The 2011 National Learning and Development Index · Development Manager Training Coordinator...

RESEARCH REPORT

The 2011 National Learning and Development Index

HRpulse sponsor

FOREWORDS

The results from this survey show that significant investments are being made by organisations to develop their people, with about 70 per cent building on their quantum of efforts since the global financial crisis. Unfortunately the findings also demonstrate what a number of us have feared for a while: the key driver for this considerable organisational investment into learning and development is an overly reactive set of responses from performance reviews, and not a conscious building of strategic capabilities linked to the long term growth of businesses.

More leverage potential can be developed from these learning and development efforts, if organisations work smarter to link the large commitments they are making in their people to both the clear strategic directions established for the organisation, and to the longer term

skill needs for individuals to deliver on these strategic plans and expectations.

It will be instructive to see how the response to these findings plays out in the L&D field, and the extent to which adjustments are made to practices that affect the wider HR function within business, especially with more positive responses needed in order to prepare workers to compete in the increasingly competitive global operating environment for Australian business.

In what is the second survey conducted in this L&D Index series, I would like to thank the many respondents for making the considerable effort to contribute to research that we expect to continue in association with the AITD for years to come.

Peter Wilson AM National President Australian Human Resources Institute

The shock and turmoil of the economic events in recent years is still fresh in our minds and our business confidence continues to take a battering with fluctuating global markets. Yet in amongst this, life and business goes on. As always, resilient L&D professionals continue to adapt to wildly changing circumstances and the L&D industry continually finds new means to support and champion organisational development. This is despite a prevailing ‘first budget to be cut, last budget to be reinstated’ environment.

Whilst it is a positive signal that training budgets are stabilising and growing, it is imperative that organisations leverage their training investments by ensuring that L&D is a key component of their business strategy. It is essential that L&D strategy is not only linked to organisational strategy but is a key driver. Allowing L&D decisions to be made at the time

of performance appraisals, whilst empowering for line managers and employees, is somewhat of a wasted opportunity. L&D strategy needs to be proactive and aligned to a future view rather than being a last-minute thought to fill skills gaps.

I congratulate those organisations that have recognised the true value of their L&D investment to organisational prosperity and have established specific L&D functions to support growth. By recognising L&D as a specific skill set and resourcing the function, you are breaking ground and leading the way. I encourage all L&D managers to continue your quest for representation within the strategic plan and at the executive table.

Jeanne Marshall National President Australian Institute of Training and Development

According to Richard Riley, former Secretary of Education in the Clinton administration, the top five jobs today did not exist five years ago.

Further, the top five jobs in 2016 years don’t yet exist. We operate in a world that is changing at warp speed, and the learning and development challenges that these changes bring are immense. How do you plan for competence and capability for roles that don’t yet exist? How do you maintain that essential connection between L&D and business strategy in a world that is moving faster than ever before? And how do you meet the development needs of an increasingly demanding employee base for whom rapid career progression is so important?

The learning and development function today is as complex, difficult, challenging and as it has ever been. Yet it has also never been more interesting, nor has it ever had such opportunity to positively impact its organisation.

The tools and options at the disposal of today’s L&D managers offer solutions to learning dilemmas that have long persisted - eLearning, mobile learning, serious gaming, communication tools, collaboration tools, systems for managing and sharing user-generated content. It is truly an incredible time to be involved in this industry.

The National Learning and Development Index is a crucially important initiative for a number of reasons. Firstly it reveals a rich set of data about L&D in Australian business; secondly it is the only one of its kind – without it we would have no visibility into this most important business function.

Learning Seat is proud to be a sponsor of the National Learning and Development Index.

Tim Legge Chief Executive Officer Learning Seat

AcknowledgementsProject director: Serge Sardo, AHRI CEO Project coordinator: Anne-Marie Dolan Report authors: Serge Sardo, Paul Begley Volume 3, Number 2 © Australian Human Resources Institute June 2011

Research Report1page

KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE• Nearly half the respondents (49.35%) report that learning and development is part of the HR function in their organisation, 14.1% report that it’s a stand-alone function and 33.6% report it’s both within and external to HR.

• More than nine out of ten respondents (92.3%) report that L&D activities are determined in the performance review process, 75.3% that they arise from compliance requirements, 75.2% that they are employee initiated, and 69% that they are decided in relation to core job skills.

• The main types of L&D activities reported as being provided by organisations include in-house training (95.1%), induction (87.6%), formal education funding (80.2%), leadership development (79.8%), e-learning (68.5%), professional association memberships (66.2%), individual career planning (63.4%), coaching (61.9%) and mentoring (61.2%).

• Four out of ten respondents (40.55%) report their organisation has no training programs for graduates to gain business skills in leadership, communication and stakeholder management when they commence.

• More than a quarter of respondents (29.97%) report that they believe their organisation does not have a genuine commitment to being a learning organisation.

• Less than half of respondents (45.88%) report that L&D activities and their outcomes are closely linked to business strategy, with 35.88% reporting they are somewhat linked and 18.24% that they’re not linked at all.

• A total of 71.14% of respondents report that their L&D budget has either been maintained (58.33%) or increased (12.81%) since the global financial crisis.

• Around half of respondents (50.98%) believe L&D activities in their organisation are effective in building necessary capabilities.

• According to the respondent sample, return on investment in L&D initiatives is measured by self- assessment of participants (48.25% of respondents), climate surveys (38.58%), assessment of related individual changes in productivity and performance (32.1%), and assessment of related organisational improvements in productivity and performance (21.81%). A quarter say that initiatives are not tracked for ROI (25.85%).

• According to the respondent sample, the main areas of return on investment for L&D initiatives that have resulted in contribution to revenue or prevention of loss, are as follows: induction (62.54%), compliance training for new legislation (50.93%), leadership training (49.62%), workplace safety training (47.43%), and soft skills straining (40.31%).

