international learning and talent development comparison ...€¦ · international learning and...

International learning and talent development comparison survey 2011

in collaboration with

and SHRM India

Issu

ed: A

ugus

t 20

11 R

efer

ence

: 558

0 ©

Cha

rter

ed In

stitu

te o

f Pe

rson

nel a

nd D

evel

opm

ent

2011

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

2011

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

1

2011

CONTENTS

Introduction and executive summary 2

Background to survey 6

1 Trends in learning and talent development 7

2 Talent management 13

3 Leadership development and coaching 17

4 E-learning 20

5 Measuring practice: evaluating learning and talent development 23

6 Economic situation and expenditure on learning and talent development 25

Appendix 1: Sample profile 27

Acknowledgements 30

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

2


INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Learning and talent development is practised

worldwide but there are subtle differences

in practice between different nations. In this

survey we compare three countries – the UK,

the US and India – to investigate these trends.

Using the baseline of our 2011 Learning and

Talent Development survey report for the UK,

we collaborated with our US-based counterpart,

the Society of Human Resource Management

(SHRM). SHRM were able to use their extensive

network of HR/L&TD (learning and talent

development) practitioners in the US and made

our survey available to their Indian membership.

This data gives us an indicative comparison of

how L&TD is shaping up across three countries

representing significant areas of the world. The

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

Kong, Taiwan and China. The survey gives an

indicative flavour of practice using the CIPD’s

comprehensive suite of survey questions. We look

at everything from the proliferation of learning

and development practice to specific areas such

as coaching, leadership development, talent

management, e-learning, evaluation and the

impact of economic circumstances on L&TD. In

doing so, we uncover some differences in approach

and perspective within the various nations and

build the baseline for a future comparison. The key

issues are outlined below.

Effectiveness of L&TD practices

The CIPD survey upon which this comparison is

strongly based looks at the extent and perceived

effectiveness of thirteen L&TD practices over

the years. That’s how we have come to identify

issues such as the popularity of coaching, the

proliferation of e-learning and the development

of talent management approaches. So what

trends can we see in this initial survey?

• In-house development programmes are viewed

as most effective by practitioners in all three

countries. Just under two-fifths of US and

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

most effective intervention by more than half

of UK practitioners but ranks lower for US and

Indian practitioners when assessing the most

effective L&TD practices. On-the-job training

ties as the third top most effective measure in

UK and Indian responses with around a third of

respondents, and is slightly higher for the US.

• Asked to rank the most effective practice

for developing leaders, coaching by external

practitioners and attendance at external

conferences and learning events were seen as

critical. Internal knowledge-sharing events were

also ranked highly in all countries for leaders.

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

3

2011• US specialists are more likely to spend

their time designing and implementing the

delivery of technology-enabled training/e-

learning. This reflects the greater use and

perceived effectiveness of this type of learning

intervention in the US. In the UK only one-

tenth reports this as the most effective practice.

• In terms of their focus in the next 12 months,

respondents in all three countries will be

spending most of their time developing an

L&TD strategy, with more than two-fifths

seeing this as their highest priority. The

second highest priority is delivering training

interventions. The third and growing activity

is working on organisational development and

change management activities, with a slight

divergence between the US and the others.

This perhaps reflects the greater maturity of

OD influences in US L&TD.

• This trend towards the integration of L&TD

and OD is seen when we ask practitioners to

anticipate the major changes to L&TD in the next

two years, with integration between coaching,

OD and L&TD the most prominently anticipated

shift in practice in all three countries.

• A greater emphasis on measuring and evaluating

learning and talent outcomes is another

prominent converging theme, as is a closer

integration between L&TD and business strategy.

Talent management• Talent management activities are particularly

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.

• All three countries are most likely to focus their

talent management activities on high-potential

employees and leaders.

• Coaching, in-house development and high-

potential programmes are most likely to

be adopted for talent development. Indian

practitioners are less likely to favour coaching

and more likely to favour approaches such as job

rotation and shadowing as a talent development

accelerator.

• In terms of assessing the effectiveness of talent

management, Indian programmes are marginally

more focused on the retention of high-potentials

(more than two-fifths record this as the best

gauge of effectiveness).

• Indian organisations are more likely to view their

talent management programmes as effective

(nearly seven-tenths), compared with the UK

and US with around one-half seeing their talent

programmes as effective.

Leadership development and coaching• US organisations identify gaps in leadership skills

in terms of coaching/mentoring/developing staff,

whereas in India organisations more commonly

report gaps in business and commercial acumen.

The Indian sample is also most likely to identify

gaps in preparing managers for leading across

cultures and to help develop global business. A big

focus on helping leaders to manage performance

is also an issue.

• Notably low in perceived importance as a

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.

• The three most common areas of focus for

leadership development will be enabling the

organisation’s strategic goals, improving the

skills of leaders to act in a more strategic and

future-focused way and helping to develop

high-potential employees.

• Coaching is prominently used in all three

countries, with more than four-fifths reporting

the use of coaching.


4


• In terms of coaching priorities, performance

management trumps all other purposes in all

three countries, with more than two-fifths

focusing coaching efforts in that direction.

Supporting L&TD and building leadership

capability were the other primary objectives

of coaching. The US sample was more likely

to report the use of coaching for learning and

talent development.

E-learning• E-learning is prominent in all the surveyed

countries but the take-up is higher in the US,

where there is much more of a systematic

approach to learning technology than in either

the UK or India at present.

• Indian organisations using e-learning tend to

use it more widely, delivering a wider range of

interventions than UK and US organisations.

