Employee Development Survey Report

Employee Development
Survey Report
A Study by the Society for Human Resource Management and Catalyst
Survey Report
Evren Esen
SHRM Survey Analyst
Jessica Collison
SHRM Survey Program Manager
April 2005
This report is published by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and Catalyst. The interpretations, conclusions and recommendations in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of SHRM or Catalyst. All content is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as a guaranteed outcome. The Society for Human Resource Management and Catalyst cannot accept responsibility for any errors or omissions or any liability resulting from the use or misuse of any such information. 2005 Society for Human Resource Management. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Society for Human Resource Management, 1800 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA. For more information, please contact: SHRM Research Department 1800 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 548-3440 Fax: (703) 535-6432 Web: www.shrm.org/research Catalyst 120 Wall Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 514-7600 Fax: (212) 514 8470 Web: www.catalystwomen.org
05-0179
Survey Report
Contents
v v v v vi vii viii ix x 1 About This Report About SHRM About Catalyst About the Authors Acknowledgments Introduction Methodology Key Findings Key Research Terms Survey Results 1 3 5 9 10 18 21 22 24 27 35 Employee Development Methods Used by Organizations Who Participates in Employee Development HR Professionals Perceptions of Employee Development Issues at Their Organizations Employee Development and Return on Investment Diversity and Employee Development Management Levels by Gender and Race
Conclusions A Look Ahead: A Future View of Employee Development Demographics Survey Instrument SHRM Survey Reports
About This Report In September 2004, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and Catalyst conducted the Employee Development Survey by asking HR professionals to identify the employee development methods being used by their organizations. HR professionals who completed the survey also gauged the effectiveness of those programs. For this survey, employee development was defined as improving employee competencies and skills over the long term through a variety of methods such as mentoring, coaching and succession planning.
Findings are discussed in the survey results section. Interpretations about future trends in employee development practices are presented at the end of the report in the section titled A Look Ahead. Statistically significant findings by organization staff size, profit status and sector also are integrated in the survey report, where applicable.
in developing and executing organizational strategy. Founded in 1948, SHRM currently has more than 500 affiliated chapters and members in more than 100 countries. Visit SHRM Online at www.shrm.org.
About SHRM The Society for Human Resource Management is the worlds largest association devoted to human resource management. Representing more than 190,000 individual members, the Societys mission is to serve the needs of HR professionals by providing the most essential and comprehensive resources available. As an influential voice, the Societys mission is also to advance the human resource profession to ensure that HR is recognized as an essential partner
About Catalyst Catalyst is the leading research and advisory organization working with businesses and the professions to build inclusive environments and expand opportunities for women at work. As an independent, nonprofit membership organization, Catalyst uses a solutionsoriented approach that has earned the confidence of business leaders around the world. Catalyst conducts research on all aspects of womens career advancement and provides strategic and Web-based consulting services on a global basis to help companies and firms advance women and build inclusive work environments. In addition, Catalyst honors exemplary business initiatives that promote womens leadership with the annual Catalyst Award. With offices in New York, San Jose and Toronto, Catalyst is consistently ranked No. 1 among U.S. nonprofits focused on womens issues by The American Institute of Philanthropy. About the Authors Evren Esen is a survey analyst for SHRM. Her responsibilities include designing, conducting and analyzing surveys on HR-related topics and assisting in larger survey projects. She has a graduate certificate in survey design and data analysis from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
Employee Development Survey Report
Jessica Collison is manager of the SHRM Survey Program. Her responsibilities include managing the SHRM Survey Program and designing, conducting and analyzing surveys on HR-related topics. She has a graduate certificate in survey design and data analysis from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
Acknowledgments This report is the culmination of a team effort between SHRM and Catalyst. Steve Williams, Director of Research, SHRM, provided valuable expertise adding to the content of the survey report. Paulette R. Gerkovich, Senior Director, Research, Catalyst, contributed to the overall content of the report and wrote the sections on Catalyst research. Brian Welle, Director of Research, Catalyst, gave his expertise to conceptualizing the project scope and content, as well as drafting the survey instrument. Emma Sabin, Director, Advisory Services, Catalyst, also contributed in developing the survey instrument. Jennifer Schramm, Manager, Workplace Trends and Forecasting, SHRM, provided insight on future trends in employee development.
vi
Introduction
he SHRM 2004-2005 Workplace Forecast reports that among the top 10 trends HR professionals believe will have the greatest impact on the workplace is the labor shortage that will result when baby boomers begin to retire at the end of the decade.1 Some organizations are projected to lose executives in record numbers over the next decade, and many organizations are unprepared. As a result, developing employees for future roles within the company is imperative for all organizations. However, this often is overlooked or put aside as other challenges of daily business operations take precedence.
women, racial/ethnic minorities and other employee groups to fill executive positions? Do all employee groups receive the same opportunities to develop? Many organizations have incorporated succession planning, mentoring and identification of high-potential employees as part of their strategic plans. Are these programs providing a return on their investment? These are among some of the questions this research attempts to uncover. The results of this survey offer insight, from the perspectives of HR professionals, on the employee development methods implemented by most organizations and their effectiveness in grooming future leaders and strengthening workforce talent. Efforts made by organizations to diversify their leadership by preparing women and employees from racial/ethnic minority groups also are addressed in this report.
What do organizations do to prepare their existing workforce for future leadership roles? Are some employee development methods used more than others? Are organizations reaching out to and developing
Schramm, J. (2004). SHRM 2004-2005 workplace forecast: A strategic outlook. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
vii
Methodology
he Employee Development Survey instrument was developed by the SHRM Survey Program and Catalyst. An internal committee of SHRM staff with HR expertise and members of SHRMs Organizational Development and Workplace Diversity Special Expertise Panels also provided valuable insight and recommendations for the instrument.
A sample of HR professionals was randomly selected to participate in the survey from SHRMs membership database, which included approximately 190,000 individual members at the time the survey was conducted. Only members who had not participated in an SHRM survey or poll in the last six months were included in the sampling frame. Members who are students, consultants, academics, located internationally and who have no e-mail address on file were excluded from the sampling frame. In September 2004, an e-mail that included a link to the
SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey was sent to 2,500 randomly selected SHRM members. Of these, 2,011 e-mails were successfully delivered to respondents, and 248 HR professionals responded, yielding a response rate of 12% (the number of respondents to each question is indicated by n in tables and figures throughout the report). The survey was accessible for a period of three weeks. Three email reminders were sent to nonrespondents in an effort to increase response rates. The sample of 248 HR professionals was representative of the SHRM membership population, particularly with respect to industry. There were slight differences in organization staff size with more HR professionals from small- and medium-staff-sized organizations represented in the sample than the SHRM membership population.
viii
Key Findings
ccording to HR professionals, the top employee development methods used by organizations encompass some form of training: 1) training programs other than leadership training; 2) cross-functional training; 3) leadership training; and 4) developmental planning. Formal career mentoring programs, job sharing and job rotation were among the least used programs.
About one-half of HR professionals believe that their organizations effectively identify which employees need to improve their competencies. About two-thirds of HR professionals, however, indicate that employee development is mostly an informal process in their organizations.