• Around three quarters of the respondent sample report that their organisation expects L&D expenditure to both increase productivity (74.13%) and improve morale (73.07%). Other expectations include reducing staff turnover (59.13%), improving bottom-line performance (47.84%) and increasing revenue (27.46%).

• According to the respondent sample, the main L&D initiatives that are perceived by employees as ineffective or time wasting are as follows: team building activities (37.03%), soft skills training (27.75%), workplace safety training (26.32%), and compliance training for new legislation (22.06%).

• According to the respondent sample, the main L&D initiatives that are perceived by senior management as ineffective or time wasting are as follows: team building activities (33.01%), soft skills training (27.75%) and leadership training (17.38%).

• According to the respondent sample, the main steps taken to rectify negative perceptions about L&D activities, are as follows: better communication of benefits of activities for personal development (60.69%), better communication of benefits of activities for team development (40.54%), changes made to training on feedback (42.67%), better communication of benefits of activities for bottom line (41 better communication of benefits of activities for customer service (32.36%).


SURVEY OVERVIEWThe survey that resulted in these findings was conducted online during March and April 2011, and communicated by email to the AHRI and AITD member databases.

A total of 1164 respondents returned answers to the survey. Responses were treated anonymously.

SECTION 1: DEMOGRAPHICS

Figure 1. Gender of respondents

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(1156 responses)

Male

29.15%

Female

70.85%

Figure 1 shows that approximately seven out of 10 respondents (70.85%) were female.

Figure 2. Location of respondents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(1153 responses)

ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC

5.81%

27.84%

1.91%

16.22%

8.59%

3.56%

25.67%

WA

10.41%

Figure 2 indicates that more than half the total respondents were from NSW (27.84%) and Victoria (25.67%), with Queensland (16.22%) and Western Australia (10.41%) accounting for a quarter of the sample between them.


Figure 3. Position in organisation

00%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

(1142 responses)

HR A

dm

inistrator

HR A

dvisor

HR M

anager

Senior HR M

anager

HR D

irector/GM

Consultant

Supervisor/Team

Leader

Manag

er

Senior Manag

er

Director/G

M/C

EO

Acad

emic

Barrister/Solicitor

Recruiter

Training/L&

D/O

rganisational

Develop

ment M

anager

Training C

oordinator

Trainer within an org

anisation

Trainer withing

a consultancy

Coach

Business ow

ner (consultancy)

Business ow

ner (trainingp

roduct sup

plier)

Business M

anager

(consultancy)

Business M

anager (training

prod

uct supp

lier)

Instructional desig

ner

RTO M

anager

Other

Ad

ministrator

Accountant/Finance

3.06%

12.96%

19.18%

6.92%5.25%

5.17%

.96%

3.77%

2.89%3.33%

1.05%.26% .79%

.09%.79%

15.32%

2.01%2.80%

.44% .61%

5.17%

.79% .18% .18%

1.14%

.61%

4.29%

Figure 3 indicates that nearly half of the respondents (47.37%) work directly within the HR function as director, senior manager, manager, adviser or administrator. Approximately a fifth (21.13%) work in training roles as a manager, coordinator, in-house trainer, consultant or coach. Respondents describing themselves as RTO manager, recruiter, instructional designer, barrister, solicitor or academic each constituted a small proportion of the sample, though business owners and managers of consultancies accounted for 6.15% of the sample.


Figure 4. Sector

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(1155 responses)

Private

57.40%

Public

30.91%

NFP/NGO

11.69%

Figure 4 reveals that considerably more than half of the sample group (57.4%) are from the private sector with less than a third (30.91%) from the public sector. Around one in ten is from a not-for-profit organisation or a non-government enterprise (112.69%).

Figure 5. Size of organisation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(1158 responses)

0 - 20 21 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 500 501 - 1000 1000 +

14.85%

5.61%7.60%

12.00%

15.03%

11.14%

32.64%

Don’t know

1.12%

Figure 5 shows a little less than half of the sample group (43.8%) are from organisations that employ more than 500 employees, including a third (32.64%) from organisations with more than 1000 employees. More than a quarter (27.03%) are from organisations that employ 100 -500 employees and 28.06% are from organisations with fewer than 100 employees, including 14.85% from businesses with fewer than 20 employees.


Figure 6. Salary range of respondents

00%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

(1146 responses)

$0 - $40,000

1.31%

$40,001 - $50,000

7.24%

$50,001 - $80,000

22.69%

$80,001 - $100,000

26.09%

$100,001 - $120,000

16.06%

$120,001 - $140,000

10.12%

$140,001 - $160,000

5.58%

$160,001 - $180,000

3.32%$180,001 - $200,000

3.05%

$200,001 - $240,000

1.83%

$240,001 - $280,000

1.31%

$280,001 - $320,000

0.61%

$320,001 - $360,000

0.09%

$360,001 - $400,000

0.17%

$400,0001 +

0.52%

Figure 6 indicates that a little less than half of the sample group (49.78%) report their salary range as between $60,000 and $100,000, with more than a third (38.13%) reporting salaries in the range $100,000

- $200,000 range. Fewer than one in 20 report salaries in excess of $200,000 (4.53%) and less than one in ten report salaries of less than $60,000 (8.55%).


Figure 7. Respondent involvement in L&D function

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

(1164 responses)

External consultant/facilitator providing

L&D solutions

13.66%

Internal employeeproviding L&Dsolutions as

primary function

21.22%

Internal employeewith some

responsibilityfor managing/coordinating L&D activities

52.06%

Internal HRemployee with

no responsibility for L&D function

9.54%

In a non-HR orL&D role within yourorganisation with noresponsibility for L&D

3.52%

Figure 7 shows that nearly three quarters of the sample group (73.28%) are internal employees either with their primary function providing L&D solutions (21.22%) or with some responsibility for L&D solutions (52.06%). A little more than one in 10 are external consultants (13.66%) providing L&D solutions to the business, and fewer than one in 10 (9.54%) are HR employees with no L&D responsibility.