For example, though Indian organisations

report slightly less use of e-learning (two-

thirds) as opposed to the four-fifths who

use e-learning in the US and UK, they use it

for a wider variety of purposes. Language

learning, business development and product

development, all areas where the US and

UK score lowly in their use of e-learning, are

reported more widely for the Indian sample.

• The availability of e-learning is higher for the

UK than the other countries. Just under two-

thirds report that they offer e-learning to the

majority of their staff, compared with two-fifths

of respondents in the US and just over one-

quarter in India.

New media and web 2.0• Indian organisations report the use of a richer

variety of e-learning/ICT facilities learning such

as webinars, learning management systems,

virtual classrooms and wikis. For example,

about two-fifths report using learning libraries

and wikis compared with around a fifth in

the UK and US. More than half of Indian

respondents report using virtual learning

environments compared with just under a

quarter for the UK and just under a third for

the US respondents. US respondents are more

likely to use webinars and virtual classrooms

than the other countries. UK practitioners

are more likely to favour blended learning,

programmes.

• Indian practitioners also report greater use of

emergent smartphone technologies to support

learning, with nearly a fifth reporting the use

of these and their attendant applications. They

were thus 20 times more likely than the UK

and about 7 times more likely than the US to

use these emerging platforms to support L&TD.

This perhaps reflects their emergent national

hunger for technology and their ability to leap

over some of the stages of technology-based

learning – and perhaps the embeddedness and

commitment to other approaches in the UK

and US.

• E-learning effectiveness, however, is an issue in

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

that e-learning is more effective when blended

with other types of learning, with nearly nine-

tenths in all countries agreeing.

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

5

2011Evaluation and impact of learning and talent development• Evaluation of learning is more likely to take

place in the UK (more than four-fifths) and

India than in the US. Post-course evaluations

(‘happy sheets’) are the most common

method across all three areas, but they are

particularly common in the UK, where almost

all organisations that conduct evaluations use

them.

• The use of anecdotal data in the shape of

stories and testimony is more common in the UK

(nearly three-fifths) than in the US or India (just

over two-fifths). The use of more quantitative

measures such as key performance indicators

(KPIs), return on expectation and return on

investment are less common in the UK than in

the US or India.

• Expenditure on L&TD has fallen faster and risen

more slowly in the US and the UK as opposed

to India, where expenditure is buoyant. This

trend is also reflected in headcount within

L&TD.

Dr John McGurk

Adviser, Learning and Talent Development, CIPD

Table 1: Country of respondent Frequency Valid %

UK/European Union 556 60.4

US 211 22.9

India 110 12.7

Middle East 16 1.7

Eastern Europe 13 1.4

Africa 5 0.5

Central America 2 0.2

Australia and Oceania 1 0.1

Total 921 100

Unspecified 31

Total 952

Data limitationsVery low comparative sample sizes between

the countries mean that we should be

cautious in terms of any conclusions drawn.

We should also be aware that effective

response rates can vary according to the

questions. For that reason we clearly insert

the base response size below all figures.

Finally, we have conducted statistical

tests which allow us to be sure that the

differences between responses have some

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

and percentages are given above in Table 1,

and the statistical tests used and their results

are explained in the endnotes on page 29.


6


BACKGROUND TO SURVEY

The CIPD’s 2011 International Learning and Talent

Development comparison was completed by a

total of 952 practitioners. The majority (60%)

answered the survey with reference to the UK,

but a substantial proportion was responding with

regard to the US (23%) or India (13%). Only a

minority of managers responded for other areas

(see Table 1, page 5).

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

7

2011

1 TRENDS IN LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 837

Audio-visual resources

E-learning

External conferences, workshops and events

Formal education courses

Internal knowledge-sharing events

Mentoring and buddying schemes

Action learning sets

Instructor-led training delivered off the job

Coaching by external practitioners

Job rotation, secondment and shadowing

On-the-job training

In-house development programmes

Coaching by line managers

60

UK

USA

India

25

13

1022

12

1025

21

1116

7

1616

21

1827

22

1915

28

2018

11

2414

26

2535

24

3237

32

5429

21

553838

Figure 1: Which three learning and development practices do you believe are most effective? (%)

Effectiveness of learning and talent development practicesThe perceived effectiveness of learning and talent

development practices differs considerably across

regions (Figure 1). While in-house development

is most commonly reported to be among the top

three most effective learning and development

practices in all three regions, it is considered to be

particularly effective by UK respondents. Coaching

by line managers is also far more commonly rated as

effective in the UK than by respondents reporting

for the US or India. US respondents were more

likely to report that e-learning and job rotation,

secondment and shadowing are effective than

those for the UK or India, while action learning sets

are perceived to be more effective in India.


8


Figure 2: Which of the following learning and development practices do you believe are the most effective for leaders? (%)

Our research (CIPD 2011 Learning and Talent

Development survey report) has shown that

methods deemed most effective vary considerably

for different staff groups. In a UK sample, in-

house development programmes, coaching by line

managers and on-the-job training were deemed

to be effective methods for employees generally

by the vast majority of organisations, but far fewer

reported these are among the most effective

learning and development practices for leaders.

Figure 2 shows that, across all three regions,

coaching by external practitioners and external

conferences, workshops and events are seen to be

the most effective learning methods for leaders.

Figure 2, however, also reveals significant

differences across the regions. Respondents for

the US more commonly rate formal education

courses and instructor-led training as effective for

leaders than those responding for the UK or India.

In the UK, action learning sets and mentoring and

buddying are more popular for leaders than in

other regions. There is also a divergence in terms

of in-house development programmes, with UK

respondents favouring these more than those of the

US and Indian comparators. People responding for

organisations in India tend to select fewer practices

overall than those responding for the US or the UK.