About two-thirds of HR professionals report some types of diversity programs within their organizations. These programs include either a diversity or inclusion initiative supported by the organization or an individual whose function includes diversity and inclusion matters. These diversity programs are most commonly found in large-staff-sized organizations with 500 or more employees. In addition, organizations report using development planning, apprenticeships/ internships and leadership to specifically develop and/or prepare women and racial/ethnic minority employees for future roles in the organization.
ix
Key Research Terms CorrelationThe degree of connectedness or association between two variables. Is there a relationship between x and y? Correlation does not necessarily indicate causality. AverageThe mathematical average of all of the data points or observations in a set, calculated by adding the data and dividing the resulting sum by the number of data points. A mean may be affected by extreme data values. Random sampleA representative sample of a population where each member of the population has an equal chance to be chosen for the research. A random sample can be generated in a variety of ways. If the population is very small, names could be drawn from a hat. Typically, however, random samples are generated by statistical software. Sample (represented by n)A subset of a population that represents the population to be studied. For example, consider that a researcher wants to study the U.S. population. It would be impractical to study every U.S. resident, so the researcher chooses a part of it (a sample) representing the entire population. The sample must have the same characteristics as the entire population. Similarly, it is not prudent to study all SHRM members in a single study; therefore, usually a smaller, representative sample is drawn. Standard deviation (SD)The dispersion of values around the mean. A small standard deviation indicates low variability and relatively high consensus among responses. A large standard deviation indicates high variability and a relative lack of consensus among responses. Statistical significanceA condition occurring when the researcher can show (through specific tests for significance) that the likelihood is small that the results occurred by chance. For example, if a researcher claims that the results are statistically significant at p<.05, the likelihood (probability) of these results occurring by chance only is less than 5%.
Adapted from Understanding Survey Research Concepts and Terms at www.shrm.org/research/terms.asp.
Survey Results
hroughout this report, conventional statistical methods were used to determine whether observed differences are statistically significant. Overall survey findings are discussed first and then, when applicable, results by organization staff size,2 profit status and sector are included for comparison.
employ such methods: one-quarter (25%) of HR professionals report using formal career mentoring (internal program) and even fewer have an external program (10%). More organizations (35%) have succession planning programs in place.
A glossary of Key Research Terms on the previous page is provided for readers to reference. Employee Development Methods Used by Organizations HR professionals were asked which employee development methods were used in their organizations. Each of the top three methods cited pertained to training. The most frequently used employee development method is generic training (not including leadership training), which was cited by 84% of HR professionals. Cross-functional training (80%) followed closely, while 71% of organizations used leadership training and 70% used development planning. These data are depicted in Table 1. While training is certainly an important component in furthering employee competencies, formal learning opportunities that provide experiential practice are also thought to be effective since such programs are directly focused on the individual. The findings suggest, however, that organizations are less likely to
2
Table 1
(n = 248)
Employee Development Methods

Use Method 84% 80% 71% 70% 57% 55% 47% 47%
Training other than leadership training Cross-functional training Leadership training Development planning Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Formal coaching Matching employees with stretch assignments/opportunities High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Formal identification of high-potential employees Formal succession planning processes Job rotation Formal career mentoring (internal program) Job sharing Formal career mentoring (external program)
Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
44% 40% 35% 30% 25% 25% 10%
The organization staff size categories are as follows: small organizations (1-99 employees), medium organizations (100-499 employees) and large organizations (500 or more employees).
Programs that groom employees to become future leaders, such as formal succession planning, take solid investment and focus. Succession planning programs that allow high-potential employees in the organization the opportunity to be coached and mentored demonstrate such an investment. They also secure strong candidates with requisite skills to immediately fill vacant senior management positions. Yet, very few organizations have succession plans in place for executive-level positions. In fact, an SHRM Weekly Survey revealed that fewer than two out of 10 HR professionals indicated that their organizations had succession plans in place for job titles ranging from vice president to CEO.3 Employee development methods were analyzed by organization staff size. Table 2 compares the methods used by large, medium and small organizations. The order of priority in which organizations utilize employee
development methods is almost identical. There are differences, however, in the percentage of organizations using particular methods. Larger organizations use leadership training and development planning more frequently than smaller organizations. Larger organizations also are more likely to utilize succession planning and identification of high-potential employees. It is not surprising that these organizations employ more structured methods for employee development. Larger organizations invest more in succession planning and are more likely to have the resources necessary to devote to these programs. While developing human capital is crucial for all organizations, it is even more crucial for larger organizations, which tend to have specialized and highly integrated job functions necessitating high-potential employees to be targeted early on to increase their understanding of the organizational structure.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2004, December 16). SHRM weekly online poll: Succession planning levels. Retrieved from www.shrm.org/surveys/At%20what%20levels%20of%20your%20organization%20are%20succession%20plans%20in%20place_.ppt.
Table 2
Employee Development Methods (By Organization Staff Size)

Small (1-99 Employees) (n = 95) Medium (100-499 Employees) (n = 77) Large (500 or More Employees) (n = 56)
Differences by Staff Size Large > small Medium > small Large > small Medium > small Large > small Large > small Medium > small Large > small Medium > small Large > small Medium > small Large > small Large > medium
Leadership training Development planning Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Formal succession planning processes Formal identification of high-potential employees Job rotation Formal career mentoring (internal program) Formal career mentoring (external program)
50% 57% 32% 18% 23% 15% 15% 9%
81% 76% 42% 41% 46% 38% 26% 1%
88% 79% 59% 55% 54% 44% 38% 16%
Note: Percentages are column percentages. Data are sorted by the large organization column. Multiple methods were selected, and each method was treated as a separate question, therefore percentages will not total 100%. Sample sizes of the organization size categories are based on the actual number of respondents answering the organization size question; however, the percentages shown are based on the actual number of respondents by organization size who answered this question using the provided response options. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
A few differences were found between private and public sector organizations with respect to employee development methods used. Public sector organizations use formal career mentoring (external program) more frequently than private sector organizations. The private sector, however, is more likely to match employees with stretch opportunities that provide them with a chance to hone their skills while directly working on a challenging project. Although each method has its advantages, mentoring is formal, ongoing and tailored to the individual, providing the employee with guidance from a seasoned professional. The formal career mentoring approach is especially salient for women employees and employees
from racial/ethnic minorities who may find it more challenging to find high-level executives within their organizations with whom they can identify and from whom they can informally seek advice. Who Participates in Employee Development The employees supervisor has the primary responsibility for employee development, as indicated by 64% of HR professionals. According to about one-half (49%) of HR professionals, secondary responsibility is held by HR staff who work with supervisors and sometimes oversee the organizations employee development process. These data are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Primary and Secondary Responsibility for Employee Development
64%
49%
24% 17% 13% 9% 5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 10%
No one
Employees supervisor
Department head (excludes employees supervisor)
HR staff
Internal coach (excludes employees supervisor)
Mentor (excludes employees supervisor)
Outside consultant
Other
Primarily Responsible (n = 246)

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
Secondarily Responsible (n = 243)
The majority of HR professionals (85%) state that the employees supervisor also takes a leading role in formally measuring the outcomes of employee development. This is not surprising, given that supervisors are uniquely positioned to understand employee potential and identify burgeoning leaders. According to 43% of HR professionals, employees themselves are responsible for the measurement of their own career development. The most likely scenario is that employees and supervisors work together in measuring employee development as part of employee performance reviews. These data are depicted in Figure 2. Employee performance reviews provide an opportunity for employees and supervisors to work together on devising a plan for the employees continuing development. Research indicates that employees are more motivated when they are highly involved in the performance review process and in setting their individual goals. Ideally, employees should be encour-
aged through informal or formal mentoring and coaching from their supervisors to gain additional expertise as they prepare for leadership positions. The employee-supervisor relationship is necessary not only to encourage employees to improve their abilities, but also because it serves as the organizations direct link to each of its employees. About one-half (52%) of HR professionals report that employees are encouraged to set their own development goals. Although department heads play a smaller role than supervisors with respect to their responsibility and measurement of employee development, they were reported by 47% of HR professionals to have a prominent role in setting employee development goals. It is probable that department heads work in conjunction with supervisors to set goals and that a large part of their role includes providing the final approval for employee participation in employee development programs. These data are shown in Table 3.
