employee development survey report - a study by shrm and catalyst

7/29/2019 Employee Development Survey Report - a Study by Shrm and Catalyst

1/52

Employee

Development

Survey ReportA Study by the Society for Human Resource Management and Catalys


2/52


3/52

EmployeeDevelopmentSurvey Report

Evren EsenSHRM Survey Analyst

Jessica CollisonSHRM Survey Program Manager

April 2005


4/52

This report is published by the Society for Human Resource

Management (SHRM) and Catalyst. The interpretations, con-

clusions 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 liabili-

ty 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 22314Phone: (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


5/52

v About This Report

v About SHRM

v About Catalyst

v About the Authors

vi Acknowledgments

vii Introduction

viii Methodology

ix Key Findings

x Key Research Terms

1 Survey Results

1 Employee Development Methods Used by Organizations

3 Who Participates in Employee Development

5 HR Professionals Perceptions of Employee Development

Issues at Their Organizations

9 Employee Development and Return on Investment

10 Diversity and Employee Development

18 Management Levels by Gender and Race

21 Conclusions

22 A Look Ahead: A Future View of Employee Development

24 Demographics

27 Survey Instrument

35 SHRM Survey Reports

Contents

Employee DevelopmentSurvey Report


6/52


7/52

v

About This Report

In September 2004, the Society for Human Resource

Management (SHRM) and Catalyst conducted the

Employee Development Survey by asking HR profes-

sionals to identify the employee development methods

being used by their organizations. HR professionals

who completed the survey also gauged the effective-

ness of those programs. For this survey, employee

development was defined as improving employee com-

petencies 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 devel-

opment practices are presented at the end of the

report in the section titled A Look Ahead. Statist-

ically significant findings by organization staff size,

profit status and sector also are integrated in the sur-

vey report, where applicable.

About SHRM

The Society for Human Resource Management is theworlds 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

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 Catalyst

Catalyst is the leading research and advisory organiza-

tion 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 solutions-

oriented approach that has earned the confidence ofbusiness leaders around the world. Catalyst conducts

research on all aspects of womens career advance-

ment and provides strategic and Web-based consult-

ing services on a global basis to help companies and

firms advance women and build inclusive work envi-

ronments. In addition, Catalyst honors exemplary busi-

ness 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 respon-

sibilities include designing, conducting and analyzing

surveys on HR-related topics and assisting in larger

survey projects. She has a graduate certificate in sur-

vey design and data analysis from The George

Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Employee Development Survey Report


8/52

vi

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 grad-

uate 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, con-tributed to the overall content of the report and wrote

the sections on Catalyst research. Brian Welle, Director

ofResearch, Catalyst, gave his expertise to conceptual-

izing theproject 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.



9/52

vii

The SHRM 2004-2005 Workplace Forecastreports that among the top 10 trends HR pro-

fessionals 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 project-

ed to lose executives in record numbers over the

next decade, and many organizations are unpre-

pared. As a result, developing employees for future

roles within the company is imperative for all organi-

zations. However, this often is overlooked or put

aside as other challenges of daily business opera-tions take precedence.

What do organizations do to prepare their existing

workforce for future leadership roles? Are some

employee development methods used more than oth-

ers? Are organizations reaching out to and developing

women, racial/ethnic minorities and other employeegroups 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-poten-

tial employees as part of their strategic plans. Are

these programs providing a return on their invest-

ment? These are among some of the questions this

research attempts to uncover.

The results of this survey offer insight, from the per-

spectives of HR professionals, on the employeedevelopment methods implemented by most organi-

zations 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.


Introduction

1 Schramm, J. (2004). SHRM 2004-2005 workplace forecast: A strategic outlook. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.


10/52

viii

The Employee Development Survey instrumentwas 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 con-ducted. 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 interna-

tionally 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 wassent 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 e-

mail reminders were sent to nonrespondents in an

effort to increase response rates.

The sample of 248 HR professionals was representa-tive 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 rep-

resented in the sample than the SHRM membership

population.