Figure 8. Where L&D sits in relation to HR

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

(993 responses)

As a responsibility/role within the

HR function

49.35%

As a separate L&D function/role outside ofthe HR function

14.10%

Both within and external to the

HR function

33.64%

Don’t know

1.41%

Other

1.51%

Figure 8 shows that L&D sits within the HR function in almost half the organisations represented in the respondent sample (49.35%) and that L&D is a stand-alone function in only 14.1% of organisations. In a third of organisations (33.64%) L&D sits both within and outside the HR function.


Figure 9. Size of L&D function within the organisation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(997 responses)

0

19.36%

1 - 3

38.72%

4 - 5

10.03%

6 -10

9.03%

11 - 15

4.01%

16 - 20

2.21%

21 - 30

1.81%

31 - 50

2.51%

50 +

7.92%

Don’t know

4.41%

Figure 9 shows that more than a third of organisations in the respondent sample operate with an L&D function of between 1-3 specialist staff (38.72%). A total of approximately one fifth operate with either 4-5 staff (10.03%) or 6-10 staff (9/03%).

Around one fifth of respondent organisations (19.36%) report no L&D staff at all, and nearly one in 10 (7.92%) report an L&D function consisting of 50 or more L&D specialists. A total of 10.54% of respondents report between 10 and 50 L&D staff within their organisations.

SECTION 2: DETAILED FINDINGS

Questions were asked of the sample group on L&D activities, including types of activities, strategy and budgets. Other questions focused on employee satisfaction, effectiveness and return on investment from L&D. In addition, a section asked about the academic qualifications and industry background of respondents.

Learning and development activitiesRespondents were asked to indicate the proportion of L&D activities that were undertaken in their organisation under five headings:

• Internal or external activities

• Informal or formal activities

• Public or customised activities

• Face-to-face or online/remote activities

• Compliance or development activities


Table 1. Proportion of L&D activity types undertaken

1a. (954 responses)

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100%

Internal 7.55% 9.22% 7.97% 5.24% 14.26% 8.91% 13.94% 15.09% 13.52% 3.67%

External 14.99% 16.04% 14.15% 10.69% 15.51% 6.08% 5.24% 7.13% 5.35% 1.47%

Table 1a indicates that the largest proportion of L&D activities are internal rather than external offerings, with more than half the sample (52.2%) reporting that internal activities are undertaken in 40% to 90% of cases. By contrast, nearly three quarters of the sample (71.38%) report that external activities are undertaken in cases ranging from none at all to 50%.

1b. (951responses)

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100%

Informal 9.15% 12.30% 14.30% 10.83% 14.93% 8.73% 11.36% 10.09% 4.52% 0.95%

Formal 6.31% 7.78% 11.57% 7.78% 15.67% 9.15% 13.25% 15.35% 9.46% 2.42%

Table 1b shows that the spread of informal and formal L&D activities undertaken is very even across organisations.

1c. (942 responses)

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100%

Public 15.82% 17.09% 13.80% 7.43% 12.53% 6.16% 6.16% 7.11% 6.58% 3.18%

Customised 9.66% 8.60% 8.17% 5.31% 13.91% 7.11% 8.39% 14.01% 14.54% 8.28%

Table 1c indicates that the sample group report a strong preference within their organisations for customised rather than publicly available training, with two thirds (66.24%) undertaking customised L&D activities in 40% to 100% of cases. The comparable percentage of organisations undertaking public L&D activities is well less than half (41.72%).

1d. (944 responses)

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100%

Face-to-face

3.60% 2.44% 3.18% 4.03% 8.26% 5.61% 11.55% 18.86% 27.54% 14.51%

Online/Remote

30.72% 23.52% 14.62% 7.20% 8.05% 4.13% 2.44% 2.12% 0.95% 0.64%

Table 1d shows that face-to-face L&D activities are greatly preferred to online or remote activities in the sample group organisations, with nearly three quarters of respondents (72.46%) reporting that face-to-face activities are undertaken in 60% to 100% of cases, whereas the comparable proportion undertaking online and remote activities is a mere 6.15%.


1e. (938 responses)

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100%

Compliance 8.32% 9.59% 14.93% 12.58% 13.65% 9.91% 10.66% 10.66% 7.04% 1.92%

Development 5.76% 9.28% 9.81% 10.02% 15.46% 10.34% 11.94% 13.97% 8.00% 3.73%

Table 1e indicates that the spread of L&D activities between compliance and development activities is evenly spread among organisations in the sample group, with each being undertaken in roughly three quarters of the sample organisations in 20% to 80% of cases: compliance 72.39% and development 71,54% for those ranges.

Table 2. Types of L&D activities

What types of L&D activities are provided by your organisation? (tick as many as apply) (997 responses)

Option Count Percent

Funding of formal education 800 80.2

Mentoring 610 61.2

Coaching 617 61.9

In-house training 948 95.1

E-learning 683 68.5

Membership of professional associations 660 66.2

Leadership development 796 79.8

Traineeships 494 49.5

Induction 873 87.6

Apprenticeships 277 27.8

Individual development/career planning 632 63.4

Secondment 392 39.3

Graduate programs 410 41.1

Other 40 4.0

Table 2 indicates the main L&D activities offered by the organisations in the respondent sample. In-house training rates highest with 95.1% of respondents reporting that type of activity, with induction also rating strongly by 87.6% of respondents and funding of formal training by 80.2%.

Leadership development (79.8%), e-learning (68.5%), payment of professional association fees (66.2%), individual career planning (63.4%), coaching (61.9%) and mentoring (61.2%) also rate strongly.

There is moderate interest from this sample group in traineeships (49.5%), graduate programs (41.1%), and secondments (39.3%), and little activity in apprenticeships (27.8%).