Figure 2
(n = 222)
Responsibility for Formal Measurement of Employee Development
Employees supervisor Employee (i.e., self-assessment) Department head (excludes employees supervisor) HR staff No one Mentor (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) Outside consultant Internal coach (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) Other
4% 2% 2% 4% 10% 27% 37% 43%
85%
Note: Percentages do not total 100% due to multiple response options. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
HR Professionals Perceptions of Employee Development Issues at Their Organizations This section examines the effectiveness of organizations in identifying the specific development needs
4
of employees and helping employees develop. Results are expressed in terms of whether HR professionals agreed with statements about their organizations.4
Both the agree and strongly agree categories are combined to form the agreed response and disagree and strongly disagree form the disagreed response in this section.
Table 3
Encouragement or Requirement in Setting Employee Development Goals

n Encourages Requires Neither Encourages nor Requires
Does your organization encourage or require employees to set development goals for themselves? Does your organization encourage or require department heads (excludes employees supervisor) to set development goals for employees? Does your organization encourage or require supervisors to set development goals for their employees? Does your organization encourage or require HR staff to set development goals for employees? Does your organization encourage or require internal coaches (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) to set development goals for employees? Does your organization encourage or require mentors (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) to set development goals for employees? Does your organization encourage or require outside consultants to set development goals for employees?
240 217 241 205 138 131 104
52% 47% 39% 26% 23% 23% 13%
32% 22% 49% 6% 4% 4% 2%
16% 31% 12% 68% 73% 73% 86%
Note: Percentages are row percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding. Results were calculated by removing respondents who indicated Not Applicable for each option. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
Figure 3
(n = 245)
Organization Effectively Identifies Employees Development Needs
44%
27% 18% 7% 4%
Strongly disagree
Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Figure 3 depicts HR professionals perceptions about the effective identification of employee development needs in their organizations. While about one-half (48%) of respondents respond agree or strongly agree that their organizations successfully identify
the needs of employees, only 4% indicate strong agreement. About one-third (34%) disagree. Fifty-two percent of HR professionals agree that their organizations are effective in helping employees
Figure 4
(n = 245)
Organization Is Effective in Helping Employees Develop
49%
22%
20%
6% 3%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Figure 5
(n = 244)
Organization Effectively Identifies High-Potential Employees
42%
25% 18% 7% 7%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
develop, although very few strongly agree. These data are shown in Figure 4. Forty-nine percent of HR professionals agree that their organizations effectively identify high-potential employees, while 25% disagree. These data are depicted in Figure 5.
Identifying high-potential employees is an important step to grooming targeted employees for roles with greater responsibility in the organization. While 44% of HR professionals agree that their organizations are effective in helping high-potential employees develop, 29% disagree. Data are depicted in Figure 6.
Figure 6
(n = 245)
Organization Is Effective in Helping High-Potential Employees Develop
38% 27% 22%
7%
6%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Figure 7
(n = 245)
Organization Is Effective in Aligning Employee Development With the Organizations Business Goals
41%
25% 20%
7%
7%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Effectively developing employees as human capital in alignment with business goals provides a critical strategic advantage to organizations. Forty-eight percent of HR professionals agree that their organizations are effective in accomplishing this objective. Data are shown in Figure 7. According to HR professionals, 65% of organizations often assign employee development opportunities informally (see Figure 8). This finding suggests that
flexibility in determining appropriate employee development opportunities is the norm in organizations. Although having designated employee development goals is beneficial, much of an employees development is probably determined in an ad-hoc fashion at the discretion of an employees supervisor or at the employees request to work on specific projects. Table 4 compares the average levels of agreement for the employee development issues depicted in Figures
Figure 8
(n = 245)
Organization Often Assigns Employee Development Opportunities Informally
59%
18% 12% 6% 6%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Table 4
Issue
Levels of Agreement on Organizations Handling of Employee Development Issues

Average 3.48 3.24 3.21 3.20 3.13 3.12 Standard Deviation 0.98 1.07 1.01 1.07 1.05 1.06
Organization often assigns employee development opportunities informally Organization effectively identifies high-potential employees Organization is effective in helping employees develop Organization is effective in aligning employee development with the organizations business goals Organization is effective in helping high-potential employees develop Organization effectively identifies employees development needs
Note: Averages are based on a scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
3 through 8. Overall, more HR professionals agree that organizations often informally assign employee development opportunities and that organizations are effective in identifying high-potential employees. They are least likely to agree that organizations are effective in identifying employee development needs. Employee Development and Return on Investment Table 5 illustrates the percentage of organizations that conduct analyses to determine the return on investment (ROI) of employee development methods. The results indicate that most organizations do not collect ROI data. For those organizations that do collect ROI, the outcomes result in positive gains for the organization, regardless of the employee development method utilized. The employee development practices that produce the highest ROI are: 1) apprenticeships/internships (20%);
2) formal coaching (18%); and 3) leadership training (18%). These methods are also among the employee development methods that a greater percentage of organizations collect ROI data for to begin with. These particular methods may be more amenable for collection of ROI because the costs are measurable and the outcomes tangible. Apprenticeships/internships tend to have high rates of return for organizations because they serve as cost-effective and low-risk methods of identifying high-potential upcoming graduates or recent graduates for positions within the organization. Given the positive ROI, it is surprising that only 57% of organizations use this employee development method. Formal coaching, which also has a positive ROI, is utilized by only about one-half (55%) of organizations. Leadership trainings positive ROI is probably attributed to the selection process. Employees who participate in leadership training have been slated for leadership roles or may already be in leadership positions.
