure that the between responses have some differences level of statistical significance. The survey gives us some flavour but more work will need to be done in building response rates in future surveys. The respondent numbers 1, and percentages are given above in Table and the statistical tests used and their results are explained in the endnotes on page 29. Data limitations low comparative sample sizes between Very Table 1: Country of respondent 1: Country Table UK/European Union US India Middle East Eastern Europe Africa Central America Australia and Oceania Total Unspecified Total Expenditure on L&TD has fallen faster and risen Expenditure on L&TD has fallen faster The use of anecdotal data in the shape ofThe use of anecdotal data in the shape Evaluation of learning is more likely to take Evaluation of learning trend is also reflected in headcount within trend is also reflected in headcount within L&TD. (KPIs), return on expectation and return on(KPIs), return on expectation and return than ininvestment are less common in the UK the US or India. opposed more slowly in the US and the UK as This to India, where expenditure is buoyant. stories and testimony is more common in the UKstories and testimony is more common India (just(nearly three-fifths) than in the US or over two-fifths). The use of more quantitative measures such as key performance indicators India than in the US. Post-course evaluations India than in the US. the most common (‘happy sheets’) are areas, but they are method across all three in the UK, where almost particularly common conduct evaluations use all organisations that them. place in the UK (more than four-fifths) and than four-fifths) place in the UK (more

Dr John McGurk Development, CIPD Learning and Talent Adviser, • • Evaluation and impact of learningEvaluation and impact and talent development • International Learning and Talent International Learning and Talent comparison was completed by a total of 952 practitioners. The majority (60%) total of 952 practitioners. The majority the UK, answered the survey with reference to with but a substantial proportion was responding Only a regard to the US (23%) or India (13%). other areas minority of managers responded for 1, page 5). (see Table The CIPD’s 2011 The CIPD’s Development BACKGROUND TO SURVEY BACKGROUND LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 6 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 7 2011 60 55 54 UK USA India 38 38 40 37 35 32 32 29 28 27 centage 26 25 25 24 24 Per 22 22 21 21 21 20 19 18 18 20 16 16 16 15 secondment and shadowing are effective than secondment and shadowing are effective learning setsthose for the UK or India, while action in India. are perceived to be more effective particularly effective by UK respondents. Coaching particularly effective rated asby line managers is also far more commonly in the UK than by respondents reporting effective morefor the US or India. US respondents were rotation,likely to report that e-learning and job 14 13 12 11 11 10 10 7 5 2 Base: 837 0 ces ning f the job esour ning sets E-lear ogrammes ed of nal practitioners On-the-job training Action lear Audio-visual r Formal education courses Coaching by line managers ences, workshops and events nal knowledge-sharing events -led training deliver Mentoring and buddying schemes Coaching by exter Inter In-house development pr otation, secondment and shadowing nal confer Job r Instructor Exter TRENDS IN LEARNING AND IN LEARNING TRENDS TALENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT Figure 1: Which three learning and development practices do you believe are most effective? (%) most effective? learning practices do you believe are 1: Which three and development Figure The perceived effectiveness of learning and talent The perceived effectiveness considerably across development practices differs regions (Figure 1). While in-house development the topis most commonly reported to be among learning and development three most effective to bepractices in all three regions, it is considered Effectiveness of learningEffectiveness and talent development practices 1 100 UK USA India 82 78 80 77 69 63 62 59 59 60 54 52 49 47 43 42 40 40 36 34 33 31 31 Figure 2, however, also reveals significant also Figure 2, however, Respondents for across the regions. differences rate formal educationthe US more commonly for as effective training courses and instructor-led responding for the UK or India.leaders than those sets and mentoring andIn the UK, action learning popular for leaders than inbuddying are more is also a divergence in termsother regions. There programmes, with UKof in-house development those of therespondents favouring these more than forUS and Indian comparators. People responding practicesorganisations in India tend to select fewer US or the UK.overall than those responding for the in answering This may reflect cultural differences of practicequestionnaires, or less diversity in types for developing leaders in India found to be effective is reinforcedcompared with the other nations. This by a similar bias in Figure 1. 