Table 3. How L&D activities are determined

How are L&D activities determined for an employee? (tick as many as apply) (996 responses)

Option Count Percent

Performance review process 919 92.3

Induction process 486 48.8

Compliance requirements 750 75.3

Organisational equipment/IT/process requirements 506 50.8

Employee initiated 749 75.2

Gap analysis 453 45.5

Business and divisional strategy derived 463 46.5

Core skills required for organisation 559 56.1

Core skills required for job 687 69.0

Assessment centres 61 6.1

Don't know 10 1.0

As table 3 shows, in more than nine out of 10 respondent organisations (92.3%) the performance review process is where L&D activities are determined, and in three quarters of cases L&D arises from either compliance requirements (75.3%) or are employee initiated (75.2%). The next strongest influence on L&D determination are core job skills (69%).

Around half the respondent sample report core organisation skills (56.1%), organisation process requirements such as IT (50.8%) and induction processes (48.8%). The need for L&D activities derived from business and divisional strategies (46.5%) and gap analyses (45.5%) are also influential in determining L&D activities.

Table 4. Who determines what in L&D?

How is responsibility for the L&D function allocated within your organisation? (992 Responses)

CEO HR Manager L&D Manager Line Manager Don’t know

Budget 42.74% 26.51% 14.72% 11.69% 3.73%

Source 3.73% 33.47% 46.98% 10.89% 3.73%

Activity 5.14% 28.23% 44.86% 16.63% 3.53%

Recipient 4.64% 17.24% 18.25% 51.11% 6.35%

Table 4 shows who in the sample organisations are responsible for making decisions about the L&D budget, the sourcing of training, the activities provided, and who gets access to them.

In nearly half the organisations L&D budgets are determined by CEOs (42.74%), a quarter by HR managers (26.51%), and around one in 10 each by L&D managers (14.72%) and line managers (11.69%).

L&D managers exercise the most influence in deciding who gives the training with nearly half the respondents (46.98%) indicating the L&D source is determined at that level, a third by HR managers (33.47%) and one in 10 by line managers (10.89%).

The numbers are similar for the level at which the activities are determined, with L&D managers (44.86%), HR managers (28.23%) and line managers (16.63%) exercising influence.

On who receives training, more than half are determined by line managers (51.11%), with around one in five each being determined by L&D managers (18.25%) and HR managers (17.24%).

Apart from the determination of budgets, CEOs exercise little direct responsibility for activity within the L&D function.


Budgets for learning and development

Figure 10. How are L&D budgets set in organisations?

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

(995 responses)

Set by executiveteam (non-L&D/HR) at yearly

budget process with no

consultation withL&D/HR

18.19%

Set by executiveteam (non-L&D

/HR) with consultationwith L&D/HR

49.45%

Set by L&D/HRin consultation

with line managers

15.78%

Set by linemanagers

4.02%

No formal budget allocated

directly

7.44%

Don’t know

5.13%

Figure 10 indicates that almost half the respondents in the sample (49.45%) report that the L&D budget is set by the executive in consultation with HR and L&D, while one fifth (18.19%) report it’s set by the executive without any consultation. Another fifth of respondents report that the budget is set by a combination of L&D and HR managers (15.78%) and line managers (4.02%). Nearly one in 10 (7.44%) report that the organisation has no formal L&D budget allocation.

Figure 11. L&D budget as a percentage of organisation income?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(899 responses)

0 - 5%

66.74%

6 - 10%

23.03%

11 - 15%

6.45%

16 - 20%

2.34%

More than 20%

1.45%

Figure 11 indicates that two thirds of organisations (66.74%) in the respondent sample are reported as allocating up to 5% of income to L&D while nearly a quarter (23.03%) allocate between 6-10% of income to L&D. Smaller proportions of respondents report 11-15% of income (6.45%), 16-20% of income (2.34%) and only 1.45% of respondents report allocations in excess of 20% of income.


Figure 12. How strategic is the allocation of the L&D budget

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(981 responses)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7.14%

10.81% 10.19%

26.61% 27.83%

11.72%

5.71%

Figure 12 indicates that less than half the respondents in the sample (45.26%) believe that strategy is a strong driver of the allocation of L&D budgets, with the remainder taking the view that it impacts moderately to strategy or strategy plays no part at all.

Figure 13. How is total L&D budget determined?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(966 responses)

Total L&D spend is allocatedas a percentage of organisational

turnover or other budget benchmark

18.43%

Total L&D spend is determined by initiatives proposed and approved

70.29%

Other

11.28%

Figure 13 indicates that in seven out of 10 respondent organisations (70.29%) the total L&D budget is determined by initiatives proposed in the business and approved. Less than one in five respondents (18.43%) report that the L&D budget is allocated as a percentage of turnover or other benchmark.


Organisational commitment to learning

Figure 14. Commitment to being a learning organisation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(991 responses)

Yes

61.55%

No

29.97%

Don’t know

8.48%

Despite the strong doubt over the question of strategy and budget allocation as indicated in figure 13, figure 14 indicates that less than a third of respondents believe their organisation lacks a genuine commitment to being a learning organisation.

Figure 15. Training for commencing graduates in leadership, communication and stakeholder management

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

(984 responses)

Yes

49.09%

No

40.55%

Don’t know

10.37%

Figure 15 drills down a level to graduate employees and asks whether there are training programs in place that enable them to gain skills in areas such as leadership, communication and stakeholder management when they commence working in the organisation. Almost half the respondent sample reports that there are such programs (49.09%) while a large minority (40.55%) reports that there are no such programs on offer.


Sample respondent commentsRespondents were asked to comment in writing on the skill sets of business graduates. What follows is a sample of comments.

Do not have business graduates in the organisation.

Recommend a business placement as part of any university program. Lack of self-awareness also a concern e.g. when senior leaders presenting to graduates they have felt it ok to leave the room or arrive late.

We don’t have a graduate recruitment program, so don’t tend to have many graduates join our organisation but those that we do have we support them a lot in getting the necessary/desired training they need/want.

We employ engineering graduates who are very technically trained so training in relation to leadership, teamwork, interpersonal and communication skills is important as often it is their first experience of employment.