Table 5
ROI and Employee Development Methods

n Positive ROI 20% 18% 18% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 14% 14% 13% 11% 10% 9% 8% Negative ROI 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 1% 2% 7% No Analysis of ROI 78% 81% 78% 82% 81% 83% 84% 82% 83% 83% 82% 84% 89% 89% 85%
Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Formal coaching Leadership training Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Training other than leadership training Cross-functional training Development planning Job rotation Formal identification of high-potential employees High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Formal succession planning processes Formal career mentoring (internal program) Formal career mentoring (external program) Matching employees with stretch opportunities Job sharing
Note: Percentages are row percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
123 118 148 120 162 154 150 102 116 117 107 95 74 113 86
Diversity and Employee Development Leading U.S. corporations understand that internal diversity creates competitive business advantages. Among other things, they report increases in creativity, innovation and morale as a result of diverse teamwork. A recent Catalyst study, The Bottom Line: Connecting Corporate Performance and Gender Diversity,5 confirms the competitive advantage that diverse leadership teams produce. By examining financial and diversity data amongst Fortune 500 companies over a five-year period, the study found a very strong connection between gender diversity and organizational performance. Specifically, those organizations with a higher than average representation of women in top management significantly financially outperformed those companies with a lower than average represen-
tation of women in terms of both return on equity and total return to shareholders. However, it is not enough to just have diversity at the topor throughoutan organization. Diversity needs to be managed well: individuals need to have access to a range of development and advancement opportunities to truly flourish. Despite the increasing importance of diversity to business success, only 38% of HR professionals report that their organizations have formal diversity and inclusion initiatives, as shown in Figure 9. Additional analysis by organization staff size reveals that about twice as many large organizations (62%) have these initiatives in place as small (23%) and medium (35%) organizations, suggesting that larger organizations have more resources to devote to diversity.
Catalyst. (2004). The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. New York: Catalyst.
Figure 9
Existence of Formal Diversity and Inclusion Initiative and Manager in Organization
Figure 10
Organizations Diversity Component and Employee Development
69% 62% 61%
68%
38% 32%
39% 32%
Yes
No
Yes
No
Diversity and Inclusion Initiative (n = 245) Diversity and Inclusion Manager (n = 235)
Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Includes Employee Development (n = 188) Diversity and Inclusion Manager Involved in Employee Development (n = 170)
10
Thirty-two percent of organizations have a diversity officer or diversity manager. Large organizations (55%) have diversity officers or managers at more than double the rate of small (16%) and medium (27%) organizations. Of those HR professionals who report that their organizations have formal diversity and inclusion initiatives in place, 39% report that employee development is part of the program. About one-half (53%) of large organizations report that employee development is part of their formal diversity program, compared with 26% of small organizations. HR professionals in organizations that have diversity managers indicate that managers are involved in employee development practices (32%). These data are illustrated in Figure 10. Table 6 demonstrates the proportion of organizations that offer development programs targeted to specific employee groups. In general, it appears that organiza-
tions attempt to involve both women and racial/ ethnic minority groups in the same types of employee development programs. The top three programs that organizations use to particularly reach out to women and racial/ethnic minority groups are: 1) development planning (29% each); 2) apprenticeships/internships (26% each); and 3) leadership training (25% each). These results are different from the employee development methods used by organizations overall (see Table 1). Formal career mentoring for women (14%) and for racial/ethnic minorities (13%) appear to be underutilized, suggesting an area for improvement. Mentoring often is regarded as a crucial component of organizational diversity initiatives. Opportunities for women and racial/ethnic minorities to gain access to informal networks and tiers within an organization can be gained through mentors who can introduce them to key players. Mentors can also work in conjunction with an employees supervisor to determine appropriate development opportunities.
Table 6
Employee Development Methods That Organizations Use When Reaching Out to Specific Employee Groups
Racial/Ethnic Minorities 29% 26% 25% 25% 25% 21% 18% 17% 15% 16% 15% 13% 12% 8% 2% Employees From Outside the United States 7% 7% 6% 8% 8% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 1%
(n = 248) Development planning Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Leadership training Training other than leadership training Cross-functional training Formal identification of high-potential employees Formal coaching Formal succession planning processes High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Matching employees with stretch opportunities Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Formal career mentoring (internal program) Job rotation Job sharing Formal career mentoring (external program)
Women 29% 26% 25% 25% 25% 20% 17% 17% 17% 17% 16% 14% 13% 9% 3%
Note: Data are sorted by the women column. Percentages will not total 100% due to multiple response options. Percentages are column percentages. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
11
HR professionals also were asked if their organizations featured targeted development programs for employees who had immigrated to the United States. The results suggest that very few organizations reach out to this group of employees with tailored development programs. Such efforts may intensify as demographic changes lead to a greater need for highly qualified and educated employees, necessitating an influx of foreign workers to the United States. Analysis by profit status suggests that more for-profit than nonprofit organizations are attempting to groom women and racial/ethnic minorities for leadership roles through formal identification of high-potential employees and formal succession planning
processes. This suggests that corporate initiatives promoting diversity may already be impactingand will have future impacton women and racial/ethnic minorities and their ability to move up the corporate ladder. As will be demonstrated later in this report, women and racial/ethnic minorities in leadership positions are largely underrepresented in for-profit, compared with nonprofit, organizations. Initiatives in for-profit organizations that focus on these demographic groups are likely to increase the proportion of women and racial/ethnic minority groups at the managerial level and above. Large organizations are attempting to involve women in employee development programs at much higher
Table 7
Employee Development Methods That Organizations Use When Reaching Out to Women (By Organization Staff Size)
Differences by Staff Size Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > medium Medium > small Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > small Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > small Large > medium Large > small
Development planning Leadership training
18% 13%
25% 22%
50% 46%
Formal identification of high-potential employees Cross-functional training Training other than leadership training Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Formal succession planning processes Formal coaching High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Match employees with stretch opportunities Formal career mentoring (internal program)
5% 15% 16% 16% 6% 6% 12% 11% 12% 8%
18% 21% 22% 22% 14% 14% 12% 13% 10% 9%
45% 43% 41% 39% 38% 34% 29% 29% 29% 23%
Note: Percentages will not total 100% due to multiple response options. Percentages are column percentages. Data are sorted by the large organization column. Sample sizes of the organization size categories are based on the actual number of respondents answering the organization size question; however, the percentages shown are based on the actual number of respondents by organization size who answered this question using the provided response options. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
12
rates than small and medium organizations. This is especially evident through examination of the top methods used by large organizations: development planning efforts, leadership training and the formal identification of high-potential employees. Large organizations, which have more diversity initiatives and/or staff devoted to diversity issues, are more than twice as likely to use formal succession planning, formal coaching and high-visibility assignments, compared with small and medium organizations. These data are shown in Table 7.
Table 8 illustrates how organization staff size relates to the methods used to target specific employee development programs for racial/ethnic minorities. The efforts made by large organizations for racial/ethnic minority groups closely correspond with their efforts for women in terms of development planning and formal identification of high-potential employees. Organizations appear to use apprenticeships/internships more frequently for racial/ethnic minority groups than for women.