Methodology


11/52

ix

According to HR professionals, the top employ-ee development methods used by organiza-

tions 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 men-

toring 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-thirdsof HR professionals, however, indicate that employee

development is mostly an informal process in their

organizations.

About two-thirds of HR professionals report sometypes of diversity programs within their organizations.

These programs include either a diversity or inclusion

initiative supported by the organization or an individ-

ual whose function includes diversity and inclusion

matters. These diversity programs are most com-

monly 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.


Key Findings


12/52

x

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 gener-ated 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


13/52

1

Throughout this report, conventional statisticalmethods 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.

A glossary of Key Research Terms on the previous

page is provided for readers to reference.

Employee Development

Methods Used by OrganizationsHR professionals were asked which employee devel-

opment methods were used in their organizations.

Each of the top three methods cited pertained to train-

ing. 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 sug-

gest, however, that organizations are less likely to

employ such methods: one-quarter (25%) of HR pro-fessionals report using formal career mentoring

(internal program) and even fewer have an external

program (10%). More organizations (35%) have suc-

cession planning programs in place.


Survey Results

(n = 248) Use Method

Training other than leadership training 84%

Cross-functional training 80%

Leadership training 71%

Development planning 70%

Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) 57%

Formal coaching 55%

Matching employees with stretch assignments/opportunities 47%

High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with

executives (e.g., executive task forces) 47%

Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals

to meet with senior executives in organized events or

semiformal settings) 44%

Formal identification of high-potential employees 40%

Formal succession planning processes 35%

Job rotation 30%

Formal career mentoring (internal program) 25%

Job sharing 25%

Formal career mentoring (external program) 10%

Source:SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Report

Table 1 Employee Development Methods

2 The organization staff size categories are as follows: small organizations (1-99 employees), medium organizations (100-499 employees) and large organizations (500 or moreemployees).


14/52

2

Programs that groom employees to become future

leaders, such as formal succession planning, take

solid investment and focus. Succession planning pro-

grams that allow high-potential employees in the

organization the opportunity to be coached and men-

tored 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 rangingfrom 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 organiza-

tions 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 employ-

ees. It is not surprising that these organizations

employ more structured methods for employee devel-

opment. Larger organizations invest more in succes-

sion planning and are more likely to have the

resources necessary to devote to these programs.

While developing human capital is crucial for all organ-izations, it is even more crucial for larger organiza-

tions, 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.


Table 2 Employee Development Methods (By Organization Staff Size)

Small Medium Large

(1-99 Employees) (100-499 Employees) (500 or More Employees) Differences by

(n = 95) (n = 77) (n = 56) Staff Size

Large > small

Leadership training 50% 81% 88% Medium > small

Large > small

Development planning 57% 76% 79% Medium > small

Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet

with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) 32% 42% 59% Large > small

Large > small

Formal succession planning processes 18% 41% 55% Medium > small

Large > small

Formal identification of high-potential employees 23% 46% 54% Medium > small

Large > small

Job rotation 15% 38% 44% Medium > small

Formal career mentoring (internal program) 15% 26% 38% Large > small

Formal career mentoring (external program) 9% 1% 16% Large > medium

Note: Percentages are column percentages. Data are sorted by the large organization column. Multiple methods were selected, and each method was treated as aseparate question, therefore percentages will not total 100%. Sample sizes of the organization size categories are based on the actual number of respondents answeringthe organization size question; however, the percentages shown are based on the actual number of respondents by organization size who answered this question using theprovided response options.


3 Society for Human Resource Management. (2004, December 16). SHRM weekly online poll: Succession planning levels. Retrieved fromwww.shrm.org/surveys/At%20what%20levels%20of%20your%20organization%20are%20succession%20plans%20in%20place_.ppt.


15/52

3

A few differences were found between private and

public sector organizations with respect to employee

development methods used. Public sector organiza-

tions 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, ongo-

ing and tailored to the individual, providing the

employee with guidance from a seasoned profes-

sional. The formal career mentoring approach is espe-cially 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 responsi-

bility 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 inFigure 1.