We don’t hire a lot of graduates. When we do, they generally have good theoretical knowledge but can be very low on emotional intelligence i.e. inability to read others’ responses and empathise, lack of willingness to provide constructive feedback, lack abilty to manage internal stakeholders or to include them in their thinking or execution.

Not currently using graduate program

NA - we do not have any graduates in the business.

Need practical experience as well as theoretical with realistic expectations.

Generally we have found our graduate program applicants to be of a very high quality, and they tend to progress quickly in the organisation.

We generally do not hire graduates.

We have a graduate program for engineers; however we generally only provide on-the-job training until they complete their studies and become full time employees.

We generally do not employ many university graduates. I myself am in my final semester of completing a bachelor’s degree and my manager (National HR Manager) is currently completing her masters in HR & IR; however we were both employed prior to being ‘graduates’. Apart from this, we do have a few TAFE graduates and their technical skills are good, but communication and people skills are something which they usually learn on the job.

We do not have any graduates as there is a need for industry experienced people.

Job experience and knowledge is poor, they need more practical training within university/TAFE.

The majority of our employees are lawyers. When they start they have little or no business skills. The legal qualification seems to only prepare them for technical legal work. In reality most lawyers, particularly in small and medium firms, need to develop business development and leadership skills if they are going to progress their careers.

Our graduates are mainly in finance, commence and economics. We do not have a process at the moment to engage graduates in business training as we only have small numbers of grads in Australia. However, globally we are developing an employee program that will incorporate all employees to develop business, team and communication soft skills.

Very rarely have graduates come aboard within this industry/service.


We do not hire graduates.

Generally good at communication IT skills. Writing skills tend to be weaker.

Department of Defence provides single-service training and some specific trade-related training. Depending on the level of entry, there may be a requirement for individuals to be degree qualified prior to application, or Defence may sponsor that training.

Graduates generally have the key skill of being able to learn and apply learning. This skill is utilised in conjunction with relevant training required for an individual’s function within the organisation.

Most graduates are recruited into teaching roles and require at least 5 years’ experience as a part of that process.

Contrasts are very evident from graduates that have some industry based learning and other graduates. The IBL students are far more ‘job ready’ than straight uni grads.

Currently we do not run a graduate program.

Perhaps some organisations expect too much of the typical graduate and expect the education system to produce ‘work ready’ graduates for all scenarios.

They’re of increasingly declining quality.

Don’t specifically recruit graduates into a formal program.

Graduates are in targeted areas of the organisation. There are selection panels in place to select a number of graduates each year and then they do a post-grad year experiencing both corporate and regional level activity in their chosen fields. At the end of the year they attain a level within the organisation and they then are competitive for positions as they are advertised.

We generally only hire engineering graduates for short periods of time. If there are gaps there we don’t normally assign training for them, but it’s available if requested.

Don’t employ business graduates – our graduates are registered nurses or allied health professionals. Usually great clinical skills and little in leadership or supervisory skills.

Tech skills usually fine. Excessive self-esteem, dislike of dull tasks and assumption they will rapidly advance are issues that need to be carefully managed from outset; i.e. encourage them but also manage expectations & associated professional behaviours.

We do not employ business graduates.

Proven to be at an acceptable level, and have integrated reasonably well into our business unit.

Most have some level of the business skills detailed in question 6 above; however, they need to be enhanced during their graduate training period (1 - 2 years) to enable them to progress in their career to a more responsible/permanent role in the organisation.

We don’t tend to hire graduates.

Incongruent with real world requirements.

They need further development in stakeholder management.

A one-year long Management Development Program.

DMO graduates come with the skills necessary to be productive from day one.

We have a 3 year program for our graduates to equip them with skills to enable them to function effectively in a consulting environment.


Within the aviation industry we are required under CASA regulations for updating and increasing of skills for pilots, aircrew and engineers so our training budget is focused mainly on this area.

Often solid around a number of areas. Gaps in areas such as judgement, stakeholder engagement, business analysis, priority management, political awareness and people management.

Hard to attract graduates to regional locations.

Figure 16. What proportion of employees in your organisation take up L&D opportunities annually?

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

(952 responses)

1 - 10%

6.51%

11 - 20%

7.04%

21 - 30%

12.92%

31-40%

9.87%

41-50%

9.03%

51-60%

8.93%

61-70%

11.03%

71-80%

12.50%

81-90%

9.24%

91-100%

12.92%

To the question about internal take-up of L&D opportunities among the organisations represented in the sample group, figure 16 reveals a wide and even spread. Only a third of the sample (34.66%) report that 70 per cent or more of their employees take up L&D opportunities. A similar proportion (36.34%) report that less than 40 per cent of employees take up L&D opportunities.


Business outcomes and L&D activities

Figure 17. To what extent are L&D activities linked to business strategy?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(970 responses)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4.12%7.01% 7.11%

35.88%

23.51%

13.30%

9.07%

Figure 17 shows that L&D activities and their outcomes are linked to business strategy in less than half of the respondent organisations (45.88%). The remainder of respondents see the two being somewhat linked (35.88%) but nearly one in five (18.24%) see little or no link at all.

Sample respondent commentsRespondents were asked to comment in writing on how L&D activities are linked to business outcomes in their organisations. What follows is a sample of responses.

Leadership development training designed around leadership qualities required.

Management directives are passed down from CEO level. Each lower level performance appraisal is in line with these directives and where there is a gap in knowledge or skill, L&D activities are utilised to enhance the skill level.

Providing additional pilot training allows a larger number of pilots to be able to fly a larger number of aircraft and thus, utilise our skill base better for bigger projects and less down time.

Through explicit aligning with business unit operational plan and performance management.

Leadership framework aligned to business strategy programs internally designed to support company specific behaviours, leadership and strategic imperatives.

L&D initiatives are initiated in reference to the achievement of the strategic plan. When employees opt to attend training they must demonstrate how the training is linked to the strategic plan.