Table 8
Employee Development Methods That Organizations Use When Reaching Out to Racial/Ethnic Minorities (By Organization Staff Size)
Differences by Staff Size Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > medium Medium > small Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > small Large > small Large > medium Medium > small Large > small Large > medium Medium> small Large > small Large > medium Large > small Large > small Large > medium Large > small
Development planning
15%
26%
52%
Formal identification of high-potential employees Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Cross-functional training Leadership training Training other than leadership training
5% 15% 15% 13% 16%
20% 21% 22% 25% 22%
50% 45% 45% 43% 41%
Formal coaching
4%
18%
38%
Formal succession planning processes High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Match employees with stretch opportunities Formal career mentoring (internal program)
5% 10% 10% 12% 7%
17% 12% 13% 10% 10%
38% 29% 29% 29% 23%
Note: Percentages will not total 100% due to multiple response options. Percentages are column percentages. Data are sorted by the large organization column. Sample sizes of the organization size categories are based on the actual number of respondents answering the organization size question; however, the percentages shown are based on the actual number of respondents by organization size who answered this question using the provided response options. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
13
A large percentage of organizations do not compare the effectiveness of employee development programs for specific employee groups. Nearly nine out of 10 (88%) HR professionals indicate that their organizations do not examine program effectiveness by either gender or racial/ethnic minority groups. These results are shown in Table 9. HR professionals were asked whether they agreed that specific groups of employees in their organizations received the same development opportunities.6
Seventy-eight percent of HR professionals agree that women employees in their organizations receive the same development opportunities as men employees; 15% disagree. These data are shown in Figure 11. As mentioned earlier in this report, mentors provide employees with access to key players in the organization. In organizations that have fewer women in managerial and executive-level positions, it may be harder for women to find mentors of the same gender. Fifty-seven percent of HR professionals, however, indicate that it is no more difficult for women employees, compared with men employees, to find mentors in their organizations; 17% disagree. Figure 12 shows these data. Figure 13 shows that 83% of HR professionals agree that racial/ethnic minorities in their organizations receive the same development opportunities as white employees; only 8% disagree. Almost twice as many HR professionals disagree (15%) that women employees have the same opportunities as men employees (see Figure 11), compared with racial/
6
Table 9
(n = 240)
Employee Development Program Effectiveness and Diversity
We compare employee development effectiveness based on gender ONLY We compare employee development effectiveness based on racial/ethnic minority groups ONLY We compare employee development effectiveness based on BOTH gender and racial/ethnic minority groups We DO NOT compare employee development effectiveness for either gender or racial/ethnic minority groups.
0% 2% 10% 88%
Both the agree and strongly agree categories are combined to form the agreed response and disagree and strongly disagree form the disagreed response in this section.
Figure 11
(n = 235)
Women Receive the Same Development Opportunities as Men Employees in Organization
39%
39%
10% 5%
8%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
14
ethnic minority employees and white employees (8%). This suggests that HR professionals perceive women as being slightly disadvantaged, compared with racial/ethnic minorities, in terms of opportunities for employee development. Figure 14 shows that 48% of HR professionals agree that it is no more difficult for employees from racial/ethnic minority groups, compared with white
employees, to find a mentor in their organizations; 20% disagree. These data suggest that it may be more difficult for racial/ethnic minority employees to find mentors, compared with women employees. Gay and lesbian employees receive the same development opportunities as heterosexual employees, according to 75% of HR professionals; only 3% disagree with this statement. These data are shown in
Figure 12
(n = 231)
It Is No More Difficult for Women Employees to Find a Mentor in the Organization Than It Is for Men Employees
27%
29%
28%
7%
10%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Figure 13
(n = 236)
Racial/Ethnic Minorities Receive the Same Development Opportunities as Caucasian/White Employees in Organization
45% 38%
9% 5% 3%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
15
Figure 15. Forty-six percent of HR professionals agree that it is no more difficult for gay and lesbian employees to find a mentor in their organizations than it is for heterosexual employees; 14% disagree with this statement. Data are shown in Figure 16. Table 10 compares the average levels of agreement for the data depicted in Figures 11 through 16. The averages suggest that HR professionals believe that
racial/ethnic minority employees have an advantage over gay and lesbian and women employees in terms of having equal opportunities for employee development. This may indicate that organizations are placing greater emphasis on ensuring that racial/ethnic minority employees receive the development opportunities they need. This group, however, is disadvantaged in finding mentors within the organization, compared with women and gay and lesbian employees.
Figure 14
(n = 232)
It Is No More Difficult for Racial/Ethnic Minority Employees to Find a Mentor in the Organization Than It Is for Caucasian/White Employees
33% 23% 11% 25%
9%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Figure 15
(n = 235)
Employees Known to Be Gay or Lesbian Receive the Same Development Opportunities as Heterosexual Employees in Organization
40% 35%
22%
3%
0%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
16
Figure 16
(n = 231)
It Is No More Difficult for Gay or Lesbian Employees to Find a Mentor in the Organization Than It Is for Heterosexual Employees
41%
22%
24%
7%
7%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Table 10
Levels of Agreement on Organizations Employee Development Opportunities for Specific Employee Groups
Average Standard Deviation 1.06 0.95 1.15 1.18 1.13 1.22
In my organization racial/ethnic minority employees receive the same development opportunities as white employees In my organization employees known to be gay or lesbian receive the same development opportunities as heterosexual employees In my organization female employees receive the same development opportunities as male employees In my organization it is no more difficult for female employees to find a mentor than it is for male employees to find one In my organization it is no more difficult for employees known to be gay or lesbian to find a mentor than it is for heterosexual employees to find one In my organization it is no more difficult for racial/ethnic minority employees to find a mentor than it is for white employees to find one
Note: Averages are based on a scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
4.14 4.08 3.96 3.61 3.49 3.44
Table 11
Percentage of Organizations Employees Promoted Within Past 12 Months
Percentage of TOTAL Employees Promoted Within the Last 12 Months (n = 166) Average Range 9% 0 100%
Percentage of Female Employees Promoted Within the Last 12 Months ( n = 150) 10% 0 100%
Percentage of Racial/Ethnic Minority Employees Promoted Within the Last 12 Months (n = 145) 6% 0 100%
17
HR professionals from nonprofit organizations, compared with HR professionals in for-profit organizations, are more likely to agree that women in their organizations receive the same development opportunities as men. This suggests that the nonprofit environment is more favorable at developing women for leadership positions. Results from this research also reveal that more women hold top-level executive positions in nonprofit organizations, compared with forprofit organizations. HR professionals were asked to provide the percentage of employees in their organizations who had been promoted within the past 12 months. Table 11 depicts the results. Overall, 9% of all employees were promoted. Of the women employees in organizations, 10% were promoted. Six percent of racial/ethnic minority employees were promoted within the past 12 months.
7 8 9
Management Levels by Gender and Race7 Table 12 illustrates management levels by gender. Gender representation among nonmanagerial employees is relatively equal. The representation of women in managerial positions, however, decreases as the level of management increases. For example, nearly three-quarters (72%) of top-level executives are men, leaving only 28% of the leadership in the hands of women. Representation of women drops rapidly as one looks further up the corporate ladder. According to the 2003 Catalyst Census of Women Board Directors,8 which examines gender representation within Fortune 500 companies, only 13.6% of these positions are held by women. The 2002 Catalyst Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners9 reports that 15.7% of the Fortune 500 corporate officer pool are women, while 7.9% of the highest titles are held by women, and a mere 5.2% are top earn-
In this survey, management levels were divided into three categories: top-level executives, managerial-level employees and nonmanagerial-level employees. Catalyst. (2003). Catalyst census of women board directors. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst. (2002). Census of women corporate officers and top earners. Retrieved from www.catalystwomen.org/knowledge/titles/files/full/financialperformancereport.pdf.
