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 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

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

Appendix 1: Sample profile 27

Acknowledgements 30

1
 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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
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.
2
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.

• 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
2011
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 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
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.
3
 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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
of respondents in the US and just over one-
quarter in India.
4
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.
 2011
Evaluation and impact of learning and talent Table 1: Country of respondent
development Frequency Valid %
• Evaluation of learning is more likely to take UK/European Union 556 60.4
place in the UK (more than four-fifths) and US 211 22.9
India than in the US. Post-course evaluations
India 110 12.7
(‘happy sheets’) are the most common
Middle East 16 1.7
method across all three areas, but they are
Eastern Europe 13 1.4
particularly common in the UK, where almost
Africa 5 0.5
all organisations that conduct evaluations use
Central America 2 0.2
them.
Australia and Oceania 1 0.1
• The use of anecdotal data in the shape of
stories and testimony is more common in the UK Total 921 100

(nearly three-fifths) than in the US or India (just Unspecified 31

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
Total 952
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,
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
and the statistical tests used and their results
are explained in the endnotes on page 29.

5
 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).
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

6
 2011

1 TRENDS IN LEARNING AND

TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Effectiveness of learning and talent particularly effective by UK respondents. Coaching

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
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
E-learning 22
12

10
External conferences, workshops and events 25
21

11
Formal education courses 16
7

16 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

Internal knowledge-sharing events 16
21

18
Mentoring and buddying schemes 27 UK
22
USA
19
Action learning sets 15 India
28

20
Instructor-led training delivered off the job 18
11

24
Coaching by external practitioners 14
26

25
Job rotation, secondment and shadowing 35
24

32
On-the-job training 37
32

54
Coaching by line managers 29
21

55
In-house development programmes 38
38

0 20 40 60
Percentage
Base: 837

7
 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, 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.

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

20
Coaching by line managers 9
8

23
On-the-job training 28
7

23
Audio-visual resources 26
25

30
Job rotation, secondment and shadowing 19
12

31
Instructor-led training delivered off the job 49
15
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

36
Mentoring and buddying schemes 19
UK
16 USA
40 India
E-learning 52
31

42
Action learning sets 29
20

43
Formal education courses 63
15

47
In-house development programmes 34
15

59
Internal knowledge-sharing events 54
33

77
External conferences, workshops and events 78
62

82
Coaching by external practitioners 69
59

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Base: 820

8
 2011
Figure 3: Changes in the use of learning and
Changes in learning and talent development development practices in the private sector (%)
practices
For the past two years, data based on our UK
13
sample has found that organisations are switching 15
External conferences, 25
to more cost-effective development practices, as workshops and events 29
26
might be expected given the economic downturn 25

and the pressure on organisations to reduce costs. 15

14
The UK public sector, with a severe spending Instructor-led training 19
delivered off the job 21
squeeze, is particularly likely to be reducing its use 26
19
of all learning and development practices (CIPD
18
2011 Learning and Talent Development survey 23
36
report). Given the small proportion of public Audio-visual resources 23
24
sector organisations in the US and Indian sample, 16 Use more UK
Figure 3 shows changes in the use of learning Use more USA
19
and development practices for private sector 15 Use more India
25
Action learning sets
organisations only. 8 Use less UK
8
17 Use less USA
Use less India
Figure 3 suggests that e-learning is becoming 21
23
increasingly popular in the UK and US. Fewer Job rotation, secondment 32
and shadowing 10
organisations in India, however, report it is being 15
12
used more there and nearly a fifth responding from
26
India report it is being used less. This may reflect 20
Coaching by external 34
the fact that Indian organisations have already practitioners 25
33
made significant strides in integrating ICT-based 22

learning and talent development, as evidenced in 28

32
their widespread adoption of such technologies. 45
On-the-job training
3
It may in fact reflect that the other countries are 5
4
‘catching up’. In line with our UK sample findings,
organisations across all areas tend to be switching 31
26
to less costly development practices such as in- Mentoring and buddying 25
schemes 9
house development programmes, coaching by line 13
21
managers and internal knowledge-sharing events. LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
39
On-the-job training and the use of audio-visual 37
Internal knowledge-sharing 45
resources are increasingly being used in India. The events 8
7
use of more costly development practices such as 14

external conferences, workshops and events, and 47

36
classroom-based learning is becoming less frequent 45
Coaching by line managers
5
across all areas. 4
7