30 29 28 centage 26 25 Per 23 23 20 20 19 19 20 16 15 15 15 12 9 8 7 Base: 820 0 ces ning f the job esour ning sets E-lear ogrammes ed of nal practitioners On-the-job training Action lear Learning and Talent Learning and Talent Audio-visual r Formal education courses Coaching by line managers ences, workshops and events nal knowledge-sharing events -led training deliver Mentoring and buddying schemes Coaching by exter Inter In-house development pr otation, secondment and shadowing survey report) has shown that survey report) has shown nal confer Job r Instructor Exter effective for leaders? (%) effective Figure 2: Which of the following learning and development practices do you believe are the most 2: Which of the following learning and development practices do you believe are Figure Figure 2 shows that, across all three regions, externalcoaching by external practitioners and seen to beconferences, workshops and events are learning methods for leaders. the most effective house development programmes, coaching by linehouse development training were deemedmanagers and on-the-job employees generally methods for to be effective of organisations, but far fewerby the vast majority among the most effective reported these are leaders.learning and development practices for Our research (CIPD 2011 Our research (CIPD Development vary considerably effective methods deemed most in- groups. In a UK sample, staff for different LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 8 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 9 58 60 e UK e USA e India 50 50 2011 47 45 45 45 Use mor Use mor Use mor Use less UK Use less USA Use less India 40 39 39 40 37 36 36 34 34 33 32 32 31 29 28 centage 26 26 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 24 Per 23 23 23 22 21 21 21 20 19 19 19 18 18 20 17 16 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 10 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 Base: 526 0 nal ces ning ences, events schemes f the job esour ning sets E-lear ogrammes -led training practitioners pr ed of and shadowing nal confer On-the-job training Action lear deliver otation, secondment Coaching by exter Exter Instructor Audio-visual r In-house development workshops and events nal knowledge-sharing Mentoring and buddying Job r Figure 3: Changes in the use of learning 3: Changes in the use and Figure in the private sector (%) development practices Coaching by line managers Inter survey Learning and Talent Development Learning and Talent across all areas. On-the-job training and the use of audio-visual resources are increasingly being used in India. The use of more costly development practices such as external conferences, workshops and events, and classroom-based learning is becoming less frequent It may in fact reflect that the other countries areIt may in fact reflect that the other countries ‘catching up’. In line with our UK sample findings, organisations across all areas tend to be switching to less costly development practices such as in- house development programmes, coaching by line managers and internal knowledge-sharing events. India report it is being used less. This may reflectIndia report it is being used less. This may alreadythe fact that Indian organisations have ICT-based made significant strides in integrating inlearning and talent development, as evidenced their widespread adoption of such technologies. organisations only. Figure 3 suggests that e-learning is becoming Fewerincreasingly popular in the UK and US. report it is being organisations in India, however, fromused more there and nearly a fifth responding 2011 publicreport). Given the small proportion of sample,sector organisations in the US and Indian Figure 3 shows changes in the use of learning sectorand development practices for private to more cost-effective development practices, as development to more cost-effective given the economic downturnmight be expected organisations to reduce costs.and the pressure on a severe spending with The UK public sector, likely to be reducing its usesqueeze, is particularly (CIPDof all learning and development practices Changes in learning and talent development practices data based on our UKFor the past two years, organisations are switchingsample has found that 0 0 2 3 100 5 7 7 8 8 0 42 52 91 81 3 92 16 13 5 16 27 81 26 25 80 5 6 32 31 27 41 82 31 23 49 44 53 43 60 58 27 30 46 centage Per 55 Limited involvement No involvement 94 56 24 40 specialisation of HR responsibilities in the UK thatspecialisation of HR responsibilities in the has resulted in more training and development the rolespecialists compared with the US, where also noted may be subsumed under general HR. We a divergence in the use of external consultants in India, with two-fifths reporting some involvement by consultants and only 16% that they have no involvement. The ‘no involvement’ figure for the UK and US are conversely above 45%. This perhaps reflects the greater maturity of delivery coupled with the recent austerity which has led to the disengagement of many consultants and a requirement to deliver in-house. In India it may reflect a shortage of expert L&TD people or the sheer scale of the learning and talent development in a booming economy. effort 62 61 61 56 04 29 52 44 46 20 40 39 38 22 30 28 13 esponsibility 16 14 12 Main r Some involvement 74 52 22 Base: 549 0 UK UK UK UK UK UK