Table 12
Management Levels by Gender
Top-Level Executives (n = 185) Males Females 72% 28%
Managerial-Level Employees (n = 178) 60% 40%
Nonmanagerial-Level Employees (n = 174) 48% 52%
Note: Percentages are column percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
Table 13
Management Levels by Race
Top-Level Executives (n = 160) African-American/Black (not of Hispanic origin) Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian/White (not of Hispanic origin) Hispanic/Latin Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native) Other 5% 2% 87% 4% 1% 1%
Managerial-Level Employees (n = 153) 8% 3% 81% 5% 2% 1%
Nonmanagerial-Level Employees (n = 152) 13% 6% 68% 9% 1% 2%
Note: Percentages are column percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding. Source: SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
18
ers.10 As of this printing, there are only nine (1.9%) women CEOs in the Fortune 500. Analysis by employment sector indicates that women hold higher level positions in the public than in the private sector. Thirty-seven percent of the top executive roles in the public sector are held by women, compared with 26% in the private sector. The results are more striking by profit status. Forty-seven percent of the top-level executives in nonprofit organizations are women, compared with 21% in for-profit organizations. In general, women (65%) are more likely to work in nonprofit organizations than men (35%), whereas in for-profit organizations women and men are represented approximately equally (48% women and 52% men).11 Yet, only 20% of top executive positions and 34% of managerial positions in for-profit organizations are held by women. Management levels by race are shown in Table 13. HR professionals indicate that 13% of the nonmanagerial employees at their organizations are African-
American/Black and 9% are Hispanic/Latin.12 Only 8% of managerial-level and 5% of top-level executive employees are African-American/Black, and even fewer employees at these levels are Hispanic/Latins. The same trend is evident for all races, except for Caucasian/White. Almost nine out of 10 (87%) toplevel executives are Caucasian/White. Analysis by employment sector and profit status indicates that twice as many nonmanagerial AfricanAmerican/Black employees work at nonprofit organizations (22%) than at for-profit organizations (10%). Sixteen percent of African-American/Black employees hold managerial roles in public sector and nonprofit organizations, which is almost three times more than in private and for-profit organizations. More African-American/Black employees work in the public sector (18%) than in the private sector (12%).
10 11 12
Top earners are defined as the five most highly compensated individuals within an organization. These percentages refer to nonmanagerial employees in nonprofit organizations. According to 2000 Census Bureau data, approximately 13% of the U.S. population is represented by African Americans/Blacks and another 13% is comprised of Hispanic/Latins. Although these percentages include both employed and unemployed individuals, they may be a useful gauge for comparison.
19
Conclusions
mployee development programs are of strategic importance to both organizations and employees. Organizations that offer employees opportunities to evolve increase the likelihood of retaining their talent and, in turn, create a cadre of workers equipped to grow within the organizational structure. Developing employee groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in the echelons of executive management is also a priority as workforce diversity becomes a competitive business advantage. Women and African-Americans/Blacks, Hispanics/Latins and Asian/Pacific Islanders are underrepresented across the ranks of management, especially in the top executive positions. Women and minorities appear to have more prospects for high-level posts in nonprofit and public/government institutions. Still, their numbers are significantly lower than their representation in nonmanagerial roles. As a result, more organizations may need to institute formal succession planning processes and career mentoring programs that specifically include women and minorities to increase their representation across all levels of management. These study findings suggest that although organizations value the importance of human capital, struc-
tured, formalized avenues for development are not the norm. HR professionals indicate that organizations effectively identify high-potential employees and also help develop employees, yet they are less confident that organizations effectively identify actual employee development needs. This may be an area in which HR professionals can expand their sphere of influence by actively working with managers to uncover and recognize individual employee development needs. This research shows that HR professionals are second in line (after an employees supervisor) in terms of responsibility for employee development in organizations. The responsibility of HR generally includes researching and providing meaningful development programs for the organization. It is unclear, however, if HRs role often extends much further. Only about onequarter of HR professionals indicate that HR staff set development goals for employees. Practically speaking, it makes sense that employees themselves, along with their supervisors, are primarily responsible for setting development goals, but HR could improve the process by participating more fully in goal-setting. This could be an opportunity for HR to provide guidance to employees, ensuring that the potential of all employees is recognized.
21
A Look Ahead:
A Future View of Employee Development

By Jennifer Schramm, Manager, Workplace Trends and Forecasting
everal factors are making employee development more critical in determining the success of an organization than it has been in the past. First, the shift to a knowledge economy makes the knowledge, skills and competencies of employees the most significant driver of company value. However, because the increase in knowledge turnover is now so rapid, a greater investment in skills development is required. Though employees take on some of this burden through their own investment in education, the growth of specialized knowledge means that employers will increasingly need to take on the responsibility of providing more specialized business or sector-specific training and education. Another factor that will contribute to the relative importance of employee development will be the shifts in workforce demographics. Over the last few years, HR professionals have grown more concerned with how to prepare for a potential labor shortage as baby boomers begin to retire. The SHRM 2004-2005 Workplace Forecast shows that HR professionals rate preparing for the next wave of retirement as the third most important trend in the HR
13
profession, and a large number plan on investing more in training and development to boost employee skill levels, as well as use succession planning to a greater extent.13 However, the findings from the Employee Development Survey Report indicate few HR professionals say their organizations have succession plans in place for top executives. HR professionals awareness of the need for employee development strategies to meet future challenges in the labor market will have to translate into concrete steps as shifts in the labor market occur. The aging of the workforce will create the need to find new sources of talent to make up for the knowledge and talent being lost through retirement. However, the survey reveals that equally important will be finding ways to grow existing talent through new forms of employee development. As noted in this report, there is a considerable disparity between the percentage of women and minorities in management roles and the percentage in executive positions. This may indicate that current approaches to employee development are not working at an optimal level for the large (and growing) proportion of the work-
force made up of women and other minorities. Finding ways to develop the talents of underrepresented groups will become increasingly important. The generations that will pick up where the baby boomers leave off are much more culturally diverse, and education levels are more similar between men and women. If anything, women are outperforming men on many educational markers. In some professional degree courses, women are outnumbering men by a wide margin. Organizations that are unable to use employee development methods that help women and other minorities advance could have the most difficulty in dealing with any potential labor or skills shortages. Because the employees supervisor currently has the primary responsibility for developing his or her staff, greater emphasis on management training may be necessary to ensure that the process of identifying high-potential employees is done well. Problems in this area may be driving women and ethnic and racial minorities to break away from their employers in order to form their own businesses. The reasons behind this phenomenon
Schramm, J. (2004). SHRM 2004 -2005 workplace forecast: A strategic outlook. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
22
may increasingly be linked to problems in the corporate culture with identifying and developing high performers in these groups. Interestingly, in some ways, nonprofit organizations seem to have
less of a problem identifying high performers among women and minority groups and moving them up into the executive levels of the organization. However, forprofit organizations are more likely to have formal programs
aimed at targeting high performers, as well as formal succession planning. Both sectors may have something to teach the other when it comes to employee development.