50
40
In-house development 34
programmes 8
14
12

50
58
39
E-learning
5
6
18

0 20 40 60
Percentage
Base: 526

9
 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

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

India 61 31 8 0
managers

USA 46 44 9 1
Senior

UK 39 53 8 1
India 44 49 7 0
managers

USA 16 55 27 3
Line

UK 28 58 13 2
development

India 61 27 9 2
specialists
Learning,

USA 40 27 8 25
training
and

UK 56 23 8 13
India 62 32 4 2
consultants department

USA 52 41 5 2
UK 30 46 16 8
HR

organisation

India 12 29 43 16
working
External

USA 5 22 29 45
for the

UK 2 21 32 46

India 38 30 25 7
Employees/
learners

USA 7 40 43 10

UK 14 56 26 5

0 20 40 60 80 100
Base: 549 Percentage

Main responsibility Limited involvement

Some involvement No involvement

Responsibility for determining learning and specialisation of HR responsibilities in the UK that

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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
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

than two-fifths of organisations, line managers also the UK and US are conversely above 45%. This
have a major responsibility. Nearly two-fifths also perhaps reflects the greater maturity of delivery
reported that the employees/learners themselves coupled with the recent austerity which has led
have main responsibility, a far greater proportion to the disengagement of many consultants and
than in the UK or US. a requirement to deliver in-house. In India it may
reflect a shortage of expert L&TD people or the
In the US, HR departments (52%) most commonly sheer scale of the learning and talent development
have the main responsibility for development, effort in a booming economy.
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

10

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
2011
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.

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

46
Overall management/planning of 45
learning and development efforts
46

45
Delivering courses/time in a training facility 33
33

43
Organisational development/change
31
management activities
43

28
Strategy discussions/building relationships
24
with senior managers
28

27
Managing/organising delivery by 16
external trainers
26

25 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

UK
Monitoring and evaluating training 27
33 USA

23 India
Designing and implementing delivery of
38
technology-enabled training/e-learning
25

21
Delivering one-to-one coaching 24
or individual support 24

Managing/organising delivery by 14
trainers employed by your organisation 15
but not in the training department 16
3
13
Implementation discussions/building 3
12
relationships with other line managers
11

0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Base: 825

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, 46

organisational development and performance 53
management to drive organisational change 51

39
Greater responsibility devolved to learners
and line managers 22
25

34
More emphasis on monitoring, measuring and 36
evaluating training effectiveness
32

33
Closer integration of learning and development
activity and business strategy 28
33

31
Greater use of e-learning across the organisation 38
30

25
Link L&TD with performance management
and organisational development 16
30
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

More use of short, focused delivery methods 18

such as ‘bite-sized’ learning and using 15 UK
smartphone apps, etc. 7 USA

15 India
Less use of classroom and trainer-led instruction 12
11

14
Greater centralisation of learning and
development as a function 13
14
3
Move towards use of web 2.0 type technology 11
to deliver learning, training and development 3
19
(for example Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn,
SecondLife, and so on) 25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage
Base: 825

12
 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 (%)

41 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

All staff 59
64

76
High-potential employees 74
88

34
Junior managers 53
50

43
Middle managers 68
UK
54
USA
64
Senior managers 75 India
72

35
Technical specialists 53
54

51
Graduates 49
39

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Base: 432

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
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
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%).