USA USA USA USA USA USA India India India India India India

organisation specialists

for the the for development

working working d an

department consultants ners lear managers managers training

HR nal Exter Employees/ Senior Line ning, ear L

responsibility (56% compared with 30% reporting that the main responsibility resides within HR departments). These findings may reflect a greater In the US, HR departments (52%) most commonly have the main responsibility for development, followed by senior managers (46%) and learning, training and development specialists (40%). In the UK the latter most commonly have main than two-fifths of organisations, line managers also Nearly two-fifths also have a major responsibility. reported that the employees/learners themselves a far greater proportion have main responsibility, than in the UK or US. In India, responsibility for determining learningIn India, responsibility for determining and development needs does not fall to one individual or department. More than three-fifths reported senior managers, learning, training and development specialists and the HR department all have the main responsibility (Figure 4). In more Responsibility for determining learning and development needs Figure 4: Responsibility for determining the learning 4: Responsibility for (%) development needs of the organisation and Figure LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 10 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 11

2011 3 3 50 46 46 45 45 UK USA India 43 43 40 38 33 33 33 31 30 28 28 27 27 26 25 25 24 24 24 23 centage 21 Per 20 and perceived effectiveness of this type of learning and perceived effectiveness US. UK and Indian L&TDintervention in the more likely to manage specialists are, however, development andor co-ordinate organisational than their US counterpartschange programmes 31%). This perhaps reflects(43% compared with has established changethe fact that the US functions within othermanagement and OD the US and Indian L&TDoperational areas. Both on effective specialists are marginally more focused evaluation than UK respondents. This value-for- in India. Inmoney focus is especially pronounced lessterms of the time spent it could be considered of a priority than the issues discussed above. 16 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Base: 825 0 ning forts nal trainers elationships exter or individual support with senior managers management activities ning and development ef Delivering one-to-one coaching Managing/organising delivery by Managing/organising delivery by Overall management/planning of lear but not in the training department Monitoring and evaluating training Organisational development/change Implementation discussions/building elationships with other line managers r technology-enabled training/e-lear trainers employed by your organisation Designing and implementing delivery of Strategy discussions/building r Delivering courses/time in a training facility Figure 5: Top three activities for learning activities in the next and development specialists in your organisation three 5: Top Figure 12 months (%) courses or in a training facility. In the US, specialists In courses or in a training facility. andare more likely to spend their time designing implementing the delivery of technology-enabled usetraining/e-learning. This reflects the greater spend most of their time over the next 12 monthsspend most of their of learning andin overall management/planning 5 also shows some Figure development efforts. the areas. In the UK across interesting differences likely than their counterpartsspecialists are more deliveringin the US and India to spend their time Key activities for learningKey activities for and development specialists areas report that learning andRespondents from all in their organisation willdevelopment specialists 60 3 3 53 51 50 46 UK USA India 39 40 38 36 34 33 33 32 31 30 30 30 28 centage Per 25 25 25 22 19 20 18 16 15 15 They are also more likely to anticipate a moveThey are also more web 2.0 technologies to delivertowards the use of development but are leastlearning, training and greater use of short, focusedlikely to anticipate as ‘bite-sized’ learning anddelivery methods such and so on. using smartphone apps, to e-learning reportedAgain as in the response simply reflect that Indianon page 9, this may along theorganisations in our sample are further thanroad towards integrating these approaches their UK and US counterparts. 14 14 13 12 11 11 10 7 Base: 825 0 ners ning and fectiveness ning and using -led instruction and line managers oss the organisation , Facebook, LinkedIn, smartphone apps, etc. ning and development SecondLife, and so on) itter development as a function ning acr activity and business strategy oom and trainer ning, training and development evaluating training ef and organisational development esponsibility devolved to lear ds use of web 2.0 type technology eater centralisation of lear eater integration between coaching, Gr such as ‘bite-sized’ lear eater r e use of short, focused delivery methods A gr (for example Tw Gr e emphasis on monitoring, measuring and Link L&TD with performance management management to drive organisational change Mor to deliver lear organisational development and performance eater use of e-lear Mor Move towar Closer integration of lear Less use of classr Gr

organisations are more likely to anticipate greaterorganisations are more likely to anticipate effectiveness. emphasis on measurement of training integration between coaching, organisationalintegration between managementdevelopment and performance change (Figure 6). UKto drive organisational likely than organisations inorganisations are more a greater responsibilityIndia or the US to anticipate In India,devolved to learners and line managers. Anticipated changes over the next two years Anticipated changes anticipated major changeThe most commonly over the learning and development affecting of area, is a greaternext two years, regardless organisations over the next two years (%) organisations over the next two years Figure 6: Anticipated top three major organisational changes affecting learning changes affecting and development in major organisational 6: Anticipated top three Figure LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 12 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 13 2011

100 88 USA India UK 80 76 75 74 72 68 64 64 59 60 54 54 53 53 51 50 49 centage 43 Per activities? most likelyOrganisations operating in the UK are onto focus their talent management activities andhigh-potential employees, senior managers a broadergraduates, whereas in India and the US range of employees are likely to be included (Figure 7). Only two-fifths of UK organisations in their talent management include all staff of those inactivities compared with three-fifths a more sustainable path to developing talent. Thea more sustainable path to developing andrelative maturity of the US and UK economies on thethe fact that talent management has been goes someagenda in these countries for some time way to explain the relative differences. by talent managementWho is covered 41 39 40 35 34 20 Base: 432 0 f All staf Graduates Junior managers Senior managers Middle managers echnical specialists T High-potential employees This finding perhaps reflects the greater 1 TALENT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT TALENT producers, thus many business leaders are seekingproducers, thus many business leaders by talent management activities (%) mostly or all covered of employees that are 7: Groups Figure turn away from the reward-driven approach whichturn away from the reward-driven approach in thecaused high levels of churn and instability up paysupply of key talent. In addition, bidding unitto attract skilled labour has increased Indian lower-cost labour costs relative to China and other activities compared with 60% in the UK and 57%activities compared with 60% in the UK in the US. givenimmediacy of talent management in India ofthe growth of the economy and the scarcity mobilitytalent at all levels, as well as the inherent reflects of the Indian workforce. It also perhaps a Talent management activities are particularly management activities are Talent India.common in organisations operating in in thisEighty-six per cent of organisations operating managementregion reported they undertake talent 2 80 UK USA India 63 61 58 60 55 51 50 49 47 47 38 40 centage 36 35 34 34 Per 29 recruiting key staff to the organisation is a key to the organisation recruiting key staff the American sample butobjective for half of (38%) or the UK (24%). Theless common in India emphasis on retainingIndian sample put more of their and enabling the achievement key staff whereas the talent strategic goals organisation’s of the UK sample appearmanagement activities with just under a thirdto be more future-focused, of meeting the futurereporting the key objective Slightlyskills requirements of the organisation. US andlower proportions were recorded for the India (US 18%, India 14%). 24 20 18 18 20 14 13 12 10 10 9 7 6 5 4 2 1 Base: 519 0 f f e or oles e skills e senior onment employees ce-planning ecruiting key to other r esour managers/leaders r Retaining key staf owing futur f to the organisation business envir essing skills shortages Gr Redeployment of staf Assisting organisational staf Meeting the futur Developing high-potential organisational structur Supporting changes in the Addr ements of the organisation Attracting and r organsiation's strategic goals equir Enabling the achievement of the r

