International learning and talent development comparison survey 2011

in collaboration with

and SHRM India

2011

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

2011

CONTENTS
Introduction and executive summary Background to survey 1 Trends in learning and talent development 2 Talent management 3 Leadership development and coaching 4 E-learning 5 Measuring practice: evaluating learning and talent development 6 Economic situation and expenditure on learning and talent development Appendix 1: Sample profile Acknowledgements 2 6 7 13 17 20 23 25
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

27 30

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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 CIPDs 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.
In-house development programmes are viewed

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. Thats 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?

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

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

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.

2011
US specialists are more likely to spend

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

their time designing and implementing the delivery of technology-enabled training/elearning. This reflects the greater use and perceived effectiveness of this type of learning intervention in the US. In the UK only onetenth reports this as the most effective practice.
In terms of their focus in the next 12 months,

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

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

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

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.

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

Talent management
Talent management activities are particularly

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

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

leadership development will be enabling the organisations 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

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

countries, with more than four-fifths reporting the use of coaching.

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

In terms of coaching priorities, performance

New media and web 2.0

Indian organisations report the use of a richer

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.

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

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 (twothirds) 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

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

UK than the other countries. Just under twothirds report that they offer e-learning to the majority of their staff, compared with two-fifths of respondents in the US and just over onequarter in India.

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 ninetenths in all countries agreeing.

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

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

Table 1: Country of respondent

Frequency
Valid %

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

UK/European Union US India Middle East Eastern Europe Africa Central America Australia and Oceania Total Unspecified Total

556 211 110 16 13 5 2 1 921 31 952

60.4 22.9 12.7 1.7 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 100

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

Data limitations
Very 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.

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

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

BACKGROUND TO SURVEY

The CIPDs 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).

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

2011

1 TRENDS IN LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Effectiveness of learning and talent development practices
The 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.

Figure 1: Which three learning and development practices do you believe are most effective? (%)
2

Audio-visual resources

5 13 10 22 12 10 25 21 11 7

E-learning

External conferences, workshops and events

Formal education courses

16 16 16 21 18 27 22 19 15 28 20 18

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

Internal knowledge-sharing events

Mentoring and buddying schemes

UK USA India

Action learning sets

Instructor-led training delivered off the job

11

Coaching by external practitioners

24 14 26 25 35 24 32 37 32 54 29 21 55 38 38

Job rotation, secondment and shadowing

On-the-job training

Coaching by line managers

In-house development programmes 0

Base: 837

20
Percentage

40

60

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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, inhouse 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.

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

Coaching by line managers

9 8

20

On-the-job training
7

23 28 23 26 25 30 19 12 31 49 15 36 19 16 40 52 31 42 29 20 43 63 15 47 34 15 59 54 33 77 78 62 82 69 59

Audio-visual resources

Job rotation, secondment and shadowing

Instructor-led training delivered off the job

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

Mentoring and buddying schemes

UK USA India

E-learning

Action learning sets

Formal education courses

In-house development programmes

Internal knowledge-sharing events

External conferences, workshops and events

Coaching by external practitioners 0

Base: 820

20
Percentage

40

60

80

100

2011
Changes in learning and talent development practices
For 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 inhouse 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.
36 15

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

External conferences, workshops and events

13 15 25 29 26 25 15 14 19 21 26 19 18 23

Instructor-led training delivered off the job

Audio-visual resources
16 19

36 23 24

Use more UK Use more USA

25

Use more India Use less UK Use less USA Use less India

Action learning sets

8 8 17 21 23 32 10 15 12 26

Job rotation, secondment and shadowing

Coaching by external practitioners

20 34 25 33 22 28 32

On-the-job training

45 3 5 4 31

Mentoring and buddying schemes

26 25 9 13 21

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

Internal knowledge-sharing events

39 37 45 8 7 14 47

Coaching by line managers

45 5 4 7 50

In-house development programmes

40 34 8 14 12 50 58

E-learning

39 5 6 18

0
Base: 526

20
Percentage

40

60

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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

Senior managers

India USA UK India USA UK India USA UK India USA UK India USA UK 2 India USA UK 0
Base: 549

61 46 39 44 16 28 61 40 56 62 52 30 12 5 21 38 7 14 40 56 22 29 29 32 30 43 46 43 41 27 23 8 55 58 53 49 44

31

8 9 8 7 27 13 3 2 2 1 1

Learning, Line training managers and development specialists

27 25 8 32

13 4 2 5 2

External HR consultants department working for the organisation

16 16 45 46 25

Employees/ learners

7 10

26

20

40
Percentage

60

80

100

Main responsibility Some involvement

Limited involvement No involvement

Responsibility for determining learning and development needs

In 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.