This may reflect cultural differences in answering

questionnaires, or less diversity in types of practice

found to be effective for developing leaders in India

compared with the other nations. This is reinforced

by a similar bias in Figure 1.

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 820


On-the-job training


Job rotation, secondment and shadowing

Instructor-led training delivered off the job

Mentoring and buddying schemes

E-learning


Formal education courses

In-house development programmes

Internal knowledge-sharing events

Coaching by external practitioners

External conferences, workshops and events

60 80 100

UK

USA

India

209

8

2328

7

2326

25

3019

12

3149

15

3619

16

4052

31

4229

20

4363

15

4734

15

5954

33

7778

62

8269

59

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

9

2011Figure 3: Changes in the use of learning and development practices in the private sector (%)

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 526

External conferences,workshops and events

Instructor-led trainingdelivered off the job



Job rotation, secondmentand shadowing

On-the-job training

Mentoring and buddyingschemes

Internal knowledge-sharingevents


In-house developmentprogrammes

E-learning

Coaching by externalpractitioners

60

Use more UK

Use more USA

Use more India

Use less UK

Use less USA

Use less India

1315

2529

2625

1514

1921

2619

1823

362324

16

19

2515

88

17

2123

3210

1512

2620

3425

3322

2832

453

54

3126

259

1321

3937

458

714

4736

455

47

5040

348

1412

5058

3956

18

Changes in learning and talent development practicesFor the past two years, data based on our UK

sample has found that organisations are switching

to more cost-effective development practices, as

might be expected given the economic downturn

and the pressure on organisations to reduce costs.

The UK public sector, with a severe spending

squeeze, is particularly likely to be reducing its use

of all learning and development practices (CIPD

2011 Learning and Talent Development survey

report). Given the small proportion of public

sector organisations in the US and Indian sample,

Figure 3 shows changes in the use of learning

and development practices for private sector

organisations only.

Figure 3 suggests that e-learning is becoming

increasingly popular in the UK and US. Fewer

organisations in India, however, report it is being

used more there and nearly a fifth responding from

India report it is being used less. This may reflect

the fact that Indian organisations have already

made significant strides in integrating ICT-based

learning and talent development, as evidenced in

their widespread adoption of such technologies.

It may in fact reflect that the other countries are

‘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.

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

across all areas.


10


Responsibility for determining learning and development needsIn India, responsibility for determining learning

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

than two-fifths of organisations, line managers also

have a major responsibility. Nearly two-fifths also

reported that the employees/learners themselves

have main responsibility, a far greater proportion

than in the UK or US.

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

responsibility (56% compared with 30% reporting

that the main responsibility resides within HR

departments). These findings may reflect a greater

specialisation of HR responsibilities in the UK that

has resulted in more training and development

specialists compared with the US, where the role

may be subsumed under general HR. We also noted

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

effort in a booming economy.

Figure 4: Responsibility for determining the learning and development needs of the organisation (%)

0 20 40PercentageBase: 549

60 80 100

Main responsibility

UK

India

Some involvement

Limited involvement

No involvement

India

USA

UK

India

USA

UK

India

USA

India

USA

USA

UK

USA

UK

Seni

orm

anag

ers

Empl

oyee

s/le

arne

rsLi

nem

anag

ers

Lear

ning

,tr

aini

ngan

dde

velo

pmen

tsp

ecia

lists

HR

depa

rtm

ent

Exte

rnal

cons

ulta

nts

wor

king

fo

r th

e or

gani

satio

n

UK

India

61

46 44 9 1

39 53 8 1

44 49 7

16 55 27 3

28 58 13 2

61 27 9 2

40 27 8 25

56 23 8 13

62 32 4 2

52 41 5 2

30 46 16 8

12 29 43 16

5 22 29 45

2 21 32 46

38 30 25 7

7 40 43 10

14 56 26 5

31 8 0

0

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

11

2011

Figure 5: Top three activities for learning and development specialists in your organisation in the next 12 months (%)

0 10 20Percentage

Base: 825

Designing and implementing delivery oftechnology-enabled training/e-learning

Delivering one-to-one coachingor individual support

Overall management/planning oflearning and development efforts

Delivering courses/time in a training facility

Organisational development/changemanagement activities

Strategy discussions/building relationshipswith senior managers

Managing/organising delivery byexternal trainers

Monitoring and evaluating training

Managing/organising delivery bytrainers employed by your organisation

but not in the training department

Implementation discussions/buildingrelationships with other line managers

30 40 50

3

3

UK

USA

India

46

45

46

45

33

33

43

31

43

28

24

28

27

16

26

25

27

33

23

38

25

21

24

24

14

15

16

13

12

11

Key activities for learning and development specialistsRespondents from all areas report that learning and

development specialists in their organisation will

spend most of their time over the next 12 months

in overall management/planning of learning and

development efforts. Figure 5 also shows some

interesting differences across the areas. In the UK

specialists are more likely than their counterparts

in the US and India to spend their time delivering

courses or in a training facility. In the US, specialists

are more likely to spend their time designing and

implementing the delivery of technology-enabled

training/e-learning. This reflects the greater use

and perceived effectiveness of this type of learning

intervention in the US. UK and Indian L&TD

specialists are, however, more likely to manage

or co-ordinate organisational development and

change programmes than their US counterparts

(43% compared with 31%). This perhaps reflects

the fact that the US has established change

management and OD functions within other

operational areas. Both the US and Indian L&TD

specialists are marginally more focused on effective

evaluation than UK respondents. This value-for-

money focus is especially pronounced in India. In

terms of the time spent it could be considered less

of a priority than the issues discussed above.