Skill gaps are estimated by last year’s output shortfalls, and training aims to close those gaps.

Analytical skills are important to the core business of the organisation and the L&D strategies are related to these analytical skills.

Strategic goals and current skill needs assessments are cross checked when considering the budget allocation.

Much of the training is technical/operational and delivered to meet business needs; other training is driven by central office in Canberra and aimed at delivering leadership capability to deliver on


business outcomes.

The council has a 20 year plan with KPIs linked to meeting the needs and wants of the community in the next 20 years. The L&D is designed to develop people and positions for now and the future.

Compliance and management development is related to providing excellent ICT service management and leadership development is related to achieving key strategies e.g. reducing IR or EO claims.

Thorough business planning process undertaken annually in connection with our corporate office. Business plan and strategy identified and agreed on and released. Learning & Development activities such as front line leadership training and statutory officers training comes out of a business goal to improve leadership capability.

Technical skill development drives reliability and productivity resulting in customer satisfaction and retention.

Each year we review our business plan and make sure the activities we do are in line with our priorities.

Training is responsive to global strategies, e.g. talent management, engagement, rewards

Both the performance reviews and competency framework are linked to company strategy. So, L&D needs are an outcome of the performance review process.

All development is related to performance according to role level. This applies as much to our technical programs as our skill programs. Our competency framework drives both these things. They are also explicitly driven by our knowledge of what drives personal and business success.

Leadership programs are customised to reflect organisationally identified “Principles of Leadership”. This includes innovation and leading with values.

Within our part of the organisation the training needs are linked to the development of skills and knowledge that are required by our employees to deliver business outcomes. A smaller portion is for individual growth and development.

Training meets defined KPIs and capabilities for positions.

All L&D activities are related to company strategies and KPIs.

L&D activities result from analysis of business strategy including key risks, growth opportunities etc.


Figure 18. Measuring employee satisfaction from L&D activities

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

(976 responses)

Evaluation of individuallearning

activities, i.e. feedback forms

75.10%

As part ofthe performance

management/appraisalprocess

52.87%

As part ofgeneral

employee/climate

surveying

50.72%

Informally throughdiscussions

/communicationbetween managers/HR and employees

57.89%

It is notassessed at all

7.17%

Other

2.97%

Figure 18 shows that three quarters of the respondents (75.1%) report that employee satisfaction with L&D activities is measured by individual feedback forms. Other methods used are informal discussion (57.89%), the performance management process (52.87%) and as a part of general climate surveys (50.72%). In only 7.17% of cases is employee satisfaction not measured at all.

Figure 19. Rating effectiveness of L&D activities in building capability

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(979 responses)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.74%

5.41%

10.11%

31.77% 31.77%

15.12%

4.09%

Figure 19 shows that half the respondent sample (50.98%) believes that L&D activities in their organisation are effective or highly effective in building capability, though only 4.09% of that group believes they are highly effective. With a third of the sample (31.77%) indicating they believe L&D activities are moderately effective, less than one in five (17.26%) takes the view that they are not effective.


Return on investment from L&D activities

Figure 20. Measuring return on investment from L&D activities

0%

10%

30%

40%

50%

(972 responses)

Self-assessmentby participants in

L&D initiatives

Assessment ofchanges in

performance/productivity of

participants in L&Dinitiatives

Organisationalincrease in

performance/productivity/profitability

following L&D initiatives

Specific measurements

aligned to individualinitiatives

Climate or employee surveys

L&D initiativesare not trackedor measured for

return on investment

Don’t know

48.25%

32.10%

21.81%23.56%

38.58%

26.85%

10.08%

Other

2.47%

20%

Figure 20 shows that almost half the sample group of organisations (48.25%) measure ROI from L&D activities by self-assessment of participants, while nearly four out of ten (38.58%) undertake climate surveys. Nearly a third of respondents (32.1%) report that the organisation assesses changes in performance and productivity of L&D participants, and one in five (21.81%) look at organisational improvements in performance and productivity following L&D initiatives. In a quarter (26.85%) of organisations respondents report that L&D activities are not tracked at all or measured for return on investment.

Figure 21. Type of L&D activities that have made a return on investment (i.e. contributed to revenue or prevented loss of revenue)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

(913 responses)

Leadershiptraining

49.62

Customerservicetraining

30.23%

In-houseoperations

training

41.51%

Workplacesafety training

47.43%

Team buildingactivities

24.42%

Inductionof new

staff

62.54%

Compliancetraining for new

legislation

50.93%

Soft skillstraining

40.13%

Hard skills training

37.79%

Other

6.68%


Figure 21 indicates that nearly two thirds of the respondent sample (62.54%) report that induction of new staff is the main L&D initiative that contributes to or prevents loss of revenue. Other areas that affect ROI in positive ways are compliance training for new legislation (50.93%), leadership training (49.62%), workplace safety training (47.43%), in-house operations training (41.51%), soft skills training such as dispute resolution and negotiation (40.31%), and hard skills training such as finance and computer skills (37.79%). Other areas that get a lesser mention are customer service training (30.23%) and team building (24.42%).

An allied question asked what the respondents believe is a realistic ROI expectation, and the proportions were almost identical to those reported in figure 21.

Figure 22. Type of L&D activities regarded by employees as ineffective or time wasting

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(775 responses)

Leadershiptraining

17.68%


16.52%

In-houseoperations

training

14.06%

Workplacesafety

training

26.32%

Teambuildingactivities

37.03%

Inductionof new

staff

11.23%

Compliancetraining for

newlegislation

22.06%

Soft skillstraining

Hard skillstraining

27.87%

Other

15.48%

10.58%

As indicated in figure 22, more than a third of employees (37.03%) are reported by the respondent sample group as perceiving L&D activities related to team building as time wasting and ineffective, while more than a quarter (though not necessarily the same quarter) regard as ineffective and time wasting soft skills training in management, dispute resolution and negotiation (27.87%) and workplace safety training (26.32%). A fairly large minority also perceive compliance training for new legislation as ineffective and time wasting (22.06%). More than one in ten also sees leadership training (17.68%), customer service training (16.52%) and in-house operations training (14.06%) in a similar light.