10

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

2011
Key activities for learning and development specialists
Respondents 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-formoney 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.

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

Overall management/planning of learning and development efforts

46 45 46 45

Delivering courses/time in a training facility

33 33 43 31 43 28 24 28 27 16 26

Organisational development/change management activities

Strategy discussions/building relationships with senior managers

Managing/organising delivery by external trainers

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

25

Monitoring and evaluating training

27 33

UK USA India
38

Designing and implementing delivery of technology-enabled training/e-learning

21

23 25

Delivering one-to-one coaching or individual support Managing/organising delivery by trainers employed by your organisation but not in the training department Implementation discussions/building relationships with other line managers 0
Base: 825 14 15 16 13 12 11

24 24

3 3

10

20
Percentage

30

40

50

11

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Anticipated changes over the next two years

The 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.

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

A greater integration between coaching, organisational development and performance management to drive organisational change Greater responsibility devolved to learners and line managers
39 22 25 34 36 32 33 28 33 31

46 53 51

More emphasis on monitoring, measuring and evaluating training effectiveness Closer integration of learning and development activity and business strategy

Greater use of e-learning across the organisation

30

38

Link L&TD with performance management and organisational development

25 16 30 18 15 7 15

12

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

More use of short, focused delivery methods such as bite-sized learning and using smartphone apps, etc.

UK USA India

Less use of classroom and trainer-led instruction

12 11 14 13 14 11 19 25

Greater centralisation of learning and development as a function Move towards use of web 2.0 type technology to deliver learning, training and development (for example Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, SecondLife, and so on) 0
Base: 825

3 3

10

20

30
Percentage

40

50

60

2011

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

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

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

41

All staff

59 64 76

High-potential employees

74 88 34

Junior managers
50 43

53

Middle managers
54 64

68

UK USA
75 72

Senior managers

India

35

Technical specialists

53 54 51

Graduates
39

49

0
Base: 432

20

40
Percentage

60

80

100

13

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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

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 organisations 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%).

Objectives of talent management activities

The 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

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

Redeployment of staff to other roles

4 5 6 7

Addressing skills shortages

12 10

Assisting organisational resource-planning Supporting changes in the organisational structure or business environment Attracting and recruiting key staff to the organisation

10 9 1 18 20 13 24 51 38 29 18 14 34 34 47 36

Meeting the future skills requirements of the organisation

UK USA India

14

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

Enabling the achievement of the organsiation's strategic goals

Retaining key staff

35 50

Growing future senior managers/leaders

61 49 47 63 55 58

Developing high-potential employees 0

Base: 519

20

40
Percentage

60

80

2011
Effectiveness of talent management activities
Not 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.
In-house development programmes
29 34 24 49

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

External secondments

2 8 5

Assessment centres

5 5 6 5 9 10 6 7 11

Courses leading to a management/business qualification Courses at external institutions

Development centres

4 14 12

Action learning sets

9 11

Graduate development programmes

14 7 9 15 23 18 19 24 37 20 26 24 23

Cross-functional project assignments

Job rotation and shadowing

Mentoring and buddying schemes

UK
26 34

360-degree feedback

USA India

24

Internal secondments
9

19

High-potential development schemes

25 23 33

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

Coaching
34

52

0
Base: 519

20

40
Percentage

60

15

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation of talent management practices

Feedback 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? (%)

None of the above Time and cost to fill key roles Talent management effectiveness is not currently evaluated Implementation of formal succession plans Clear success criteria identified at the outset Formal annual (or other regular) evaluation process for talent management at an organisation-wide level The number of people promoted internally Employee attitude surveys Retention of those identified as 'high potential'