23
Demographics
Census Region
(n = 226)
Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin) South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia) West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming) Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont) 19% 23% 36% 23%
Industry
(n = 219)
Construction and mining/oil and gas Educational services Finance Government Health High-tech Insurance Manufacturing (durable goods) Manufacturing (nondurable goods) Newspaper publishing/broadcasting Services (nonprofit) Services (profit) Telecommunications Transportation Utilities Wholesale/retail trade Other 1% 6% 6% 6% 9% 4% 6% 11% 9% 1% 4% 11% 1% 3% 1% 8% 15%
Title
(n = 224)
President/CEO Vice President/Deputy CEO Assistant or Associate Vice President Director Assistant or Associate Director Manager/Supervisor Specialist Representative Other 3% 9% 0% 25% 5% 36% 12% 4% 7%
Organization Staff Size

(n = 228)
Small (1-99 employees) Medium (100-499 employees) Large (500 or more employees) 42% 34% 25%
24
HR Department Size
(n = 227)
67%
20% 10% 2% 1% 0%
Fewer than five employees
5-9 employees
10-24 employees
25-49 employees
50-99 employees
100 or more employees
Unionized Employees
(n = 218)
Yes 12%
Sector
(n = 220)
Public/government 22%
No 88%
Private 78%
25
Profit Status
(n = 222)
Nonprofit organization 26%
Gender of Respondents
(n = 221)
Male 25%
For-profit organization 74%
Female 75%
Race of Respondents
(n = 218)
85%
0%
2%
2%
5%
6%
Other
Asian/ Pacific Islander
Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native)
Hispanic/ Latin
AfricanAmerican/ Black (not of Hispanic origin)
Caucasian/ White (not of Hispanic origin)
26
Survey Instrument
SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey For this survey, we define employee development as improving employee competencies and skills over the long term through a variety of methods such as mentoring, coaching, succession planning, identification of high-potential employees, etc. Please answer the following questions in terms of the location of your organization at which you currently spend the majority of your time. 1. Which of the following employee development methods are used in your organization? (Check Use Method or Do Not Use Method for each method.)
Use Method Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Cross-functional training Development planning Formal coaching Formal identification of high-potential employees Formal career mentoring (internal program) Formal career mentoring (external program) Formal succession planning processes High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Job rotation Job sharing Leadership training Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Matching employees with stretch assignments/opportunities Training other than leadership training Other (please specify): _______________________________________________________ Do Not Use Method
27
2. Who is PRIMARILY and SECONDARILY responsible for employee development at your organization (in addition to the employees self-assessment)? (Check one option for primarily responsible and one for secondarily responsible.)
Department Head (Excludes Employees Supervisor) Internal Coach (Excludes Employees Supervisor)
No One 1. Primarily responsible 2. Secondarily responsible
Employees Supervisor
HR Staff
Mentor (Excludes Employees Supervisor)
Outside Consultant
Other
3. Does your organization encourage or require (Check one per statement.)

No, Neither Encourages nor Requires
Yes, Encourages Employees to set development goals for themselves? Supervisors to set development goals for their employees? Department heads (excludes employees supervisor) to set development goals for employees? HR staff to set development goals for employees? Internal coaches (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) to set development goals for employees? Mentors (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) to set development goals for employees? Outside consultants to set development goals for employees?
Yes, Requires
Not Applicable
4. Who formally measures an employees development? (Check all that apply.) No one Employees supervisor Employee (i.e., self-assessment) Department head (excludes employees supervisor) HR staff Internal coach (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) Mentor (excludes employees supervisor or HR staff) Outside consultant Other (please specify): __________________________
28
5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
My Organization Effectively identifies employees development needs Is effective in helping employees develop Effectively identifies high-potential employees Is effective in helping high-potential employees develop Is effective in aligning employee development with the organizations business goals Often assigns employee development opportunities informally
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
6. Does your organization conduct analysis to determine its return on investment (ROI) in the following employee development methods? If so, has the ROI been positive or negative? (Check either Yes, Positive ROI, Yes, Negative ROI, No Analysis of ROI or Do Not Use Method for each of the methods.)
Yes, Positive ROI Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Cross-functional training Development planning Formal coaching Formal identification of high-potential employees Formal career mentoring (internal program) Formal career mentoring (external program) Formal succession planning processes High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Job rotation Job sharing Leadership training Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Match employees with stretch opportunities Training other than leadership training Yes, Negative ROI No Analysis of ROI Do Not Use Method
29
7. Does your organization compare the effectiveness of its development programs across gender and/or racial/ethnic minority groups? Yes, we compare employee development based on gender ONLY. Yes, we compare employee development based on racial/ethnic minority groups ONLY. Yes, we compare employee development based on BOTH gender and racial/ethnic minority groups. No, we DO NOT compare employee development for either gender or racial/ethnic minority groups. 8. Does your organization have a formal diversity and inclusion initiative in place? Yes No Skip to question 10 9. Is employee development included in your organizations diversity and inclusion initiative? Yes No 10. Within your organization, is there someone whose function includes diversity and inclusion matters (such as a Diversity Officer or a Diversity Manager)? Yes No Skip to question 12 11. Is the person responsible for diversity and inclusion at your organization involved, in any way, in employee development? Yes No
30
12. Does your organization particularly try to reach out to women, racial/ethnic minorities or employees from outside the United States to participate in any of the following employee development methods? (Please check all that apply for each method.)
Racial/ Ethnic Minorities Employees From Outside the United States
Women Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) Cross-functional training Development planning Formal coaching Formal identification of high-potential employees Formal career mentoring (internal program) Formal career mentoring (external program) Formal succession planning processes High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) Job rotation Job sharing Leadership training Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) Match employees with stretch opportunities Training other than leadership training
Do Not Use
31
13. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?

Neither Agree nor Disagree
In my organization Racial/ethnic minorities receive the same development opportunities as white employees Gay and lesbian employees receive the same development opportunities as heterosexual employees Females receive the same development opportunities as male employees It is no more difficult for racial/ethnic minority employees to find a mentor than it is for white employees to find one It is no more difficult for gay and lesbian employees to find a mentor than it is for heterosexual employees to find one It is no more difficult for female employees to find a mentor than it is for male employees to find one
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
14. Approximately what percentage of employees have been promoted in your organization within the last 12 months? % of TOTAL employees promoted within the last 12 months _________ % of female employees promoted within the last 12 months _________ % of racial/ethnic minority employees promoted within the last 12 months _________ DEMOGRAPHICS 15. What is the ZIP code for the location for which you are responding? __________ 16. How many total employees (full and part time) are employed within your ENTIRE organization, including your location?___________ 17. How many total employees (full and part time) are employed at YOUR LOCATION only?________ 18. How many employees (full and part time) comprise the HR department at your location? ___________ 19. In each of the following levels at your location, what percentage of the workforce are males and females? (Totals must equal 100%.)