Figure 1 Primary and Secondary Responsibility for Employee Development

No one Employeessupervisor

Departmenthead

(excludesemployeessupervisor)

HR staff Internalcoach

(excludesemployeessupervisor)

Mentor(excludes

employeessupervisor)

Outsideconsultant

Other

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding


Primarily Responsible (n = 246) Secondarily Responsible (n = 243)

5%

9%

17%

24%

10%

49%

2% 2% 0% 0%1% 2% 1%2%

64%

13%


16/52

The majority of HR professionals (85%) state that the

employees supervisor also takes a leading role in for-

mally measuring the outcomes of employee develop-

ment. 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 employ-

ees and supervisors work together in measuring

employee development as part of employee perform-

ance reviews. These data are depicted in Figure 2.

Employee performance reviews provide an opportu-

nity 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 indi-

vidual goals. Ideally, employees should be encour-

aged through informal or formal mentoring and coach-

ing 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 abili-

ties, 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 develop-

ment goals. Although department heads play a smaller

role than supervisors with respect to their responsibil-

ity and measurement of employee development, theywere reported by 47% of HR professionals to have a

prominent role in setting employee development goals.

It is probable that department heads work in conjunc-

tion with supervisors to set goals and that a large part

of their role includes providing the final approval for

employee participation in employee development pro-

grams. These data are shown in Table 3.


Figure 2 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

Note: Percentages do not total 100% due to multiple response options.

Source:SHRM/Catalyst Employee Development Survey Repor t

37%

43%

27%

85%

10%

4%

2%

2%

4%

(n = 222)

4


17/52

5

HR Professionals Perceptions of Employee

Development Issues at Their Organizations

This section examines the effectiveness of organiza-

tions in identifying the specific development needs

of employees and helping employees develop.

Results are expressed in terms of whether HR

professionals agreed with statements about their

organizations.4


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? 240 52% 32% 16%

Does your organization encourage or require department heads

(excludes employees supervisor) to set development goals for employees? 217 47% 22% 31%

Does your organization encourage or require supervisors to set

development goals for their employees? 241 39% 49% 12%

Does your organization encourage or require HR staff to set development

goals for employees? 205 26% 6% 68%

Does your organization encourage or require internal coaches (excludes

employees supervisor or HR staff) to set development goals for employees? 138 23% 4% 73%

Does your organization encourage or require mentors (excludes employees

supervisor or HR staff) to set development goals for employees? 131 23% 4% 73%

Does your organization encourage or require outside consultants to set

development goals for employees? 104 13% 2% 86%

Note: Percentages are row percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding. Results were calculated by removing respondents who indicated Not Applicable foreach option.


Figure 3 Organization Effectively Identifies Employees Development Needs

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neither agree nordisagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.


(n = 245)

7%

27%

18%

44%

4%

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 thissection.


18/52

6

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 Organization Is Effective in Helping Employees Develop

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 245)

6%

22%20%

49%

3%

Figure 5 Organization Effectively Identifies High-Potential Employees

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 244)

7%

18%

25%

42%

7%


19/52

7

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 7 Organization Is Effective in Aligning Employee Development With the Organizations Business Goals

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 245)

7%

20%25%

41%

7%

Figure 6 Organization Is Effective in Helping High-Potential Employees Develop

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 245)

7%

22%

27%

38%

6%


20/52

8

Effectively developing employees as human capital in

alignment with business goals provides a critical

strategic advantage to organizations. Forty-eight per-

cent of HR professionals agree that their organiza-

tions 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 devel-

opment opportunities is the norm in organizations.

Although having designated employee development

goals is beneficial, much of an employees develop-

ment 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 8Organization Often Assigns Employee Development Opportunities Informally

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 245)

6%

12%

18%

59%

6%

Table 4 Levels of Agreement on Organizations Handling of Employee Development Issues

Issue Average Standard Deviation

Organization often assigns employee development opportunities informally 3.48 0.98

Organization effectively identifies high-potential employees 3.24 1.07

Organization is effective in helping employees develop 3.21 1.01

Organizat ion is effective in al igning employee development with the organizat ions business goals 3.20 1.07

Organization is effective in helping high-potential employees develop 3.13 1.05

Organization effectively identifies employees development needs 3.12 1.06

Note: Averages are based on a scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.