3 2 9

12 12 12

20

22 21 20 18 23 24 27 22 30

UK USA India

28

32

36 35

26

29 32 35 42 35 35 40 37 41

16

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

Anecdotally observation of changes Feedback from line managers Feedback from employees involved in talent management initiatives 0
Base: 517

18

34

32 33

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage

2011

3 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND COACHING

Leadership skills deficit
When 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
Figure 11: Which of the following leadership skills, if any, have you identified gaps in? (Please select a maximum of three) (%)
To help prepare managers for international assignments To help develop global business Innovation To prepare managers for leading across cultures Motivational skills Communication/interpersonal skills Business and commercial acumen: the ability to think strategically for the business Coaching/mentoring/developing staff Leading people and people management Leading and managing change Performance management: in particular setting standards for performance and dealing with underperformance 0
Base: 841 5 3 2 5 10 7 10

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.

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

10

19

8 24 15 19

UK USA India
27 21 25 31 39 34 25 40 43 43 36

22

33

38 44

48

51

54

40

10

20

30
Percentage

40

50

60

17

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Focus of leadership development activities

The 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 organisations 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? (%)

To help prepare managers for international assignments No leadership development activities in place To help prepare managers for leading across cultures 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 Changing the prevailing organisational culture Accelerating change within the organisation Producing a common standard of behaviour for those in leadership roles Developing high-potential individuals valued by the organisation Improving the skills of leaders to think in a more strategic and future-focused way Enabling the achievement of the organisation's strategic goals 0

1 1 1 4 1 3 6

5 18

5 4 6

14 16 13 19

UK USA India
24

18 20 17 21

14

21

26 28 26 29 29 36 41

45 46 45

38

33

43 42

18

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

10

20

30

40

50

Base: 832

Percentage

2011
Development for managers with international responsibilities
Overall, 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. 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 coaching

In 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.

Coaching
Coaching 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

Figure 13: Top three priorities for coaching activities

India USA UK 0
Base:

44 41 44 20 40

24 37 21 60
Percentage

29 18 33 80

3 3 12 100

Supporting performance management Supporting learning and development

Dont know Other

Preparing and supporting people in leadership roles

Figure 14: Responsibility for coaching activity

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

UK

Other External consultants Internal coaches Line managers

4 19

19

14 30 32 42 38 25

63 26 12 47 18 9 48 27 32 12 35 39 19 15 35 29 28 12 25 13 13 6 1 2 1

USA

Other External consultants Internal coaches Line managers

15 12 37 47 9 23 23

25

12

India

Other External consultants Internal coaches Line managers 0

39 35 54 60

17

20

40
Percentage

60

80

100

Base: 698

Main responsibility Some involvement

Limited involvement No involvement

19

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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%). Organisations in
9

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).

India that do use e-learning, however, tend to use it more widely (Figure 15) and to deliver a greater

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

33

Induction and on-boarding

22 53

Compliance (for example health and safety, hygiene, data protection)

11

52 50 52

Professional development

24 49

Basic skills development such as time management

11 11

16 23 46

Advanced skills such as project management and finance

8

20

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

37

Language learning

12 26 10

Product development training

15 41 6

Business development

9 37 30

Technology training

29 44

Awareness-raising on workplace and social issues such as diversity, drug and alcohol abuse, etc
7

30 30 41

UK USA India 3 3
39

E-coaching/mentoring 0
Base: 580

10

20

30
Percentage

40

50

60

2011
Uptake of e-learning
Two-thirds (65%) of UK organisations offer e-learning to the majority (76100%) 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 76100% of employees complete e-learning courses.

Use of new media/web 2.0 e-learning methods

Organisations 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 years time (% of organisations that use e-learning)

UK

Now In one year's time

14 22 9 23 15

41 33 27 25 34 27 26

27 27 29

17 19 13 28 21 15 23

USA

Now In one year's time

India

Now In one year's time 0

29

20

40
Percentage

60

80

100

Base: 624

010% 1125%

2650% More than 50%

Figure 17: Percentage of organisations regularly or frequently using new media/web 2.0 to support aspects of learning and development
23

Online virtual learning management systems

31 53

Mobile learning packages designed for smartphones such as the iPhone and Android Windows

1 3 21 5

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

Media such as Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn

10 18 20

Webinars/virtual classrooms
32 12

54

Audio learning such as podcasts

21 26 16

Learning libraries and wikis

21 41 37

UK USA India

Blended learning programmes

26 27 11

E-books

15 35

3
13

Rapid authoring software 0

Base: 590

53 16

10

20

30
Percentage

40

50

60

21

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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.