Figure 23. Type of L&D activities regarded by senior management as ineffective or time wasting

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(627 responses)

Leadershiptraining

17.38%


12.44%

In-houseoperations

training

9.57%

Workplacesafety

training

15.37%

Teambuildingactivities

33.01%

Inductionof new

staff

10.37%

Compliancetraining for

newlegislation

12.12%

Soft skillstraining

Hard skillstraining

27.75%

Other

25.20%

7.66%

As indicated in figure 23, a third of senior managers (33.01%) are reported by the respondent sample group as perceiving L&D activities related to team building as time wasting and ineffective, while more than a quarter (though not necessarily the same quarter) regard as ineffective and time wasting soft skills training in management, dispute resolution and negotiation (27.75%). Fairly large minorities also perceive leadership training as ineffective and time wasting (17.38%) as well as workplace safety training (15.31%) and compliance training for new legislation (12.12%).

A large minority of a quarter of the sample group (25.2%) indicate that senior management perceptions are outside the L&D activities listed in the survey.

With respect to both figures 22 and 23, it should be noted that the responses relate to perceptions of employees and senior management respectively, not that either group or the respondent sample group necessarily concur with those perceptions.


Figure 24. Steps taken to rectify negative perceptions of L&D initiatives

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(893 responses)

Improvedcommunication on benefits of

training to organisationalbottom line

Improvedcommunicationon benefits of

training topersonal

development


training to careerdevelopment


training to teamdevelopment


training tocustomer service

Make changes totraining based onnegative feedback

Abandontraining

41.32%

60.69%

53.42%

40.54%

32.36%

42.67%

3.70%

Other

7.05%

As indicated in figure 24, organisations engage in various forms of communication with employees to attempt to rectify negative perceptions about L&D activities. The sample group report that the most often used is communication on benefits of L&D for personal development (60.69%), followed by communication on benefits to career development (53.42%), on benefits to bottom line (41.32%), to team development (40.54%) and to customer service (32.36%). Using negative feedback to make changes to L&D activities is also used widely (42.67%) but L&D activities are very rarely abandoned (3.7%).

Qualifications and background of respondentsThe final section of the survey asked respondents about their own backgrounds, including qualifications held and future study intentions.

Figure 25. Highest qualification attained

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(975 responses)

Certificate

25.23%

Diploma

11.79%

Graduatediploma

4.92%

Bachelor degree

15.79%

Postgraduatequalification

21.03%

No formalqualification

21.23%


According to figure 25, almost half the respondent sample group (42.94%) report having a postgraduate qualification of some type while a little less than a third (30.98%) report having attained a bachelor degree as their highest level of qualification. More than one in ten (13.5%) report having attained a diploma, with small numbers reporting a graduate certificate (5.42%) or a certificate (5.32%) and a very small number report having attained no formal qualifications at all (1.84%).

Figure 26. Highest qualification attained relating to education, training and L&D

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

(975 responses)

Certificate

25.23%

Diploma

11.79%

Graduatediploma

4.92%

Bachelor degree

15.79%

Postgraduatequalification

21.03%

No formalqualification

21.23%

According to figure 26, the largest single group of a quarter of the respondent sample (25.32%) report a certificate as their highest qualification in education, training and L&D., One is five report having postgraduate qualifications in the area (21.03%), 15.79% a bachelor degree and 11.79 a diploma, with a small number reporting a graduate diploma (4.92%). A large minority (21.23%) report having no formal qualifications in the area.

Figure 27. Were qualifications completed while working for current employer?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(970 responses)

Yes

39.28%

No

60.72%

According to figure 27, more respondents completed their qualifications prior to their current employment (60.72%) than while they have been employed by their current employer (39.28%).


Figure 28. Study intentions of respondents

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

(973 responses)

Yes

33.71%

No

66.29%

According to figure 28, two thirds of the respondent sample (66.29%) indicate that they do not intend to commence study for any formal qualifications during 2011, which leaves a third (33.71%) who intend taking up study during the year.

Figure 29. Types of activities undertaken to remain current

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

(957 responses)

Seminars

87.25%

Workshops

81.30%

Formal education

38.87%

Mentoring/coaching

52.46%

Other

11.49%

According to figure 29, very large proportions of the respondent sample engage in seminars (87.25%) and workshops (81.3%) as a way of remaining current in their roles. A smaller number, but still a significant proportion (52.46%), engage in mentoring and coaching activities for that purpose, while nearly four out of 10 enrol in formal education (38.87%).


Figure 30. Positions held prior to working in L&D

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

(951 responses)

Yes

80.86%

No

19.14%

According to figure 30, a significant proportion of the respondent sample group (80.86%) have worked in areas outside L&D before moving into the field, leaving a relatively small proportion of one in five (19.14%) who have worked only in the L&D field.

Figure 31. Of those who worked outside L&D, in what areas did they work?

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

(789 responses)

The specialist areain which you nowprovide training

5.96%

HR

51.84%

Education - primary, secondary,

tertiary level

4.69%

Generalmanagement

23.83%

Other

13.69%

Of the respondents who answered Yes to the question posed in figure 31, figure 31 indicates that the largest proportion worked in other parts of the HR function than L&D (51.84%), while nearly a quarter coming from general management (23.83%). Only a relatively small number (5.96%) report having come directly from the field in which they now provide specialist training (5.96%) and an equally small number report having come from the education sector (4.69%).


SECTION 3: HOW CAN AHRI AND AITD ASSIST MEMBERS?

Sample respondent commentsRespondents were asked to comment in writing on what they believe AHRI and AITD can do to better support their work. What follows is a sample of responses.

Current level of support is appropriate.