21/52

9

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 effec-

tive 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 col-lect ROI, the outcomes result in positive gains for

the organization, regardless of the employee devel-

opment 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 collec-

tion 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 organ-

izations use this employee development method.Formal coaching, which also has a positive ROI, is uti-

lized 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 Negative ROI No Analysis of ROI

Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) 123 20% 2% 78%

Formal coaching 118 18% 1% 81%

Leadership training 148 18% 3% 78%

Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives

in organized events or semiformal settings) 120 17% 2% 82%

Training other than leadership training 162 17% 3% 81%

Cross-functional training 154 16% 1% 83%

Development planning 150 15% 1% 84%

Job rotation 102 15% 3% 82%

Formal identification of high-potential employees 116 14% 3% 83%

High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) 117 14% 3% 83%

Formal succession planning processes 107 13% 5% 82%

Formal career mentoring (internal program) 95 11% 5% 84%

Formal career mentoring (external program) 74 10% 1% 89%

Matching employees with stretch opportunities 113 9% 2% 89%

Job sharing 86 8% 7% 85%

Note: Percentages are row percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding.



22/52

10

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 con-

firms the competitive advantage that diverse leader-

ship teams produce. By examining financial and

diversity data amongst Fortune 500 companies over

a five-year period, the study found a very strong con-

nection between gender diversity and organizationalperformance. 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 opportu-

nities to truly flourish.

Despite the increasing importance of diversity to busi-

ness success, only 38% of HR professionals report

that their organizations have formal diversity and inclu-

sion initiatives, as shown in Figure 9. Additional analy-sis by organization staff size reveals that about twice

as many large organizations (62%) have these initia-

tives in place as small (23%) and medium (35%)

organizations, suggesting that larger organizations

have more resources to devote to diversity.


Figure 9Existence of Formal Diversity and Inclusion

Initiative and Manager in Organization

Yes No

Diversity and Inclusion Initiative (n = 245)

Diversity and Inclusion Manager (n = 235)

38%

32%

62%

69%



Figure 10Organizations Diversity Component and

Employee Development

Yes No

Diversity and Inclusion Initiative Includes Employee Development (n = 188)

Diversity and Inclusion Manager Involved in Employee Development (n = 170)

39%

32%

61%

68%



5 Catalyst. (2004). The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. New York: Catalyst.


23/52

11

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 organi-

zations have formal diversity and inclusion initiatives in

place, 39% report that employee development is part

of the program. About one-half (53%) of large organiza-

tions report that employee development is part of their

formal diversity program, compared with 26% of small

organizations. HR professionals in organizations thathave 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 devel-

opment 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 oforganizational 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 Employees From Outside

(n = 248) Women Minorities the United States

Development planning 29% 29% 7%

Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) 26% 26% 7%

Leadership training 25% 25% 6%

Training other than leadership training 25% 25% 8%

Cross-functional training 25% 25% 8%

Formal identification of high-potential employees 20% 21% 6%

Formal coaching 17% 18% 4%

Formal succession planning processes 17% 17% 5%

High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive task forces) 17% 15% 4%

Matching employees with stretch opportunities 17% 16% 5%

Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with senior executives in

organized events or semiformal settings) 16% 15% 5%

Formal career mentoring (internal program) 14% 13% 4%

Job rotation 13% 12% 3%

Job sharing 9% 8% 3%

Formal career mentoring (external program) 3% 2% 1%

Note: Data are sorted by the women column. Percentages will not total 100% due to multiple response options. Percentages are column percentages.



24/52

12

HR professionals also were asked if their organiza-

tions 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 develop-

ment programs. Such efforts may intensify as demo-

graphic 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 leadershiproles 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 demo-

graphic groups are likely to increase the proportion of

women and racial/ethnic minority groups at the man-

agerial level and above.