Managerial-Level Employees _______ _______ 100% Nonmanagerial-Level Employees _______ _______ 100%
Top-Level Executives Males Females Total _______ _______ 100%
32
20. In each of the following levels at your location, what percentage of the workforce are in each of the following groups: African-American/Black (not of Hispanic origin), Asian/Pacific Islander, Caucasian/White (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic/Latin, Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native), other? (Totals must equal 100%.)
Managerial-Level Employees _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 100% Nonmanagerial-Level Employees _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 100%
Top-Level Executives African-American/Black (not of Hispanic origin) Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian/White (not of Hispanic origin) Hispanic/Latin Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native) Other Total _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 100%
21. Are any of the employees at your location unionized (under a collective bargaining agreement)? Yes No Skip to question 23 22. What percentage of employees at this location are unionized? ___________% 23. Which industry best describes this locations main business? (Check only one.) Construction and mining/oil and gas Educational services Finance Government Health High-tech Insurance Manufacturing (durable goods) Manufacturing (nondurable goods) Newspaper publishing/broadcasting Services (nonprofit) Services (profit) Telecommunications Transportation Utilities Wholesale/retail trade Other (please specify) ____________________________
33
24. Is your organization in the public/government or private sector? Public/government sector Private sector 25. Is your organization for profit or nonprofit? For-profit organization Nonprofit organization Personal Demographics 26. What is your gender? Male Female 27. What is your race/ethnicity? (Check only one.) African-American/Black (not of Hispanic origin) Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian/White (not of Hispanic origin) Hispanic/Latino Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native) Other (please specify:) __________ 28. Which of the following best describes your current title? (Check only one.) President/CEO Vice President/Deputy CEO Assistant or Associate Vice President Director Assistant or Associate Director Manager/Supervisor Specialist Representative Other (Please specify:) __________
34
SHRM Survey Reports
Available to members and the public 1. SHRM/CareerJournal.com Workplace Privacy Poll Findings (47 pages, January 2005) 2. Workplace Productivity Poll Findings (17 pages, January 2005) 3. 2004 U.S. Job Recovery and Retention Poll Findings (33 pages, November 2004) 4. Employee Trust and Organizational Loyalty Poll Findings (14 pages, July 2004) 5. Job Negotiation Survey Findings (41 pages, April 2004) 6. Job Opportunities Survey (39 pages, September 2003) 7. Job Recovery Survey (28 pages, August 2003) 8. Job Opportunities Poll (39 pages, April 2003) 9. Job Satisfaction Poll (74 pages, December 2002) 10. HR Implications of the Attack on America (23 pages, September 2002) 11. Corporate Credibility and Employee Communications Survey (14 pages, August 2002) 12. Job Opportunities Poll (30 pages, August 2002) 13. Workplace Romance Survey (24 pages, February 2002) 14. School-to-Work Programs Survey (16 pages, January 2002) 15. HR Implications of the Attack on America: Executive Summary of Results of a Survey of HR Professionals (13 pages, October 2002) 16. Negotiating Rewards Poll (14 pages, October 2001) 17. Search Tactics Poll (8 pages, April 2001)
Available to members only 1. 2005 HR Technology Report (37 pages, March 2005) 2. The Maturing Profession of Human Resources: Worldwide and Regional View Survey Report (33 pages, February 2005) 3. 2004 Reference and Background Checking Survey Report (41 pages, January 2005) 4. Job Satisfaction Series Survey Report (192 pages, August 2004) 5. Generational Differences Survey Report (29 pages, August 2004) 6. Employer-Sponsored Investment Advice Survey Report (43 pages, July 2004) 7. Human Resource Outsourcing Survey Report (28 pages, July 2004) 8. 2004 Benefits Survey Report (67 pages, June 2004) 9. Health Care Survey Report (29 pages, June 2004) 10. SHRM/CNNfn Job Satisfaction Series: Job Satisfaction Survey Report (52 pages, April 2004) 11. SHRM/CNNfn Job Satisfaction Series: Job Compensation/Pay Survey Report (36 pages, February 2004) 12. The Maturing Profession of Human Resources in the U.S. Survey Report (48 pages, January 2004) 13. Workplace Violence Survey (52 pages, January 2004) 14. SHRM Eldercare Survey (40 pages, December 2003)
35
15. SHRM/CNNfn Job Satisfaction Series: Job Benefits Survey (57 pages, December 2003) 16. Undergraduate HR Curriculum Study (45 pages, October 2003) 17. SHRM Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Survey (10 pages, October 2003) 18. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Survey (20 pages, August 2003) 19. SHRM/SHRM Foundation 2003 Benefits Survey (81 pages, June 2003) 20. SHRM Job Satisfaction Series: Job Security Survey (41 pages, June 2003) 21. SHRM/NOWCC/CED Older Workers Survey (53 pages, June 2003) 22. March 2003 Current Events Survey (28 pages, May 2003) 23. 2003 FMLA Poll (20 pages, April 2003) 24. 2003 Business Ethics Survey (48 pages, April 2003) 25. Employer Incentives for Hiring Individuals With Disabilities (66 pages, April 2003) 26. Fun Work Environment Survey (56 pages, November 2002) 27. Aligning HR With Organizational Strategy (53 pages, November 2002) 28. Recruiter Cost/Budget Survey (30 pages, October 2002) 29. 2002 SHRM/Fortune Survey on the Changing Face of Diversity (16 pages, October 2002) 30. Workplace Demographic Trends Survey (37 pages, June 2002)
31. Global Leadership Survey (36 pages, June 2002) 32. SHRM 2002 Benefits Survey Results (57 pages, April 2002) 33. A Study of Effective Workforce Management (36 pages, February 2002) 34. Human Resource Strategies, Stages of Development and Organization Size Survey (46 pages, January 2002) 35. Job Security and Layoffs Survey (76 pages, December 2001) 36. World Events SurveyImpact on Global Mobility (4 pages, November 2001) 37. Religion in the Workplace (58 pages, June 2001) 38. Employee Referral Programs (40 pages, June 2001) 39. Impact of Diversity Initiatives on the Bottom Line (41 pages, June 2001) 40. 2001 Benefits Survey (59 pages, April 2001) 41. 2000 FMLA Survey (51 pages, January 2001) 42. Workplace Privacy Survey (51 pages, December 2000) 43. Performance Management Survey (43 pages, December 2000) 44. Impact of Diversity Initiatives Poll (5 pages, October 2000) 45. 2000 Retention Survey (40 pages, June 2000) 46. SHRM Cover Letters and Resume Survey (39 pages, May 2000) 47. 2000 Benefits Survey (52 pages, April 2000)
www.shrm.org/surveys
36
SHRM members can download this survey report and many others free of charge at www.shrm.org/surveys. If you are not an SHRM member and would like to become one, please visit www.shrm.org/application.
SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report
$79.95 member/$99.95 nonmember 62.17083

Employee Development Survey Report - A Study by SHRM and Catalyst

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Employee Development Survey Report - A Study by SHRM and Catalyst

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Employee Development