More focused learning opportunities at the senior level e.g. master classes, online skills and knowledge refreshers, summer schools.

The AHRI website is great to connect HR professionals but when you have a look at some of the questions being asked by individuals and the number of people looking at the question without giving an answer, this is a big … trigger for AHRI to recognise that these particular questions need to be addressed.

I would like to see more train-the-trainer type workshops at different levels and perhaps more research showing best practice in the L&D areas.

As a Tasmanian the more access to professional development and networking the better. Given the size of the population combined activities between AITD and AHRI would be great (I am a member of both). Perhaps some groups that explore case studies. Moving into wish list here but some kind of support to travel to mainland for professional development functions e.g. many conferences offer reductions for groups from one organisation so a way that Tasmanians can easily network and form groups to get a reduction would assist in offsetting some of the travel costs.

Provide information, develop models and training opportunities to provide L&D professionals with the skills and knowledge to apply analytics to strategy formation, planning and ROI.

I am a one person consultancy business. I ‘m asked to pay the same fees for learning and development as a larger organisation. I can’t afford to give up a day of my consultancy to take a trip interstate to attend AHRI seminars or training or workshops, especially at the fees that are charged.

Understand practical applications of L&D to the ‘bottom line’.

Forums to discuss education and training issues with peers.

Cater (in PD terms) for senior professionals, not just career starters. This is a complaint from many of my peers - most PD seems to be calibrated to a low common denominator. The AHRI National Convention has also become more limited, with few concurrent session streams.

They both appear to be providing adequate services; however, an amalgamation or merger of the associations would appear quite appropriate for a number of cogent reasons.

They offer what is needed. Some of their programs are delivered voluntarily such as mentoring.

Send more detailed information through the AHRI website and through our magazine updates. Rather than a high level overview, spend more detail on more complex issues, especially relating to L&D strategy. This is also timely as businesses lock down their FY plan for the year ahead in both strategic business and HR / L&D functions.

Simple yet detailed guide to metrics and justifying L&D / OD spend.

Provide information and advice on current issues and hot topics; briefing sessions; interesting and well informed expert speakers on mentoring & coaching, leadership and emotional intelligence.

Keep going with the inexpensive L & D forums! Guest speakers and networking opportunities. Invited academic guests. Practical workshops delivered by well qualified people.

More PR regarding the need for ongoing L & D investment and also the value of external partners to drive some L & D initiatives. Free webinars if feasible financially e.g. member-run webinars.


Have training in Tasmania.

Provide relevant, cost effective development opportunities.

Cost effective professional development workshops.

Provide short interactive workshops - say every 2 months.

Happy with current support resources.

Better strategic context for activities.

Provide a range of educational opportunities.

More networking opportunities in other cities (other than Melbourne and Sydney) and also in regional areas. More e-events would assist in the dissemination of information to interested parties rather than just to those who are ‘local’. AHRI events are very expensive to attend for many professionals.

Expert online sessions. VERY applied. Less IR and ER from AHRI. More OD and OL focus with metrics.

Provide relevant and timely opportunities that are varied and different in the fields of HRM and OD with speakers, topics of relevancy, trends, resources, networking events, site visits. Also consider upgrading our offering in relation to PI insurance and cover for the consultant. A number of our competitors provide General and Group insurance cover for members. AHRI has never really done this. We should consider offering protection for the large number of consultant members.

Offer a network to qualified people to turn to when assistance is required.

Provide statistics or case study stories so HR managers can use them to lobby their senior management to invest in L & D.

Have more short courses and workshops, preferably after hours.

Actively solicit and disseminate the latest proven, validated theory and implementation ideas. Does AITD/AHRI have a research marketing group?


COMPARISONS WITH THE 2010 INDEX SURVEY DATAKey points of comparison between the 2010 and 2011 Learning and Development Index surveys include the following:

• In terms of gender, sector, salary level, and responsibility for the learning and development function, the demographic 2011 results are very similar to 2010. Both surveys attracted answers from numbers in excess of 1,000 professionals.

• The survey results from both 2010 and 2011 show that L&D activities are primarily determined respectively through performance management, by compliance requirements, and are initiated by individual employees, with numbers in the range of 90%-70%. For both years the percentages relating to L&D determination in accordance with organisational requirements such as IT, gap analyses and business strategy were much lower, at 50% or less.

• There has been almost no change in the findings on how L&D budgets are set, with around half the respondents each year indicating they are set by the executive team in consultation with HR and L&D functions.

• There has been little change over the year in the finding on the extent to which L&D activities are linked to business strategy, with a little less than half the respondent sample indicating they are closely linked and around a third indicating they are somewhat linked.

• Little change is evident in the way that organisations measure employee satisfaction with L&D activities, with three quarters using individual feedback forms, and the proportions using informal discussion, the performance management process and climate surveys remaining constant at between 60-50%.

The main areas of difference relate to areas that the Index did not cover in 2010, but which are dealt with in the 2011 Index. They include:

• Relative proportion of types of L&D activities taken by employees in the following areas: internal or external, informal or formal, public or customised, face-to-face or online, and compliance or development

• L&D budget as a percentage of organisational income

• Organisational commitment to learning

• Effectiveness in building necessary capabilities

• Ways to track return on investment for L&D initiatives

• Types of L&D activities that have made a return on investment

• Types of L&D initiatives that are perceived by employees as ineffective of time wasting

• Types of L&D initiatives that are perceived by senior management as ineffective of time wasting

• Steps taken to rectify negative perceptions of L&D activities.

Data on these areas are reported in this 2011 Index and comparable data will appear in the 2012 Index.

Australian Human Resources Institute LimitedABN 44 120 687 149 Level 13, 565 Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 T (+613) 9918 9200 F (+613) 9918 9201www.ahri.com.au

The 2011 National Learning and Development Index · Development Manager Training Coordinator...

Documents

Transcript of The 2011 National Learning and Development Index · Development Manager Training Coordinator...