Large organizations are attempting to involve women

in employee development programs at much higher


Table 7Employee Development Methods That Organizations Use When Reaching Out to Women

(By Organization Staff Size)

Small Medium Large


(n = 95) (n = 77) (n = 56) Staff Size

Large > small

Development planning 18% 25% 50% Large > medium

Large > smallLeadership training 13% 22% 46% Large > medium

Large > small

Large > medium


Large > small

Cross-functional training 15% 21% 43% Large > medium

Training other than leadership training 16% 22% 41% Large > small

Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) 16% 22% 39% Large > small

Large > small

Formal succession planning processes 6% 14% 38% Large > medium

Large > small

Formal coaching 6% 14% 34% Large > medium

High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives Large > small(e.g., executive task forces) 12% 12% 29% Large > medium

Leadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet with

senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) 11% 13% 29% Large > small

Large > small

Match employees with stretch opportunities 12% 10% 29% Large > medium


Note: Percentages will not total 100% due to multiple response options. Percentages are column percentages. Data are sorted by the large organization column. Samplesizes of the organization size categories are based on the actual number of respondents answering the organization size question; however, the percentages shown arebased on the actual number of respondents by organization size who answered this question using the provided response options.



25/52

13

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 plan-

ning, 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/eth-

nic 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/intern-

ships more frequently for racial/ethnic minority

groups than for women.


Table 8Employee Development Methods That Organizations Use When Reaching

Out to Racial/Ethnic Minorities (By Organization Staff Size)

Small Medium Large


(n = 95) (n = 77) (n = 56) Staff Size

Large > small

Development planning 15% 26% 52% Large > medium

Large > small

Large > medium


Large > small

Apprenticeships/internships (to assess potential future hires) 15% 21% 45% Large > medium

Large > small

Cross-functional training 15% 22% 45% Large > medium

Leadership training 13% 25% 43% Large > small

Training other than leadership training 16% 22% 41% Large > small

Large > small

Large > medium

Formal coaching 4% 18% 38% Medium > small

Large > small

Large > medium

Formal succession planning processes 5% 17% 38% Medium> small

High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives Large > small

(e.g., executive task forces) 10% 12% 29% Large > mediumLeadership forums (i.e., opportunities for individuals to meet

with senior executives in organized events or semiformal settings) 10% 13% 29% Large > small

Large > small

Match employees with stretch opportunities 12% 10% 29% Large > medium


Note: Percentages will not total 100% due to multiple response options. Percentages are column percentages. Data are sorted by the large organization column. Samplesizes of the organization size categories are based on the actual number of respondents answering the organization size question; however, the percentages shown arebased on the actual number of respondents by organization size who answered this question using the provided response options.



26/52

14

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 organiza-

tions 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 organiza-

tion. In organizations that have fewer women in manage-

rial 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/


We compare employee development effectiveness

based on gender ONLY 0%


based on racial/ethnic minority groups ONLY 2%


based on BOTH gender and racial/ethnic minority groups 10%

We DO NOT compare employee development effectiveness

for either gender or racial/ethnic minority groups. 88%



Table 9Employee Development Program

Effectiveness and Diversity

(n = 240)

Figure 11 Women Receive the Same Development Opportunities as Men Employees in Organization

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 235)

5%

10%8%

39% 39%

6 Both the agree and strongly agree categories are combined to form the agreedresponse and disagree and strongly disagree form the disagreed response inthis section.


27/52

15

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 devel-

opment opportunities as heterosexual employees,

according to 75% of HR professionals; only 3% dis-

agree with this statement. These data are shown in


Figure 12 It Is No More Difficult for Women Employees to Find a Mentor in the Organization Than It Is for Men Employees

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 231)

7%10%

27%29% 28%

Figure 13Racial/Ethnic Minorities Receive the Same Development Opportunities as

Caucasian/White Employees in Organization

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 236)

5%3%

9%

38%

45%


28/52

16

Figure 15. Forty-six percent of HR professionals agree

that it is no more difficult for gay and lesbian employ-

ees 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 aver-

ages 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 develop-

ment. This may indicate that organizations are placing

greater emphasis on ensuring that racial/ethnic minor-

ity 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 14It Is No More Difficult for Racial/Ethnic Minority Employees to Find a Mentor in the Organization