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

4
Redeployment of staff
5
to other roles
6

7
Addressing skills shortages 12
10

10
Assisting organisational
9
resource-planning
1

Supporting changes in the 18

organisational structure or 20
business environment 13

24
Attracting and recruiting key
51
staff to the organisation
38

29
Meeting the future skills
18 UK
requirements of the organisation
14
USA
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

34
Enabling the achievement of the India
34
organsiation's strategic goals
47

36
Retaining key staff 35
50

61
Growing future senior
49
managers/leaders
47

63
Developing high-potential
55
employees
58

0 20 40 60 80
Percentage
Base: 519

14
 2011
Figure 9: Top three most effective talent
Effectiveness of talent management activities management activities (%)
Not only are talent management activities
more common in India (as reported above) but 5
organisations operating in India are also most likely External secondments 2
8
to report that their talent management activities
5
are effective. More than two-thirds (68%) of the Assessment centres 5
5
Indian sample rate their activities as very or fairly
Courses leading to a 6
effective compared with half of UK organisations management/business 5
qualification
(50%) and 55% of organisations in the US. Around 9

one-fifth of organisations in the UK and US see Courses at

10
6
external institutions
their talent management activities as ineffective 7

compared to those in India where about one-tenth 11

Development centres 4
report that talent management is ineffective. Again 14

this could reflect the growth and talent retention 12

Action learning sets 9
focus of Indian companies, and perhaps a more 11
systematic approach to measurement and the value
14
Graduate development
drivers of talent. programmes
7
9

15
Figure 9 shows which talent management activities Cross-functional
23
project assignments
18
are considered to be most effective. Coaching
19
ranks highly in all areas as an accelerator of Job rotation
24
and shadowing
talent, although less so in India. Organisations in 37

India are more likely to report job rotation and Mentoring and
20
26
buddying schemes
shadowing as well as 360-degree feedback among 24
UK
their most effective talent management activities. 23
360-degree feedback 26 USA
They are considerably less likely to report internal 34 India
secondments among their top three most effective 24
Internal secondments 19
activities than organisations in the US or the UK,
9
perhaps reflecting some concern about possible
25
High-potential
talent leakage as individuals experience other development schemes
23
33
organisations and settings.
29
In-house development LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
34
programmes
24

49
Coaching 52
34

0 20 40 60
Percentage
Base: 519

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? (%)

3
None of the above 2
0
9
Time and cost to fill key roles 12
20

Talent management effectiveness 12

7
is not currently evaluated 12
Implementation of formal 22
21
succession plans 20

Clear success criteria 23

18 UK
identified at the outset 24
USA
Formal annual (or other regular) 27
evaluation process for talent management 30 India
at an organisation-wide level 22
28
The number of people promoted internally 32
36
35
Employee attitude surveys 26
29

Retention of those identified 35

32
as 'high potential' 42
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

35
Anecdotally – observation of changes 35
18
40
Feedback from line managers 34
37

Feedback from employees involved 41

32
in talent management initiatives 33

0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Base: 517

16
 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
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.

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 3

2 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
international assignments 10
5
To help develop global business 3
10
7
Innovation 10
19
8
To prepare managers for leading across cultures 5 UK
24
USA
15
Motivational skills 19 India
22
27
Communication/interpersonal skills 36
21

Business and commercial acumen: the ability 31

25
to think strategically for the business 39
34
Coaching/mentoring/developing staff 43
25
43
Leading people and people management 40
33
51
Leading and managing change 48
38
Performance management: in particular 54
setting standards for performance and 44
dealing with underperformance 40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage
Base: 841

17
 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Focus of leadership development activities future-focused way and developing high-potential

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 organisation’s strategic goals, improving the
skills of leaders to think in a more strategic and
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? (%)

1
To help prepare managers for international assignments 1
1
4
No leadership development activities in place 6
1
5
To help prepare managers for leading across cultures 3
18
5
Improving relationships with external or partner organisations 4
8
6
To help develop global business 4
14
16
Addressing the current underperformance of leaders 19 UK
13
USA
18
Changing the leadership style across the organisation 20 India
17
24
Changing the prevailing organisational culture 21
14
26
Accelerating change within the organisation 21
28
29
Producing a common standard of behaviour for 26
those in leadership roles 29
36
Developing high-potential individuals valued by 41
the organisation 45

Improving the skills of leaders to think in a more 38

46
strategic and future-focused way 45
43
Enabling the achievement of the organisation's strategic goals 33
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