12


Figure 6: Anticipated top three major organisational changes affecting learning and development in organisations over the next two years (%)

0 10 20Percentage

Base: 825

Less use of classroom and trainer-led instruction

Greater centralisation of learning anddevelopment as a function

Greater responsibility devolved to learnersand line managers

A greater integration between coaching,organisational development and performance

management to drive organisational change

More emphasis on monitoring, measuring andevaluating training effectiveness

Closer integration of learning and developmentactivity and business strategy

Greater use of e-learning across the organisation

Link L&TD with performance managementand organisational development

More use of short, focused delivery methodssuch as ‘bite-sized’ learning and using

smartphone apps, etc.

Move towards use of web 2.0 type technologyto deliver learning, training and development

(for example Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn,SecondLife, and so on)

30 40 50 60

3

3

UK

USA

India

46

39

22

25

34

36

32

33

28

33

31

38

30

25

16

30

18

15

7

15

12

11

14

13

14

11

19

25

53

51

Anticipated changes over the next two yearsThe most commonly anticipated major change

affecting learning and development over the

next two years, regardless of area, is a greater

integration between coaching, organisational

development and performance management

to drive organisational change (Figure 6). UK

organisations are more likely than organisations in

India or the US to anticipate a greater responsibility

devolved to learners and line managers. In India,

organisations are more likely to anticipate greater

emphasis on measurement of training effectiveness.

They are also more likely to anticipate a move

towards the use of web 2.0 technologies to deliver

learning, training and development but are least

likely to anticipate greater use of short, focused

delivery methods such as ‘bite-sized’ learning and

using smartphone apps, and so on.

Again as in the response to e-learning reported

on page 9, this may simply reflect that Indian

organisations in our sample are further along the

road towards integrating these approaches than

their UK and US counterparts.

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

13

2011

Figure 7: Groups of employees that are mostly or all covered by talent management activities (%)

2 TALENT MANAGEMENT

Talent management activities are particularly

common in organisations operating in India.

Eighty-six per cent of organisations operating in this

region reported they undertake talent management

activities compared with 60% in the UK and 57%

in the US.1 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. It also perhaps reflects a

turn away from the reward-driven approach which

caused high levels of churn and instability in the

supply of key talent. In addition, bidding up pay

to attract skilled labour has increased Indian unit

labour costs relative to China and other lower-cost

producers, thus many business leaders are seeking

a more sustainable path to developing talent. The

relative maturity of the US and UK economies and

the fact that talent management has been on the

agenda in these countries for some time goes some

way to explain the relative differences.

Who is covered by talent management activities?Organisations operating in the UK are most likely

to focus their talent management activities on

high-potential employees, senior managers and

graduates, whereas in India and the US a broader

range of employees are likely to be included

(Figure 7). Only two-fifths of UK organisations

include all staff in their talent management

activities compared with three-fifths of those in

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 432

Middle managers

Technical specialists

All staff

High-potential employees

Junior managers

Graduates

60 80 100

UK

USA

IndiaSenior managers

41

59

64

76

74

88

34

53

50

43

6854

64

75

72

35

53

54

51

49

39


14


Indian or US companies. Similarly, respondents in

India and the US are more likely to report that

their talent management activities cover all or the

majority of junior managers and technical specialists

compared with those reporting for the UK.2

Objectives of talent management activitiesThe most common objectives of talent management

activities, regardless of location, are developing

high-potential employees and growing future

senior managers/leaders (Figure 8). The latter is

particularly common for the UK. Attracting and

recruiting key staff to the organisation is a key

objective for half of the American sample but

less common in India (38%) or the UK (24%). The

Indian sample put more emphasis on retaining

key staff and enabling the achievement of their

organisation’s strategic goals whereas the talent

management activities of the UK sample appear

to be more future-focused, with just under a third

reporting the key objective of meeting the future

skills requirements of the organisation. Slightly

lower proportions were recorded for the US and

India (US 18%, India 14%).

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 519

Enabling the achievement of theorgansiation's strategic goals

Growing future seniormanagers/leaders

Supporting changes in theorganisational structure or

business environment

Assisting organisationalresource-planning

Addressing skills shortages

Redeployment of staffto other roles

Attracting and recruiting keystaff to the organisation

Meeting the future skillsrequirements of the organisation

Developing high-potentialemployees

60 80

UK

USA

India

Retaining key staff

4

5

6

7

12

10

109

1

18

20

13

24

51

38

29

18

14

3434

47

36

35

50

61

49

47

63

55

58

Figure 8: What are the three main objectives of your organisation’s talent management activities? (%)

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

15

2011Effectiveness of talent management activitiesNot only are talent management activities

more common in India (as reported above) but

organisations operating in India are also most likely

to report that their talent management activities

are effective. More than two-thirds (68%) of the

Indian sample rate their activities as very or fairly

effective compared with half of UK organisations

(50%) and 55% of organisations in the US. Around

one-fifth of organisations in the UK and US see

their talent management activities as ineffective

compared to those in India where about one-tenth

report that talent management is ineffective. Again

this could reflect the growth and talent retention

focus of Indian companies, and perhaps a more

systematic approach to measurement and the value

drivers of talent.

Figure 9 shows which talent management activities

are considered to be most effective. Coaching

ranks highly in all areas as an accelerator of

talent, although less so in India. Organisations in

India are more likely to report job rotation and

shadowing as well as 360-degree feedback among

their most effective talent management activities.

They are considerably less likely to report internal

secondments among their top three most effective

activities than organisations in the US or the UK,

perhaps reflecting some concern about possible

talent leakage as individuals experience other

organisations and settings.