Than It Is for Caucasian/White Employees

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 232)

9%11%

33%

23%25%

Figure 15Employees Known to Be Gay or Lesbian Receive the Same Development Opportunities as

Heterosexual Employees in Organization

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 235)

3%0%

22%

35%

40%


29/52

17Employee Development Survey Report

Figure 16It Is No More Difficult for Gay or Lesbian Employees to Find a Mentor in the Organization

Than It Is for Heterosexual Employees

Stronglydisagree


Agree Stronglyagree



(n = 231)

7% 7%

41%

22%24%

Table 10 Levels of Agreement on Organizations Employee Development Opportunities for Specific Employee Groups

Average Standard Deviation

In my organization racial/ethnic minority employees receive the same development opportunities as white employees 4.14 1.06

In my organization employees known to be gay or lesbian receive the same development opportunities

as heterosexual employees 4.08 0.95

In my organization female employees receive the same development opportunities as male employees 3.96 1.15

In my organization it is no more difficult for female employees to find a mentor than it is for male employees to find one 3.61 1.18

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 3.49 1.13

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 3.44 1.22

Note: Averages are based on a scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.


Table 11 Percentage of Organizations Employees Promoted Within Past 12 Months

Percentage of TOTAL Employees Percentage of Female Employees Percentage of Racial/Ethnic Minority Employees

Promoted Within the Last 12 Months Promoted Within the Last 12 Months Promoted Within the Last 12 Months

(n = 166) ( n = 150) (n = 145)

Average 9% 10% 6%

Range 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%



30/52

18

HR professionals from nonprofit organizations, com-

pared with HR professionals in for-profit organiza-

tions, are more likely to agree that women in their

organizations receive the same development opportu-

nities as men. This suggests that the nonprofit envi-

ronment is more favorable at developing women for

leadership positions. Results from this research also

reveal that more women hold top-level executive posi-

tions in nonprofit organizations, compared with for-

profit organizations.

HR professionals were asked to provide the percent-

age of employees in their organizations who had beenpromoted within the past 12 months. Table 11 depicts

the results. Overall, 9% of all employees were pro-

moted. Of the women employees in organizations,10%

were promoted. Six percent of racial/ethnic minority

employees were promoted within the past 12 months.

Management Levels by Gender and Race7

Table 12 illustrates management levels by gender.

Gender representation among nonmanagerial employ-

ees 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 thesepositions are held by women. The 2002 Catalyst

Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners9

reports that 15.7% of the Fortune 500 corporate offi-

cer pool are women, while 7.9% of the highest titles

are held by women, and a mere 5.2% are top earn-


Table 12 Management Levels by Gender

Top-Level Executives Managerial-Level Employees Nonmanagerial-Level Employees

(n = 185) (n = 178) (n = 174)

Males 72% 60% 48%

Females 28% 40% 52%

Note: Percentages are column percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding.


Table 13 Management Levels by Race

Top-Level Executives Managerial-Level Employees Nonmanagerial-Level Employees

(n = 160) (n = 153) (n = 152)

African-American/Black (not of Hispanic origin) 5% 8% 13%

Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 3% 6%

Caucasian/White (not of Hispanic origin) 87% 81% 68%

Hispanic/Latin 4% 5% 9%

Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native) 1% 2% 1%

Other 1% 1% 2%

Note: Percentages are column percentages and may not total 100% due to rounding.


7 In this survey, management levels were divided into three categories: top-level executives, managerial-level employees and nonmanagerial-level employees.8 Catalyst. (2003). Catalyst census of women board directors. New York: Catalyst.9 Catalyst. (2002). Census of women corporate officers and top earners. Retrieved from www.catalystwomen.org/knowledge/titles/files/full/financialperformancereport.pdf.


31/52

19

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 execu-

tive 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 organiza-

tions. 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 posi-

tions 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 nonman-

agerial 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%) top-

level executives are Caucasian/White.