42

0 10 20 30 40 50
Percentage
Base: 832

18
 2011
Development for managers with management. Preparing and supporting people in
international responsibilities leadership roles is the key priority for one in three
Overall, less than half (45%) of organisations that organisations in the UK (33%) and India (29%) but
operate in more than one country carry out specific is less of a priority in the US (18%), whereas using
learning and talent development for managers who coaching to support learning and development
have international responsibilities. The figure is is more frequently prioritised in the US (37%
slightly higher in India (54% compared with 44% in compared with 21% in the UK and 24% in India).
the UK and 42% in the US) but the difference is not
statistically significant. Responsibility for coaching
In all areas, but particularly in India, line managers
Coaching and internal coaches have the main responsibility
Coaching takes place in more than four-fifths for coaching (Figure 14). These findings reflect
(85%) of organisations, with no significant those in Figure 4, where it was noted that in
differences across the UK, the US and India. More India responsibility for determining learning and
than two-fifths of organisations in each of these development needs does not fall to one individual
areas reported the key priority of coaching within or department.
their organisation is to support performance

Figure 13: Top three priorities for coaching activities

India 44 24 29 3
USA 41 37 18 3
UK 44 21 33 12

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Base:

Supporting performance management Don’t know

Supporting learning and development Other
Preparing and supporting people in leadership roles

Figure 14: Responsibility for coaching activity LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

UK Other 4 19 14 63

External consultants 19 30 25 26

Internal coaches 32 38 12 18

Line managers 42 47 9 1

USA Other 15 25 12 48

External consultants 12 23 27 39

Internal coaches 37 32 12 19

Line managers 47 35 15 2

India Other 9 39 17 35

External consultants 23 35 29 13

Internal coaches 54 28 12 6

Line managers 60 25 13 1

0 20 40 60 80 100
Base: 698 Percentage

Main responsibility Limited involvement

Some involvement No involvement

19
 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

4 E-LEARNING

E-learning is a significant force in the development percentage of training content. Two-fifths of the
of learning and talent and our survey looked to UK organisations that use e-learning use it to deliver
gauge its spread and effectiveness. The use of less than 10% of their total learning compared
e-learning is less common in India (66%) than in with just over a fifth of Indian or US organisations.
the UK (79%) or the US (79%). Organisations in
9
In all areas organisations anticipate a greater use of
India that do use e-learning, however, tend to use e-learning over the coming year (Figure 16).
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

52
Compliance (for example health and
safety, hygiene, data protection) 50
52

11
Professional development 24
49

16
Basic skills development such
23
as time management
46

11
Advanced skills such as project
11
management and finance
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

37

8
Language learning 12
26

10
Product development training 15
41

6
Business development 9
37

30
Technology training 29
44

Awareness-raising on workplace 30
UK
and social issues such as diversity, 30
drug and alcohol abuse, etc 41 USA
3
India
7
3
E-coaching/mentoring 9
39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage
Base: 580

20
 2011
Uptake of e-learning Use of new media/web 2.0 e-learning methods
Two-thirds (65%) of UK organisations offer Organisations based in India more commonly use
e-learning to the majority (76–100%) of their a range of new media/web 2.0, including online
employees, compared with two-fifths (43%) of virtual management systems, learning libraries
US organisations and just over a quarter of Indian and wikis, e-books and mobile learning packages
(27%) organisations. Fewer than a quarter of to support aspects of learning and development
organisations across all areas report that 76–100% (Figure 17). US organisations are more likely to
of employees complete e-learning courses. 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)

UK Now 41 27 17 9

In one year's time 14 33 27 19

USA Now 22 27 29 13

In one year's time 9 25 26 28

India Now 23 34 21 15

In one year's time 15 27 29 23

0 20 40 60 80 100
Base: 624 Percentage

0–10% 26–50%
11–25% 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

1
Mobile learning packages designed for smartphones
3
such as the iPhone and Android Windows
21

5
Media such as Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn 10
LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
18

20
Webinars/virtual classrooms 54
32

12
Audio learning such as podcasts 21
26

16
Learning libraries and wikis 21
41

37
UK
Blended learning programmes 26 USA
27
India
11
E-books 15
35
3
13
Rapid authoring software 53
3
16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage
Base: 590

