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
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 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.
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
4
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
• 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.
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
6
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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.
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
8
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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
Coaching by line managers
On-the-job training
Audio-visual resources
Job rotation, secondment and shadowing
Instructor-led training delivered off the job
Mentoring and buddying schemes
E-learning
Action learning sets
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
Audio-visual resources
Action learning sets
Job rotation, secondmentand shadowing
On-the-job training
Mentoring and buddyingschemes
Internal knowledge-sharingevents
Coaching by line managers
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.
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
10
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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.
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
12
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
14
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
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
Action learning sets
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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
16
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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.
0 10 20 30 40Percentage
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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
18
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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? (%)
0 10 20 30 40Percentage
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
0 20 40PercentageBase: 698
60 80 100
Main responsibility
Internal coaches
UK
Line managers
Some involvement
Limited involvement
No involvement
Other
External consultants
Internal coaches
Line managers
Other
External consultants
Internal coaches
Line managers
Other
External consultants
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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
20
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%).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)
0 20 40PercentageBase: 624
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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
22
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.
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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
24
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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.
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
26
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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).
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
28
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT
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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
30
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 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