Analysis by employment sector and profit status indi-

cates that twice as many nonmanagerial African-

American/Black employees work at nonprofit

organizations (22%) than at for-profit organizations

(10%). Sixteen percent of African-American/Blackemployees 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 Top earners are defined as the five most highly compensated individuals within an organization.11 These percentages refer to nonmanagerial employees in nonprofit organizations.12 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.


32/52


33/52

21

Employee development programs are of strate-gic 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 tradition-

ally underrepresented in the echelons of executive

management is also a priority as workforce diversity

becomes a competitive business advantage. Womenand African-Americans/Blacks, Hispanics/Latins and

Asian/Pacific Islanders are underrepresented across

the ranks of management, especially in the top exec-

utive positions. Women and minorities appear to

have more prospects for high-level posts in nonprofit

and public/government institutions. Still, their num-

bers are significantly lower than their representation

in nonmanagerial roles. As a result, more organiza-

tions may need to institute formal succession plan-

ning processes and career mentoring programs that

specifically include women and minorities to increasetheir representation across all levels of management.

These study findings suggest that although organiza-

tions value the importance of human capital, struc-

tured, formalized avenues for development are notthe norm. HR professionals indicate that organiza-

tions effectively identify high-potential employees and

also help develop employees, yet they are less confi-

dent 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 develop-

ment needs.

This research shows that HR professionals are sec-ond in line (after an employees supervisor) in terms

of responsibility for employee development in organi-

zations. 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 one-

quarter of HR professionals indicate that HR staff set

development goals for employees. Practically speak-

ing, it makes sense that employees themselves, along

with their supervisors, are primarily responsible for

setting development goals, but HR could improve theprocess 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 employ-

ees is recognized.


Conclusions


34/52

22 Employee Development Survey Report

Several 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 knowl-

edge turnover is now so rapid, a

greater investment in skills devel-

opment is required. Though

employees take on some of this

burden through their own invest-

ment in education, the growth of

specialized knowledge means

that employers will increasingly

need to take on the responsibility

of providing more specializedbusiness or sector-specific train-

ing 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 pro-

fessionals have grown more con-

cerned with how to prepare for a

potential labor shortage as babyboomers begin to retire. The

SHRM 2004-2005 Workplace

Forecast shows that HR profes-

sionals rate preparing for the next

wave of retirement as the third

most important trend in the HR

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 find-

ings from the Employee Devel-

opment Survey Report indicate

few HR professionals say their

organizations have successionplans in place for top executives.

HR professionals awareness of

the need for employee develop-

ment strategies to meet future

challenges in the labor market

will have to translate into con-

crete steps as shifts in the labor

market occur. The aging of the

workforce will create the need to

find new sources of talent tomake up for the knowledge and

talent being lost through retire-

ment. 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 consider-

able disparity between the per-

centage of women and minorities

in management roles and the per-centage in executive positions.

This may indicate that current

approaches to employee develop-

ment are not working at an opti-

mal level for the large (and

growing) proportion of the work-

force made up of women and

other minorities.

Finding ways to develop the tal-

ents of underrepresented groups

will become increasingly impor-

tant. The generations that will

pick up where the baby boomers

leave off are much more culturally

diverse, and education levels aremore similar between men and

women. If anything, women are

outperforming men on many edu-

cational markers. In some profes-

sional degree courses, women

are outnumbering men by a wide

margin. Organizations that are

unable to use employee develop-

ment methods that help women

and other minorities advance

could have the most difficulty indealing with any potential labor or

skills shortages.

Because the employees supervi-

sor currently has the primary

responsibility for developing his

or her staff, greater emphasis on

management training may be nec-

essary to ensure that the process

of identifying high-potential

employees is done well.Problems in this area may be driv-

ing women and ethnic and racial

minorities to break away from

their employers in order to form

their own businesses. The rea-

sons behind this phenomenon

A Look Ahead:

A Future View of Employee DevelopmentBy Jennifer Schramm, Manager, Workplace Trends and Forecasting

13 Schramm, J. (2004). SHRM 2004 -2005 workplace forecast: A strategic outlook. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.