21
 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

classrooms compared with those in the UK or Figure 19: When using e-learning, what is your
view of its general benefits in respect of the
India. In the UK organisations are more likely
following? (% reporting excellent or good)
to make use of blended learning programmes,
reflecting the poor previous integration of
Time to 48
standalone e-learning in terms of effectiveness competence/ 65
proficiency 72
and learner experience.
64
Value for
75
money
Effectiveness of e-learning 69

Regardless of the countries surveyed, most Productivity 37

and efficiency 62
organisations agree that e-learning is more of output 52
effective when combined with other types of 26
Learner
learning and that it demands new attitudes on experience
48
48
the part of learners (Figure 18). Nearly half of UK
24 USA
organisations in India agree that L&TD people are Learner
47
reaction
India
slower than IT people when it comes to managing 42

and implementing e-learning, compared with IT Implementation 31

of learning 56
people compared with a quarter of those from the in workplace 55

UK or the US who believe this to be the case. 0 20 40 60 80

Percentage
Base: 638

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)
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

64
E-learning is a very effective method of
supporting learning in the organisation 78
73

25 UK
E-learning is the most important
45
development in L&TD in recent years
68 USA
India
77
E-learning is not a substitute for face-to-face
or classroom learning in my organisation 67
53

93
E-learning is more effective when
90
combined with other types of learning
85

L&TD people are slower when it comes to 25

managing and implementing e-learning 22
compared with IT people 47
3
86
E-learning demands new 3
75
attitudes on the part of learners
83

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Base: 627

22
 2011

5 MEASURING PRACTICE:
EVALUATING LEARNING AND
TALENT DEVELOPMENT
Evaluation of learning is more likely to take place India (53%) and just over two-thirds (69%) in the
in the UK (84%) and India (77%) than in the US (Figure 20). The use of anecdotal data in the
US (57%) according to our sample.3 Post-course shape of stories and testimony is more common in
evaluations (‘happy sheets’) are the most common the UK (57%) than in the US or India (just over two-
evaluation method across all three areas, but they fifths). The use of more quantitative measures such
are particularly common in the UK, where almost as the use of KPIs, return on expectation and return
all organisations that conduct evaluations use them on investment are less common in the UK than in
(93%) compared with just over half of those in the US or India.

Figure 20: Reported learning evaluation methods

29
Measure return on investment 26
33
UK
41
Assess the impact of business
37 USA
key performance indicators
44 India
48 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
Measure return on expected outcomes 41
45

57
Use stories and testimonies of individuals 43
42
3
93
Collect post-course evaluations 3
69
('happy sheets’)
53

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Base: 632

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 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).
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey
24
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.

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.
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
2011
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 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
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.
25
 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
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 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.

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

40
Salaries for in-house trainers 51
45
UK
44 USA
Fixed costs 41
India
33
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

69
Training technology 63
49

83
Hiring external consultants and trainers 52
60

81
Books, training manuals, etc 86
67
3
92
3
External courses and conferences 84
64

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
Base: 384

26
 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 LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011
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

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
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

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 4
Base: 879

28

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.
2011
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 3: Profile of respondents, by size of

organisation (%) Table 4: Where is your organisation
headquartered? (%)
Number of employees UK USA India
<10 6 3 7 UK USA India
10–49 4 11 11 UK 93 5 13
50–249 16 26 18 US 6 94 19
250–999 21 21 25 India 1 0 67
1,000–4,999 24 18 13 Base: 856

More than 5,000 29 21 25

Base: 880 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.

LEARNING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT 2011

ENDNOTES
1
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 = 842
4
Chi Square = 12.8, df = 4, p < 0.5, n = 593
5
Chi Square = 60.8, df = 6, p < 0.001, n = 521
6
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
7
Chi Square = 21.2, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 539
8
Chi Square = 14.7, df = 2, p < 0.001, n = 382
9
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 = 879
11
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 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.
cipd.co.uk/learningandtalentdevelopmentsurvey

30

OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES
In partnership with
Annual survey report 2010
2010
ABSENCE
MANAGEMENT
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.
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.
2011
Annual survey report 2010
2010
EMPLOYEE
ATTITUDES
TO PAY
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.
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.
 Issued: August 2011 Reference: 5580 © Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2011

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