senior managers/leaders (Figure 8). The latter issenior managers/leaders (Figure 8). The andparticularly common for the UK. Attracting compared with those reporting for the UK. compared with those management activities Objectives of talent objectives of talent managementThe most common of location, are developingactivities, regardless futurehigh-potential employees and growing Indian or US companies. Similarly, respondents in Similarly, Indian or US companies. more likely to report thatIndia and the US are activities cover all or thetheir talent management and technical specialistsmajority of junior managers Figure 8: What are the three main objectives of your organisation’s talent management activities? (%) main objectives of your organisation’s the three 8: What are Figure LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 14 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 15 60 2011 52 49 UK USA India 40 37 centage 34 34 34 Per 33 29 26 26 25 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 20 19 19 18 20 15 14 14 12 11 11 10 9 9 9 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 2 Base: 519 0 es es otation ning sets Coaching ogrammes ogrammes Courses at Job r ee feedback qualification pr pr oss-functional High-potential nal institutions Mentoring and and shadowing Cr nal secondments nal secondments oject assignments buddying schemes Assessment centr exter Action lear pr Courses leading to a Development centr 360-degr Inter Exter development schemes management/business In-house development Graduate development Figure 9: Top three most effective talent talent most effective three 9: Top Figure (%) management activities secondments among their top three most effective effective secondments among their top three most activities than organisations in the US or the UK, perhaps reflecting some concern about possible talent leakage as individuals experience other organisations and settings. talent, although less so in India. Organisations intalent, although less so in India. Organisations andIndia are more likely to report job rotation amongshadowing as well as 360-degree feedback talent management activities. their most effective internalThey are considerably less likely to report systematic approach to measurement and the valuesystematic approach to measurement and drivers of talent. activitiesFigure 9 shows which talent management Coaching are considered to be most effective. ofranks highly in all areas as an accelerator their talent management activities as ineffective their talent management activities as ineffective one-tenthcompared to those in India where about Again report that talent management is ineffective. retentionthis could reflect the growth and talent a morefocus of Indian companies, and perhaps to report that their talent management activitiesto report that their (68%) of the More than two-thirds are effective. their activities as very or fairlyIndian sample rate of UK organisations compared with half effective in the US. Around(50%) and 55% of organisations US seeone-fifth of organisations in the UK and Effectiveness of talent management activities of talent management Effectiveness management activitiesNot only are talent (as reported above) butmore common in India in India are also most likelyorganisations operating Learning and 50 UK USA India 42 41 40 40 37 36 35 35 35 35 34 survey report). 33 32 32 32 30 29 30 28 27 26 24 23 centage 22 22 21 20 20 Per 20 18 18 12 12 12 9 10 7 than a quarter identify clear success criteria atthan a quarter identify than a third have a formalthe outset and less evaluation process forannual (or other regular) at an organisation-widetalent management has shown that organisationslevel. CIPD research are more likely to reportthat use these processes practices are effective, their talent management they use the process to makepresumably because (CIPD 2011 targeted improvements Development Talent 3 2 0 Base: 517 0 oles nally egular) fectiveness ently evaluated succession plans omoted inter om line managers as 'high potential' None of the above Clear success criteria identified at the outset om employees involved is not curr Implementation of formal Employee attitude surveys ime and cost to fill key r Retention of those identified at an organisation-wide level T Feedback fr ocess for talent management Formal annual (or other r in talent management initiatives alent management ef T Feedback fr Anecdotally – observation of changes The number of people pr evaluation pr

more to improve their evaluation processes. Lessmore to improve their evaluation processes. three areas (Figure 10). The Indian sample is farthree areas (Figure evidence/observation ofless likely to use anecdotal likely to include the retentionchanges and more as ‘high potential’ in theirof those identified from Figure 10 however, evaluations. It is clear, could dothat many organisations from all areas Evaluation of talent management practices Evaluation of talent involved in talentFeedback from employees and their line managersmanagement initiatives to evaluate practices in allare commonly used Figure 10: How is the effectiveness of talent management practices evaluated in your organisation? (%) of talent management 10: How is the effectiveness Figure LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 16 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 17 2011

60 54 51 50 48 UK USA India 44 43 43 40 40 39 40 38 36 34 33 31 30 centage 27 Per 25 25 24 22 21 19 19 20 15 economy such as India. This perhaps reflects a vieweconomy such as India. This perhaps reflects expensivethat innovation is about invention and thanresearch and development activity rather incremental process and product improvements is an areathat can lead to big results. Innovation as ato which learning and talent development is one of thespecialism has paid less attention, yet it key transformation pivot points for organisations. that organisations reporting for this area are mostthat organisations reporting for this area country. likely to be operating in more than one of innovation,Notably low in importance is the area such as theespecially critical in mature economies emergentUK and US, and as important in a strong 10 10 10 10 8 7 5 5 3 3 2 Base: 841 0 f es Innovation oss cultur e managers for Motivational skills epar national assignments cial acumen: the ability ds for performance and inter help pr help develop global business To Leading and managing change To dealing with underperformance Communication/interpersonal skills to think strategically for the business Coaching/mentoring/developing staf e managers for leading acr setting standar Performance management: in particular Leading people and people management epar Business and commer pr To LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT LEADERSHIP AND COACHING AND COACHING Figure 11: Which of the following leadership skills, if any, have you identified gaps in? 11: Which of the following leadership skills, if any, Figure (%) (Please select a maximum of three) to help develop global business, unsurprising givento help develop global business, unsurprising in coaching/mentoring/developing staff, whereas in coaching/mentoring/developing staff, reportedin India, organisations more commonly Thegaps in business and commercial acumen. gaps inIndian sample is also most likely to identify cultures andpreparing managers for leading across deficits, organisations across all three areas, butdeficits, organisations across all three gaps inparticularly in the UK, commonly reported ability toperformance management skills, leaders’ lead peoplelead and manage change, and skills to and people management (Figure 11). Organisations identify gapsin the US are also particularly likely to Leadership skills deficit skillsWhen asked to report their main leadership 3 50 46 45 45 UK USA India 43 42 41 40 38 36 33 29 29 30 28 26 26 24 centage 21 21 20 Per 19 20 18 18 17 16 14 14 13 10 8 6 6 future-focused way and developing high-potential future-focused way by the organisations (Figure individuals valued are fairly obvious given the 12). These priorities in all three countries, where economic situation facing financial headwinds and the US and UK are is in high expansion mode. the Indian economy 5 5 4 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 Base: 832 0 e e es oles oss cultur e-focused way the organisation d of behaviour for oss the organisation national assignments those in leadership r nal or partner organisations help develop global business evailing organisational cultur To strategic and futur ent underperformance of leaders e managers for leading acr e managers for inter epar oving the skills of leaders to think in a mor Accelerating change within the organisation No leadership development activities in place oducing a common standar epar Changing the pr Developing high-potential individuals valued by Pr essing the curr Impr elationships with exter help pr Addr To Changing the leadership style acr help pr To oving r Impr Enabling the achievement of the organisation's strategic goals