Figure 9: Top three most effective talent management activities (%)

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 519

Internal secondments

In-house developmentprogrammes

Job rotationand shadowing

Cross-functionalproject assignments

Graduate developmentprogrammes

External secondments

Assessment centres

Courses leading to amanagement/business

qualification

Courses atexternal institutions

Development centres


Mentoring andbuddying schemes

360-degree feedback

Coaching

60

UK

USA

India

High-potentialdevelopment schemes

5

2

8

5

55

6

59

10

6

7

11

4

14

12

911

14

7

9

15

23

18

19

24

37

20

26

24

2326

34

2419

9

25

23

33

29

34

24

49

52

34


16


Evaluation of talent management practicesFeedback from employees involved in talent

management initiatives and their line managers

are commonly used to evaluate practices in all

three areas (Figure 10). The Indian sample is far

less likely to use anecdotal evidence/observation of

changes and more likely to include the retention

of those identified as ‘high potential’ in their

evaluations. It is clear, however, from Figure 10

that many organisations from all areas could do

more to improve their evaluation processes. Less

than a quarter identify clear success criteria at

the outset and less than a third have a formal

annual (or other regular) evaluation process for

talent management at an organisation-wide

level. CIPD research has shown that organisations

that use these processes are more likely to report

their talent management practices are effective,

presumably because they use the process to make

targeted improvements (CIPD 2011 Learning and

Talent Development survey report).

Figure 10: How is the effectiveness of talent management practices evaluated in your organisation? (%)

0 10 20 30 40Percentage

Base: 517

The number of people promoted internally

Employee attitude surveys

Retention of those identifiedas 'high potential'

Anecdotally – observation of changes

Feedback from line managers

Time and cost to fill key roles

None of the above

Talent management effectivenessis not currently evaluated

Implementation of formalsuccession plans

Clear success criteriaidentified at the outset

Formal annual (or other regular)evaluation process for talent management

at an organisation-wide level

Feedback from employees involvedin talent management initiatives

50

UK

USA

India

32

0

912

20

127

12

2221

20

2318

24

2730

22

2832

36

3526

29

3532

42

3535

18

4034

37

413233

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

17

2011

Figure 11: Which of the following leadership skills, if any, have you identified gaps in? (Please select a maximum of three) (%)

3 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND COACHING

Leadership skills deficitWhen asked to report their main leadership skills

deficits, organisations across all three areas, but

particularly in the UK, commonly reported gaps in

performance management skills, leaders’ ability to

lead and manage change, and skills to lead people

and people management (Figure 11). Organisations

in the US are also particularly likely to identify gaps

in coaching/mentoring/developing staff, whereas

in India, organisations more commonly reported

gaps in business and commercial acumen. The

Indian sample is also most likely to identify gaps in

preparing managers for leading across cultures and

to help develop global business, unsurprising given

that organisations reporting for this area are most

likely to be operating in more than one country.

Notably low in importance is the area of 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

that can lead to big results. Innovation is an area

to which learning and talent development as a

specialism has paid less attention, yet it is one of the

key transformation pivot points for organisations.


Base: 841

Communication/interpersonal skills

Business and commercial acumen: the abilityto think strategically for the business

Coaching/mentoring/developing staff

Leading people and people management

Leading and managing change

To help prepare managers forinternational assignments

To help develop global business

Innovation

To prepare managers for leading across cultures

Motivational skills

Performance management: in particularsetting standards for performance and

dealing with underperformance

50 60

UK

USA

India

32

10

53

10

710

19

85

24

1519

22

2736

21

3125

39

3443

25

4340

33

5148

38

5444

40


18


Focus of leadership development activitiesThe three most common areas where

organisations in all areas will focus their

leadership development activities over the next

12 months will be enabling the achievement of

the organisation’s strategic goals, improving the

skills of leaders to think in a more strategic and

future-focused way and developing high-potential

individuals valued by the organisations (Figure

12). These priorities are fairly obvious given the

economic situation in all three countries, where

the US and UK are facing financial headwinds and

the Indian economy is in high expansion mode.

Figure 12: What will be the focus of leadership development activities within your organisation in the next 12 months? (%)


Base: 832

Changing the prevailing organisational culture

Accelerating change within the organisation

Producing a common standard of behaviour forthose in leadership roles

Developing high-potential individuals valued bythe organisation

Improving the skills of leaders to think in a morestrategic and future-focused way

To help prepare managers for leading across cultures

To help prepare managers for international assignments

No leadership development activities in place

Improving relationships with external or partner organisations

To help develop global business

Addressing the current underperformance of leaders

Changing the leadership style across the organisation

Enabling the achievement of the organisation's strategic goals

50

UK

USA

India

111

46

1

53

18

54

8

64

14

1619

13

1820

17

2421

14

2621

28

2926

29

3641

45

3846

45

4333

42

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

19

2011Development for managers with international responsibilitiesOverall, less than half (45%) of organisations that

operate in more than one country carry out specific

learning and talent development for managers who

have international responsibilities. The figure is

slightly higher in India (54% compared with 44% in

the UK and 42% in the US) but the difference is not

statistically significant.

CoachingCoaching takes place in more than four-fifths

(85%) of organisations, with no significant

differences across the UK, the US and India. More

than two-fifths of organisations in each of these

areas reported the key priority of coaching within

their organisation is to support performance

management. Preparing and supporting people in

leadership roles is the key priority for one in three

organisations in the UK (33%) and India (29%) but

is less of a priority in the US (18%), whereas using

coaching to support learning and development

is more frequently prioritised in the US (37%

compared with 21% in the UK and 24% in India).

Responsibility for coachingIn all areas, but particularly in India, line managers

and internal coaches have the main responsibility

for coaching (Figure 14). These findings reflect

those in Figure 4, where it was noted that in

India responsibility for determining learning and

development needs does not fall to one individual

or department.