35/52


may increasingly be linked to

problems in the corporate culture

with identifying and developing

high performers in these groups.

Interestingly, in some ways, non-

profit 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, for-

profit organizations are more

likely to have formal programs

aimed at targeting high perform-

ers, as well as formal succes-

sion planning. Both sectors may

have something to teach the

other when it comes to employee

development.


36/52


Demographics

Census Region

Midwest (Illinois , Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nor th Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,Wisconsin) 19%

South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia) 23%

West (Alaska,A rizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon, Utah,Washington,Wyoming) 36%

Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,Vermont) 23%

Organization Staff Size

Small (1-99 employees) 42%

Medium (100-499 employees) 34%

Large (500 or more employees) 25%

Title

President/CEO 3%

Vice President/Deputy CEO 9%

Assistant or Associate Vice President 0%

Director 25%

Assistant or Associate Director 5%

Manager/Supervisor 36%

Specialist 12%

Representative 4%

Other 7%

Industry

Construction and mining/oil and gas 1%

Educational services 6%

Finance 6%

Government 6%

Health 9%

High-tech 4%

Insurance 6%

Manufacturing (durable goods) 11%

Manufacturing (nondurable goods) 9%

Newspaper publishing/broadcasting 1%

Services (nonprofit) 4%

Services (profit) 11%

Telecommunications 1%

Transportation 3%

Utilities 1%

Wholesale/retail trade 8%

Other 15%

(n = 226)

(n = 219) (n = 224)

(n = 228)


37/52


HR Department Size

Fewer thanfive employees

5-9employees

10-24employees

25-49employees

50-99employees

100 ormore

employees

(n = 227)

67%

20%

10%

2% 1% 0%

Unionized Employees

(n = 218)

No

88%

Yes12%

Sector

(n = 220)

Private

78%

Public/government22%


38/52


Race of Respondents

Other Asian/Pacific

Islander

NativeAmerican(AmericanIndian orAlaskanNative)

Hispanic/Latin

African-American/

Black(not of

Hispanicorigin)

Caucasian/White(not of

Hispanicorigin)

(n = 218)

0%2% 2%

5% 6%

85%

Profit Status

(n = 222)

For-profit organization74%

Nonprofit organization26%

Gender of Respondents

(n = 221)

Female75%

Male25%


39/52

27

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 Do Not 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): _______________________________________________________


40/52

28

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.)

3. Does your organization encourage or require (Check one per statement.)

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): __________________________


No One

Employees

Supervisor

Department

Head

(Excludes

Employees

Supervisor) HR Staff

Internal

Coach

(Excludes

Employees

Supervisor)

Mentor

(Excludes

Employees

Supervisor)

Outside

Consultant Other

1. Primarily responsible

2. Secondarily responsible

Yes,

Encourages

Yes,

Requires

No, Neither

Encourages

nor Requires

Not

Applicable

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?


41/52

29

5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

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.)


My Organization

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree

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

Yes, Positive

ROI

Yes, Negative

ROI

No Analysis

of ROI

Do Not Use

Method




Formal coaching





High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive

task forces)

Job rotation

Job sharing

Leadership training


in organized events or semiformal settings)

Match employees with stretch opportunities



42/52

30

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?

YesNo

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



43/52

31

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.)


Women

Racial/

Ethnic

Minorities

Employees

From Outside

the United

States Do Not Use




Formal coaching





High-visibility assignments/opportunities to work with executives (e.g., executive

task forces)

Job rotation

Job sharing

Leadership training


in organized events or semiformal settings)

Match employees with stretch opportunities



44/52

32

13. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?

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, includ-

ing 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%.)


In my organization

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree

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

Top-Level Executives

Managerial-Level

Employees

Nonmanagerial-Level

Employees

Males _______ _______ _______

Females _______ _______ _______

Total 100% 100% 100%


45/52

33

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

employee development survey report - a study by shrm and catalyst

Documents