Figure 12: What will be the focus of leadership development activities within your organisation in the 12: What will be the focus of leadership Figure next 12 months? (%) 12 months will be enabling the achievement of 12 months will be enabling goals, improving the strategic the organisation’s think in a more strategic and skills of leaders to Focus of leadership development activities Focus of leadership areas where The three most common areas will focus their organisations in all activities over the next leadership development LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 18 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 19 2011 1 2 100 6 91 13 13 18 19 15 12 26 5 39 80 48 12 12 25 29 100 28 3 3 63 12 47 35 management. Preparing and supporting people inmanagement. Preparing key priority for one in threeleadership roles is the UK (33%) and India (29%) butorganisations in the the US (18%), whereas usingis less of a priority in learning and developmentcoaching to support in the US (37%is more frequently prioritised in the UK and 24% in India).compared with 21% coaching Responsibility for managersIn all areas, but particularly in India, line and internal coaches have the main responsibility reflectfor coaching (Figure 14). These findings inthose in Figure 4, where it was noted that andIndia responsibility for determining learning individualdevelopment needs does not fall to one or department. 25 60 73 18 32 29 38 33 centage 80 27 Per 12 Limited involvement No involvement 35 t know 40 30 Don’ Other oles 14 37 91 60 60 25 54 24 47 23 21 42 20 centage 37 32 Per 19 esponsibility 23 40 19 15 12 93 Main r Some involvement 4 Base: 698 0 ning and development Other Other Other 44 44 20 41 nal coaches nal coaches nal coaches Line managers Line managers Line managers nal consultants nal consultants nal consultants Inter Inter Inter eparing and supporting people in leadership r Exter Exter Exter Supporting performance management Supporting lear Pr Base: 0 UK India USA UK USA Figure 14: Responsibility for coaching activity Figure areas reported the key priority of coaching withinareas reported the key priority of coaching their organisation is to support performance for coaching activities priorities three 13: Top Figure Coaching Coaching takes place in more than four-fifths (85%) of organisations, with no significant across the UK, the US and India. Moredifferences of thesethan two-fifths of organisations in each learning and talent development for managers wholearning and talent responsibilities. The figure ishave international (54% compared with 44% inslightly higher in India is not the US) but the difference the UK and 42% in statistically significant. Development for managers withDevelopment for international responsibilities (45%) of organisations thatOverall, less than half one country carry out specificoperate in more than India

60 3 3 UK USA India 53 52 52 50 49 50 46 44 41 41 39 40 37 37 33 30 30 30 29 30 centage 26 Per 24 percentage of training content. Two-fifths of the percentage of training content. Two-fifths it to deliverUK organisations that use e-learning use less than 10% of their total learning compared with just over a fifth of Indian or US organisations. use ofIn all areas organisations anticipate a greater 16).e-learning over the coming year (Figure 23 22 20 16 15 12 11 11 11 10 9 9 10 8 7 6 Base: 580 0 , Organisations in 9 ning ding oject otection) Language lear echnology training T as time management E-coaching/mentoring Business development ofessional development Pr management and finance , hygiene, data pr Induction and on-boar eness-raising on workplace oduct development training drug and alcohol abuse, etc Basic skills development such Pr Advanced skills such as pr war safety A and social issues such as diversity Compliance (for example health and