Figure 13: Top three priorities for coaching activities

0 20 40Percentage

Base:

UK

USA

India

60 80 100

44 24 29 3

41 37 18 3

44 21 33 12

Supporting performance management

Supporting learning and development

Preparing and supporting people in leadership roles

Don’t know

Other

Figure 14: Responsibility for coaching activity


60 80 100

Main responsibility

Internal coaches

UK

Line managers

Some involvement

Limited involvement

No involvement

Other

External consultants

Internal coaches

Line managers

Other


Internal coaches

Line managers

Other


USA

India

4

19

32

42 47 9 1

48122515

12 23 27 39

19123237

9 39 17 35

293523

54 28 12 6

60 25 13 1

13

3547 15 2

38 12 18

30 25 26

19 14 63


20


4 E-LEARNING

E-learning is a significant force in the development

of learning and talent and our survey looked to

gauge its spread and effectiveness. The use of

e-learning is less common in India (66%) than in

the UK (79%) or the US (79%).9 Organisations in

India that do use e-learning, however, tend to use

it more widely (Figure 15) and to deliver a greater

percentage of training content. Two-fifths of the

UK organisations that use e-learning use it to deliver

less than 10% of their total learning compared

with just over a fifth of Indian or US organisations.

In all areas organisations anticipate a greater use of

e-learning over the coming year (Figure 16).

0 10 20Percentage

Base: 580

Technology training

Induction and on-boarding

Compliance (for example health andsafety, hygiene, data protection)

Professional development

Basic skills development suchas time management

Advanced skills such as projectmanagement and finance

Language learning

Product development training

Business development

Awareness-raising on workplaceand social issues such as diversity,

drug and alcohol abuse, etc

E-coaching/mentoring

30 40 6050

3

3

UK

USA

India

33

22

53

52

50

52

11

24

49

16

46

11

11

37

8

12

26

10

15

41

6

9

37

30

29

44

30

30

41

7

9

39

23

Figure 15: For what purposes do you use e-learning? (% of organisations that use e-learning)

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

21

2011Uptake of e-learningTwo-thirds (65%) of UK organisations offer

e-learning to the majority (76–100%) of their

employees, compared with two-fifths (43%) of

US organisations and just over a quarter of Indian

(27%) organisations. Fewer than a quarter of

organisations across all areas report that 76–100%

of employees complete e-learning courses.

Use of new media/web 2.0 e-learning methodsOrganisations based in India more commonly use

a range of new media/web 2.0, including online

virtual management systems, learning libraries

and wikis, e-books and mobile learning packages

to support aspects of learning and development

(Figure 17). US organisations are more likely to

report they are making use of webinars/virtual

Figure 16: Proportion of total training time delivered by e-learning now and in one year’s time (% of organisations that use e-learning)


60 80 100

0–10%

11–25%

26–50%

More than 50%

Now

In one year's time

Now

In one year's time

Now

In one year's time

USA

India

UK 41

14

22

9

23

15 27 29 23

34 21 15

25 26 28

27 29 13

33 27 19

27 17 9

Figure 17: Percentage of organisations regularly or frequently using new media/web 2.0 to support aspects of learning and development

0 10 20Percentage

Base: 590

Blended learning programmes

E-books

Online virtual learning management systems

Mobile learning packages designed for smartphonessuch as the iPhone and Android Windows

Media such as Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn

Webinars/virtual classrooms

Audio learning such as podcasts

Learning libraries and wikis

Rapid authoring software

30 40 6050

3

3

UK

USA

India

23

1

3

21

5

10

18

20

54

32

12

21

26

16

21

41

37

26

27

11

15

35

13

53

16

31

53


22


classrooms compared with those in the UK or

India. In the UK organisations are more likely

to make use of blended learning programmes,

reflecting the poor previous integration of

standalone e-learning in terms of effectiveness

and learner experience.

Effectiveness of e-learningRegardless of the countries surveyed, most

organisations agree that e-learning is more

effective when combined with other types of

learning and that it demands new attitudes on

the part of learners (Figure 18). Nearly half of

organisations in India agree that L&TD people are

slower than IT people when it comes to managing

and implementing e-learning, compared with IT

people compared with a quarter of those from the

UK or the US who believe this to be the case.

Two-thirds of organisations across all areas

believe e-learning is good or excellent value for

money (Figure 19). In ratings of other aspects

of e-learning, including time to competence,

productivity and efficiency of output,

implementation of learning in the workplace,

learning experience and learner reactions,

UK organisations are less positive than those

in the US or India.

Figure 18: Views on the effectiveness of e-learning in supporting, accelerating and developing learning (% strongly or tending to agree)

0 20Percentage

Base: 627

E-learning is more effective whencombined with other types of learning

L&TD people are slower when it comes tomanaging and implementing e-learning

compared with IT people

E-learning is a very effective method ofsupporting learning in the organisation

E-learning is the most importantdevelopment in L&TD in recent years

E-learning is not a substitute for face-to-faceor classroom learning in my organisation

E-learning demands newattitudes on the part of learners

40 60 10080

3

3

UK

USA

India

64

78

73

25

45

68

77

67

53

93

90

85

25

22

47

86

75

83

0 20Percentage

Base: 638

Learnerexperience

Learnerreaction

Time tocompetence/

proficiency

Value formoney

Productivityand efficiency

of output

Implementationof learning

in workplace

40 60 80

UK

USA

India

4865

72

64

75

69

37

62

52

26

48

48

24

47

42

31

56

55

Figure 19: When using e-learning, what is your view of its general benefits in respect of the following? (% reporting excellent or good)

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

23

2011

5 MEASURING PRACTICE: EVALUATING LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation of learning is more likely to take place

in the UK (84%) and India (77%) than in the

US (57%) according to our sample.3 Post-course

evaluations (‘happy sheets’) are the most common

evaluation method across all three areas, but they

are particularly common in the UK, where almost

all organisations that conduct evaluations use them

(93%) compared with just over half of those in

India (53%) and just over two-thirds (69%) in the

US (Figure 20). The use of anecdotal data in the

shape of stories and testimony is more common in

the UK (57%) than in the US or India (just over two-

fifths). The use of more quantitative measures such

as the use of KPIs, return on expectation and return

on investment are less common in the UK than in

the US or India.