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

Time to competence/ proficiency Value for money Productivity and efficiency of output Learner experience
26 37

48 65 72 64 75 69

Effectiveness of e-learning
Regardless 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.

62 52

48 48 24 47 42 31 56 55

UK USA India

Learner reaction Implementation of learning in workplace 0

Base: 638

20

40
Percentage

60

80

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

22

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

E-learning is a very effective method of supporting learning in the organisation

25 45

64 78 73

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

UK
68 77 67 53 93 90 85

USA India

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

E-learning is more effective when combined with other types of learning L&TD people are slower when it comes to managing and implementing e-learning compared with IT people E-learning demands new attitudes on the part of learners 0
Base: 627 25 22 47

86 75 83

3 3

20

40
Percentage

60

80

100

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 twofifths). 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

29

Measure return on investment

26 33

Assess the impact of business key performance indicators

41 37 44 48

UK USA India

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

Measure return on expected outcomes

41 45 57

Use stories and testimonies of individuals

43 42

3 Collect post-course evaluations ('happy sheets) 0

Base: 632 93 69 53

20

40
Percentage

60

80

100

23

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Preparing for learning interventions

In 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 organisations 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 interventions

Among 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.

24

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

2011

6 ECONOMIC SITUATION AND EXPENDITURE ON LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Economic situation and training spend
This 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. 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 resources

In 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.

Economic circumstances
There 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

25

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Learning and talent development budgets

Private 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%). In most organisations, particularly in the
7

Number of days of training per employee each year

Organisations 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.

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).

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

40

Salaries for in-house trainers

45 44

51

UK USA India
69

Fixed costs
33

41

26

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

Training technology
49

63

83

Hiring external consultants and trainers

52 60 81

Books, training manuals, etc

67

86

3
92

External courses and conferences

64

84

0
Base: 384

20

40
Percentage

60

80

100

2011

APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE PROFILE

Differences in sample profiles
Some 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).

27

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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

UK USA India

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

12 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 47 13 8 1 2 0 1 4 2 1 12 31 8 5 5 8 4 9 2 2 2 3

22 0 2 1 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 10 50 12 10 2 4 1 1 5 2 1 11 14 2 3 1 6 2 14 7 0 0 6

21 0 4 1 0 7 2 2 0 0 2 4 67 15 4 2 23 2 2 7 2 0 6 4 1 2 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 4

28

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

2011
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. Table 3: Profile of respondents, by size of organisation (%) Number of employees <10 1049 50249 250999 1,0004,999 More than 5,000
Base: 880

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

UK 6 4 16 21 24 29

USA 3 11 26 21 18 21

India 7 11 18 25 13 25 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. UK US India
Base: 856

UK 93 6 1

USA 5 94 0

India 13 19 67

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

ENDNOTES
1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11

Chi Square = 26.1, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 858. The relationship is not due to sectoral differences between samples. These differences are not simply due to differences in the sector or size profile of respondents. 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 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 = 499 Chi Square = 21.2, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 539 Chi Square = 14.7, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 382 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. Chi Square = 64.4, df = 6, p < 0.001, n = 879 Chi Square = 36.3, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 879

29

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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 CIPDs survey co-ordinator Liz Dalton for making this survey possible. The CIPDs Marketing Communications Team once again helped to produce an excellent report design.

30

cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

2011
OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES
Annual survey report 2010
In partnership with

Annual survey report 2010

2010

2010

ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES TO PAY

ABSENCE MANAGEMENT The 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 PAY The 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.

RESOURCING AND TALENT PLANNING The 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.

REWARD MANAGEMENT The 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: cipd@cipd.co.uk Website: cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered charity no.1079797

Issued: August 2011 Reference: 5580 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2011