it more widely (Figure 15) and to deliver a greaterit more widely (Figure 15) and to deliver 15: For what purposes do you use e-learning? (% of organisations that use e-learning)Figure of learning and talent and our survey looked toof learning and talent and our survey looked The use of gauge its spread and effectiveness. than ine-learning is less common in India (66%) the UK (79%) or the US (79%). tend to use India that do use e-learning, however, 4 E-LEARNING developmentE-learning is a significant force in the LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 20 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 21 2011 60 3 3 USA India UK 54 53 50 41 40 37 100 35 32 31 9 30 centage 15 27 13 26 Per 26 19 23 80 23 17 21 21 21 28 20 20 18 21 16 16 15 29 Use of new media/web 2.0 e-learningUse of new media/web methods in India more commonly use Organisations based 2.0, including online a range of new media/web systems, learning libraries virtual management and mobile learning packages and wikis, e-books of learning and development to support aspects are more likely to (Figure 17). US organisations use of webinars/virtual report they are making 13 27 12 60 11 10 29 10 27 53 centage e than 50% 5 26 Per 3 26–50% Mor 1 Base: 590 40 34 0 e 27 ooms indows 33 E-books 27 ogrammes oid W 25 41 20 ube and LinkedIn ning pr ouT ning such as podcasts ning libraries and wikis 22 23 ebinars/virtual classr Rapid authoring softwar 15 ning management systems Lear 14 W 0–10% 11–25% 9 Blended lear Base: 624 Audio lear 0 Now Now Now ning packages designed for smartphones such as the iPhone and Andr Online virtual lear Media such as Facebook, Y In one year's time In one year's time In one year's time Mobile lear India UK USA Figure 16: Proportion of total training time delivered by e-learning now and in one year’s time by e-learning now and in one year’s of total training time delivered 16: Proportion Figure (% of organisations that use e-learning) Figure 17: Percentage of organisations regularly or frequently using new media/web 2.0 to support using or frequently of organisations regularly 17: Percentage Figure aspects of learning and development US organisations and just over a quarter of Indian US organisations and Fewer than a quarter of (27%) organisations. all areas report that 76–100% organisations across e-learning courses. of employees complete Uptake of e-learning of UK organisations offer (65%) Two-thirds (76–100%) of their e-learning to the majority with two-fifths (43%) of employees, compared 80 75 72 69 UK USA India 65 64 62 60 56 55 52 48 48 48 47 100 3 3 93 42 UK USA India 90 40 37 centage 86 85 Per 83 31 78 80 77 26 75 24 73 68 20 67 64 60 53 Base: 638 0 47 centage 45 ner ner Per ning ime to lue for money eaction ficiency Lear Lear T r 40 oficiency Va of output oductivity experience pr of lear Pr in workplace competence/ and ef Figure 19: When using e-learning, what is your Figure respect of the benefits in view of its general or good) excellent following? (% reporting Implementation 25 25 22 20

Base: 627 0 ners ning ning ecent years fective when e ef ed with IT people fective method of ning demands new ning in my organisation ning in the organisation E-lear compar e slower when it comes to ning is the most important ning is mor attitudes on the part of lear E-lear oom lear ning is a very ef E-lear development in L&TD in r combined with other types of lear E-lear ning is not a substitute for face-to-face supporting lear managing and implementing e-lear or classr L&TD people ar E-lear

Figure 18: Views on the effectiveness of e-learning on the effectiveness in supporting, accelerating and developing 18: Views Figure learning or tending to agree) (% strongly UK organisations are less positive than those UK organisations are less positive than in the US or India. money (Figure 19). In ratings of other aspects money (Figure 19). In ratings of other of e-learning, including time to competence, productivity and efficiency of output, implementation of learning in the workplace, learning experience and learner reactions, and implementing e-learning, compared with IT and implementing e-learning, compared from the people compared with a quarter of those case. UK or the US who believe this to be the all areas of organisations across Two-thirds value for believe e-learning is good or excellent effective when combined with other types of effective on learning and that it demands new attitudes half of the part of learners (Figure 18). Nearly people are organisations in India agree that L&TD to managing slower than IT people when it comes standalone e-learning in terms of effectiveness in terms of effectiveness standalone e-learning and learner experience. of e-learning Effectiveness surveyed, most Regardless of the countries more organisations agree that e-learning is classrooms compared with those in the UK or classrooms compared are more likely India. In the UK organisations learning programmes, to make use of blended previous integration of reflecting the poor LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 22 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 23 2011 100 3 3 93 UK USA India 80 69 60 57 53 fifths). The use of more quantitative measures suchfifths). The use of more quantitative and returnas the use of KPIs, return on expectation UK than inon investment are less common in the the US or India. India (53%) and just over two-thirds (69%) in theIndia (53%) and just over two-thirds (69%) in theUS (Figure 20). The use of anecdotal data common inshape of stories and testimony is more over two- the UK (57%) than in the US or India (just 48 centage 45 44 Per 43 42 41 41 40 37 33 29 26 20 Post-course 3 Base: 632 0 on investment ('happy sheets’) eturn e r on expected outcomes key performance indicators eturn Assess the impact of business Measur Collect post-course evaluations e r MEASURING PRACTICE:MEASURING TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT EVALUATING LEARNING AND LEARNING EVALUATING Measur (93%) compared with just over half of those in(93%) compared with just over half of in the UK (84%) and India (77%) than in thein the UK (84%) and India (77%) than US (57%) according to our sample. commonevaluations (‘happy sheets’) are the most but theyevaluation method across all three areas, almostare particularly common in the UK, where use themall organisations that conduct evaluations Evaluation of learning is more likely to take placeEvaluation of learning is more likely to 5 Figure 20: Reported learning methods Figure evaluation Use stories and testimonies of individuals There are no significant area differences in the area differences There are no significant 4 resourcing of learning and talent development. Monitoring progress during learningMonitoring progress interventions that evaluate learning, thoseAmong organisations likely to report they frequentlyin the UK are most of individual learningdiscuss the progress and performance reviewsinterventions at appraisal 45% in India and 43% in the(58% compared with US). that collect and analyseproportion of organisations data about the progress of learning interventions frequentlyat agreed intervals (39% overall do so and 40% occasionally) or discuss the progress of learning as an intervention at management and 42%meetings (34% overall do so frequently evaluation occasionally). Nevertheless the effective isof learning and development interventions Thisat best patchy in all the nations surveyed. andcould well have implications for expenditure