Figure 20: Reported learning evaluation methods

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 632

Measure return on investment

Assess the impact of businesskey performance indicators

Measure return on expected outcomes

Use stories and testimonies of individuals

Collect post-course evaluations('happy sheets’)

60 80 100

3

3

UK

USA

India

29

26

33

41

37

44

48

41

45

43

42

9369

53

57


24


Preparing for learning interventionsIn organisations that evaluate learning, there are

no significant differences across areas in their

preparations for learning interventions. Overall,

three-fifths report they frequently (and an

additional three in ten say they occasionally) assess

the likelihood that individuals/teams will benefit

from learning interventions before embarking on

them and discuss with line managers and coaches

the organisation’s expectation of the intervention.

Just over two-fifths frequently contract with the

parties involved to ensure data is collected for

evaluation (an additional 30% do so occasionally)

and specify outcomes at the outset linked to the

performance and appraisal system (an additional

37% do so occasionally).

Monitoring progress during learning interventionsAmong organisations that evaluate learning, those

in the UK are most likely to report they frequently

discuss the progress of individual learning

interventions at appraisal and performance reviews

(58% compared with 45% in India and 43% in the

US).4 There are no significant area differences in the

proportion of organisations that collect and analyse

data about the progress of learning interventions

at agreed intervals (39% overall do so frequently

and 40% occasionally) or discuss the progress

of learning as an intervention at management

meetings (34% overall do so frequently and 42%

occasionally). Nevertheless the effective evaluation

of learning and development interventions is

at best patchy in all the nations surveyed. This

could well have implications for expenditure and

resourcing of learning and talent development.

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

25

2011

6 ECONOMIC SITUATION AND EXPENDITURE ON LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Economic situation and training spendThis section examines the impact of the economy

on organisations’ economic circumstances and

relationships with learning and talent development

resources and budgets. Our analysis of the UK

sample found significant differences between the

public and private sectors on the issues discussed

here (CIPD 2011 Learning and Talent Development

survey report). In order to make meaningful

comparisons, we therefore compare only private

sector responses across the three areas in this section

as the number of public sector respondents in the

Indian sample is too small for valid comparisons.

Economic circumstancesThere are marked differences in organisations’

economic/funding circumstances according to the

area they are operating in. As befits a booming

emergent economy, more than half of organisations

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.

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

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

compared with a quarter in the US and only 15% in

the UK. Only 5% in India expect their learning and

development funding to decrease over the next 12

months compared with 26% in the UK and 12% in

the US.5

Impact on learning and training departments’ resourcesIn all areas, organisations’ economic situation and

funding circumstances over the past 12 months was

statistically related to available learning and talent

funding, restructuring of L&TD departments and

available resources.6 Twice as many private sector

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

and 31% in the UK). Similarly, organisations in

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%)

have increased it. Yet in the UK and the US about

a fifth to a quarter increased headcount in L&TD,

reflecting the fact that some firms are expanding

in a difficult economy, and that moreover they see

scaling up their L&TD resource as a cornerstone of

competitive advantage.


26


Figure 21: Which of the following items are covered by your training budget? (%)

0 20 40Percentage

Base: 384

Hiring external consultants and trainers

Training technology

Fixed costs

Salaries for in-house trainers

Books, training manuals, etc

External courses and conferences

60 80 100

3

3

UK

USA

India

40

51

45

44

41

33

69

63

49

83

52

60

81

86

67

92

84

64

Learning and talent development budgetsPrivate sector organisations responding for

the UK (75%) and India (80%) are more likely

to report they had a specific training budget

compared with those responding for the US

(55%).7 In most organisations, particularly in the

UK and the US, training budgets cover external

courses, technology and conferences, books,

training manuals, and so on, and hiring external

consultants and trainers (Figure 21).

Number of days of training per employee each yearOrganisations reporting for India are most likely

to report they keep a record of the number of

training/development days employees receive in a

12-month period (80% compared with 70% of UK

organisations and 51% of US organisations).8

On average (among those private sector

organisations that record the data), organisations

in India have more training/development days

per employee than those reporting for the UK

or the US. The median number of training days

over a 12-month period is 6 per employee in India

compared with 5 in the US and the UK – that said,

this measure is merely an input as opposed to a

meaningful measure of output. For L&TD to raise

its game in gauging its business impact we need to

look at developing effective measures of output

from L&TD activities as opposed to routinely

recording our inputs.

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

27

2011

APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE PROFILE

Differences in sample profilesSome differences between areas may be due to

differences in the sample profiles (see Appendix

1). For example, the US and Indian responses are

most commonly from private sector organisations

with only a minority from the public sector (14%

and 4% respectively compared with 31% from

the UK). Our research, reported in the CIPD

2011 Learning and Talent Development survey

report, shows that public sector organisations in

the UK are facing particular cuts and challenges

to learning and development following the

global downturn and budget cuts. This may

have an impact on findings across areas so sector

differences are controlled where numbers permit.