37% do so occasionally). Just over two-fifths frequently contract with theJust over two-fifths frequently contract forparties involved to ensure data is collected evaluation (an additional 30% do so occasionally) to theand specify outcomes at the outset linked additionalperformance and appraisal system (an three-fifths report they frequently (and anthree-fifths report ten say they occasionally) assessadditional three in individuals/teams will benefitthe likelihood that before embarking onfrom learning interventions line managers and coachesthem and discuss with expectation of the intervention. the organisation’s Preparing for learning interventions Preparing evaluate learning, there areIn organisations that areas in their across no significant differences interventions. Overall,preparations for learning LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 24 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 25 2011 Twice as many private sector Twice 6

5 reflecting the fact that some firms are expanding and that moreover they see in a difficult economy, scaling up their L&TD resource as a cornerstone of competitive advantage. the US. Impact on learning departments’ and training resources andIn all areas, organisations’ economic situation months wasfunding circumstances over the past 12 and talentstatistically related to available learning andfunding, restructuring of L&TD departments available resources. organisations in India reported the funds available for learning and development had increased in the past 12 months (43%) compared with around a fifth in the UK and just under a quarter in the US. Far fewer in India reported a decrease in resources (11% compared with 25% in the US organisations in and 31% in the UK). Similarly, the UK (26%) and the US (18%) are more likely to have reduced the headcount in their L&TD department over the past 12 months compared with those in India, where nearly two-fifths (38%) in the UK and the US about have increased it. Yet a fifth to a quarter increased headcount in L&TD, compared with a quarter in the US and only 15% incompared with a quarter in the US and andthe UK. Only 5% in India expect their learning the next 12development funding to decrease over and 12% inmonths compared with 26% in the UK

Learning and Talent Development Learning and Talent ECONOMIC SITUATION AND SITUATION ECONOMIC AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT AND TALENT EXPENDITURE ON LEARNING ON EXPENDITURE far more likely to anticipate an increase in learning and development funding over the next 12 months, with more than half (52%) predicting an increase In contrast, nearly four times as many private sector organisations in the UK (41%) report their situation has got worse compared with around a tenth in India. In the US, 30% of private sector organisations report their situation is worse than before. Organisations operating in India are also emergent economy, more than half of organisations emergent economy, in India report their economic circumstances over the past 12 months are better than before. This compares with 18% of US organisations and 13% of those in the UK who report a brighter picture. Indian sample is too small for valid comparisons. Economic circumstances in organisations’There are marked differences economic/funding circumstances according to the area they are operating in. As befits a booming here (CIPD 2011 survey report). In order to make meaningful privatecomparisons, we therefore compare only in this sectionsector responses across the three areas in theas the number of public sector respondents This section examines the impact of the economyThis section examines the impact of the andon organisations’ economic circumstances relationships with learning and talent development the UKresources and budgets. Our analysis of between thesample found significant differences discussedpublic and private sectors on the issues Economic situation and training spend 6

8 100 3 3 92 UK USA India 86 84 83 81 80 69 67 64 63 60 60 52 51 Number of days of training per employee Number of days each year for India are most likely Organisations reporting a record of the number of to report they keep days employees receive in a training/development compared with 70% of UK 12-month period (80% 51% of US organisations). organisations and look at developing effective measures of output look at developing effective from L&TD activities as opposed to routinely recording our inputs. On average (among those private sector On average (among organisations that record the data), organisations days in India have more training/development the UK per employee than those reporting for days or the US. The median number of training in India over a 12-month period is 6 per employee – that said, compared with 5 in the US and the UK to a this measure is merely an input as opposed to raise meaningful measure of output. For L&TD we need to its game in gauging its business impact 49 centage 45 44 Per 41 40 40 33 20 Base: 384 0 ences Fixed costs raining technology T nal consultants and trainers In most organisations, particularly in the In most organisations, nal courses and confer Salaries for in-house trainers Books, training manuals, etc 7 Exter

Figure 21: Which of the following items are covered by your training budget? (%) by your covered 21: Which of the following items are Figure compared with those responding for the US compared with those (55%). budgets cover external UK and the US, training and conferences, books, courses, technology so on, and hiring external training manuals, and consultants and trainers (Figure 21). Learning and talent development budgets responding for Private sector organisations India (80%) are more likely the UK (75%) and a specific training budget to report they had LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING Hiring exter

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 26 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 27 2011

survey Only a small minority, particularly in Only a small minority, 10 Learning and Talent Development Learning and Talent sectors. Indian respondents are particularly likely to work for IT services and professional services legal, and advertising, consultancy, (accountancy, so on). US and Indian responses are more likely to correspond to private sector organisations 2). (Table India, are from public sector organisations. UK respondents represent a wide range of industrial the UK are facing particular cuts and challenges the UK are facing particular cuts and the to learning and development following may global downturn and budget cuts. This so sector have an impact on findings across areas are controlled where numbers permit. differences most commonly from private sector organisations most commonly from private sector organisations sector (14% with only a minority from the public from and 4% respectively compared with 31% CIPD the UK). Our research, reported in the 2011 in report, shows that public sector organisations Differences in sample profiles Differences between areas may be due to Some differences in the sample profiles (see Appendix differences are 1). For example, the US and Indian responses APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE PROFILE 1: SAMPLE APPENDIX 4 2 2 2 7 2 0 6 4 1 2 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 7 2 2 0 0 2 4 23 21 67 15 India 2 4 1 1 5 2 1 2 3 1 6 2 7 0 0 6 0 2 1 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 10 11 14 14 22 10 50 12 USA 8 1 2 0 1 4 2 1 8 5 5 8 4 9 2 2 2 3 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 12 31 12 47 13 UK