US and Indian responses are more likely to

correspond to private sector organisations

(Table 2).10 Only a small minority, particularly in

India, are from public sector organisations. UK

respondents represent a wide range of industrial

sectors. Indian respondents are particularly likely

to work for IT services and professional services

(accountancy, advertising, consultancy, legal, and

so on).


28


Table 2: Distribution of responses, by sector (%) UK USA India

Manufacturing and production 12 22 21

Agriculture and forestry 0 0 0

Chemicals, oils and pharmaceuticals 1 2 4

Construction 1 1 1

Electricity, gas and water 1 0 0

Engineering, electronics and metals 2 3 7

Food, drink and tobacco 2 3 2

General manufacturing 1 1 2

Mining and quarrying 0 0 0

Paper and printing 0 1 0

Textiles 0 0 2

Other manufacturing/production 3 10 4

Private sector services 47 50 67

Professional services (accountancy, advertising, consultancy, legal, etc) 13 12 15

Finance, insurance and real estate 8 10 4

Hotels, catering and leisure 1 2 2

IT services 2 4 23

Call centres 0 1 2

Media (broadcasting and publishing, etc) 1 1 2

Retail and wholesale 4 5 7

Transport, distribution and storage 2 2 2

Communications 1 1 0

Other private services 12 11 6

Public services 31 14 4

Central government 8 2 1

Education 5 3 2

Health 5 1 0

Local government 8 6 0

Other public services 4 2 2

Voluntary, community and not-for-profit 9 14 8

Care services 2 7 0

Charity services 2 0 0

Housing association 2 0 0

Other voluntary 3 6 4Base: 879

LEA

RN

ING

AN

D TA

LEN

T DEV

ELO

PM

EN

T 2011

29

2011

Table 3: Profile of respondents, by size of organisation (%)

Number of employees UK USA India

<10 6 3 7

10–49 4 11 11

50–249 16 26 18

250–999 21 21 25

1,000–4,999 24 18 13

More than 5,000 29 21 25Base: 880

Table 4: Where is your organisation headquartered? (%)

UK USA India

UK 93 5 13

US 6 94 19

India 1 0 67Base: 856

UK respondents are more likely to be working for

larger organisations than those from the US and

India (Table 3). This, however, is mostly down to

sector differences across the sample. Organisation

size is not significantly different across the UK, the

US and India within private sector organisations.

In general, most organisations have headquarters

in the area they are reporting on (Table 4). More

than nine out of ten organisations reporting

on the UK or the US have headquarters in that

area. Two-thirds of those reporting on India

have headquarters there, whereas one-fifth are

headquartered in the US.

Within our sample, organisations in India are

mostly likely to be operating in more than one

country.11 Two-thirds (66%) of Indian organisations

have offices in more than one country compared

with less than a third (31%) of those from the US

and two-fifths (42%) of those reporting for the UK.

ENDNOTES1 Chi Square = 26.1, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 858. The relationship is not due to sectoral differences between samples.2 These differences are not simply due to differences in the sector or size profile of respondents.3 Chi Square = 58.6, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 8424 Chi Square = 12.8, df = 4, p < 0.5, n = 5935 Chi Square = 60.8, df = 6, p < 0.001, n = 5216 Economic situation and changes in resources for learning and talent development: rho = 0.45, p < 0.001, n = 485; economic situation and changes in 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 = 4997 Chi Square = 21.2, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 5398 Chi Square = 14.7, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 3829 Chi Square = 8.0, df = 2, p < 0.05, n = 851. Our findings (main report) suggest that e-learning is particularly common in the public sector but even among private sector organisations it is significantly less common in India.10 Chi Square = 64.4, df = 6, p < 0.001, n = 87911 Chi Square = 36.3, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 879


30


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The CIPD, SHRM and SHRM India wish to thank all

of the engaged practitioners who responded to this

survey and made it possible to develop this initial

international survey. Annette Sinclair of Roffey

Park is thanked for the initial data analysis and

Evren Semiha of SHRM deserves special thanks as

does the CIPD’s survey co-ordinator Liz Dalton for

making this survey possible. The CIPD’s Marketing

Communications Team once again helped to

produce an excellent report design.

2011

EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES TO PAY

2010Annual survey report 2010

RESOURCING AND TALENT PLANNINGThe annual Resourcing and Talent Planning survey contains valuable information on current and emerging trends in people resourcing practice. Now in its fifteenth year, the report provides benchmarking information to support employers on resourcing strategies, attracting and selecting candidates, labour turnover and employee retention. This report is brought to you in partnership with Hays.

OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES

ABSENCE MANAGEMENTThe annual Absence Management survey has been running for eleven years, providing useful benchmarking data on absence levels, the cost and causes of absence, and how organisations are managing absence. The latest report is brought to you in partnership with Simplyhealth.

EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES TO PAYThe annual Employee Attitudes to Pay survey investigates employee attitudes and expectations towards pay and bonuses. Now in its third year, this survey is carried out by YouGov and focuses on employees in the UK.

2010ABSENCEMANAGEMENT

Annual survey report 2010In partnership with

REWARD MANAGEMENTThe annual Reward Management survey has been running for ten years and provides practical insights into current trends, practices and issues affecting reward management in the UK. It examines strategic reward, base and variable pay, bonuses, incentives, pensions, reward measurement and total reward issues. This report was brought to you in partnership with Benefex.

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

Issu

ed: A

ugus

t 20

11 R

efer

ence

: 558

0 ©

Cha

rter

ed In

stitu

te o

f Pe

rson

nel a

nd D

evel

opm

ent

2011

international learning and talent development comparison ...€¦ · international learning and...

Documents