Table 2: Distribution of responses, by sector (%) 2: Distribution Table Housing association Other voluntary Base: 879 Health Local government Other public services community and not-for-profit Voluntary, Care services Charity services Other private services Public services Central government Education Call centres etc) Media (broadcasting and publishing, Retail and wholesale distribution and storage Transport, Communications Private sector services legal, etc) advertising, consultancy, Professional services (accountancy, Finance, insurance and real estate Hotels, catering and leisure IT services General manufacturing Mining and quarrying Paper and printing Textiles Other manufacturing/production Chemicals, oils and pharmaceuticals Chemicals, oils and Construction and water gas Electricity, and metals Engineering, electronics Food, drink and tobacco Manufacturing and production Manufacturing and Agriculture and forestry LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 28 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011 29

13 19 67 2011 India 5 0 94 USA 6 1 93 UK Two-thirds (66%) of Indian organisations Two-thirds 11 Table 4: Where is your organisation 4: Where Table headquartered? (%) UK US India Base: 856 mostly likely to be operating in more than onemostly likely to be operating in more country. comparedhave offices in more than one country the USwith less than a third (31%) of those from for the UK. and two-fifths (42%) of those reporting In general, most organisations have headquarters In general, most organisations 4). More reporting on (Table in the area they are organisations reporting than nine out of ten have headquarters in that on the UK or the US of those reporting on India area. Two-thirds there, whereas one-fifth are have headquarters US. headquartered in the areWithin our sample, organisations in India 7 11 18 25 13 25 India 3 11 26 21 18 21 USA 4 6 16 21 24 29 UK Chi Square = 8.0, df = 2, p < 0.05, n = 851. Our findings (main report) suggest that e-learningreport) is particularly common in the public sector but even = 8.0, df = 2, p < 0.05, n = 851. Our findings (main Chi Square Chi Square = 58.6, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 842 Chi Square = 12.8, df = 4, p < 0.5, n = 593 Chi Square = 60.8, df = 6, p < 0.001, n = 521 Chi Square for learning development: rho = 0.45, p < 0.001, n = 485; economic situation and changes in and talent Economic situation and changes in resources = 21.2, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 539 Chi Square = 14.7, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 382 Chi Square Chi Square = 26.1, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 858. The relationship is not due to sectoral differences between samples. is not due to sectoral differences = 26.1, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 858. The relationship Chi Square of respondents. in the sector or size profile not simply due to differences are These differences among private sector organisations it is significantly less common in India. funds for learning and talent development: rho = 0.41, p < 0.001, n = 368; economic situation and changes in headcount in the L&TD department: rho = 0.37, p < 0.001, n = 499 Chi Square = 64.4, df = 6, p < 0.001, n = 879 Chi Square = 36.3, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 879 Chi Square Table 3: Profile of respondents, by size of 3: Profile Table

1,000–4,999 More than 5,000 Base: 880 Number of employees <10 10–49 50–249 250–999 organisation (%)

ENDNOTES 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 size is not significantly different across the UK, the different size is not significantly private sector organisations.US and India within UK respondents are more likely to be working forUK respondents are than those from the US andlarger organisations is mostly down to This, however, 3). India (Table sample. Organisation across the sector differences

Park is thanked for the initial data analysis andPark is thanked for the initial data analysis thanks asEvren Semiha of SHRM deserves special for survey co-ordinator Liz Dalton does the CIPD’s Marketing making this survey possible. The CIPD’s helped to once again Communications Team produce an excellent report design. The CIPD, SHRM and SHRM India wish to thank allThe CIPD, SHRM and SHRM India wish to thisof the engaged practitioners who responded this initialsurvey and made it possible to develop of Roffey Annette Sinclair international survey. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT TALENT AND LEARNING

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey 30 2011

OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES

In partnership with Annual survey report 2010 Annual survey report 2010 2010 2010

ABSENCE EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT ATTITUDES TO PAY

ABSENCE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES TO PAY The annual Absence Management survey The annual Employee Attitudes to Pay has been running for eleven years, providing survey investigates employee attitudes and useful benchmarking data on absence levels, expectations towards pay and bonuses. Now the cost and causes of absence, and how in its third year, this survey is carried out by organisations are managing absence. The YouGov and focuses on employees in the UK. latest report is brought to you in partnership with Simplyhealth.

RESOURCING AND TALENT PLANNING REWARD MANAGEMENT The annual Resourcing and Talent Planning The annual Reward Management survey survey contains valuable information on has been running for ten years and provides current and emerging trends in people practical insights into current trends, resourcing practice. Now in its fifteenth year, practices and issues affecting reward the report provides benchmarking information management in the UK. It examines strategic to support employers on resourcing strategies, reward, base and variable pay, bonuses, attracting and selecting candidates, labour incentives, pensions, reward measurement turnover and employee retention. This report is and total reward issues. This report was brought to you in partnership with Hays. brought to you in partnership with Benefex. © Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2011 © Chartered Issued: August 2011 Reference: 5580 Issued: August 2011 Reference:

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ Tel: 020 8612 6200 Fax: 020 8612 6201 Email: [email protected] Website: cipd.co.uk

Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered charity no.1079797