SHL Talent Report

  • 2,123 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,123
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
60
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The SHL Talent ReportBig Data Insight and Analysis of the Global WorkforceEugene Burke and Ray Glennon
  • 2. Table of contentsForeword from Corporate Executive Board (CEB) 4Introduction 5Chapter 1: The global availability of currentand future leaders 7Chapter 2: The global availability of innovation 19Chapter 3: The landscape of organizational risk 31Chapter 4: The landscape of diversity 41Chapter 5: The global race for skills 53Conclusion 65Endnotes 68Appendix 70About the authors 71 shl.com | 3
  • 3. Foreword from CEBSince the early 1990s, the performance of major enterprises around the world has beenfueled largely by steady gains in labor efficiency and productivity. Maintaining, and extending,those gains will be a significant challenge in the face of an increasingly complex workenvironment – characterized by unpredictable global economic forces, ubiquitous information,and rapid technological changes. It is no surprise that talent management has been elevatedto the top of the strategic agenda for corporate boards and executive teams worldwide.Numerous studies have shown that well led firms – those who are able to attract, retain,develop and engage the best talent – are more likely to hit their business objectives andgrow. How do you know if your organization is well led? Is your organization’s talent ready toperform in the new work environment? Are your talent development programs focused onthe right objectives?The SHL Talent Report for 2012 brings the best in talent analytics to bear to provide newinsights on important talent management topics: leadership, innovation, organizationalrisk, diversity, and the distribution of critical employee skills globally. SHL has a privilegedand unique position to help executives understand their current and emerging talent base.The insights in this report are generated from the work of more than 300 expert industrialpsychologists and data from almost 4 million assessments in close to 200 countries.The strategic importance of talent data and intelligence was a key driver for CEB’s acquisitionof SHL this past summer. Combined, our two organizations are able to provide unparalleledinsight and advice on leading and managing talent in the new global economy. As the leadingmember-based advisory company, CEB equips senior leaders with insight and actionablesolutions to transform their operations. We’ve done this for nearly 30 years by identifyingthe world’s best management practices, corporate benchmarks and data-based analytics.Combining SHL’s unparalleled knowledge of workforce skills, competencies and capabilitieswith CEB’s archive of more than 15,000 best practices, will help our members identify andact on their key talent management challenges – across their enterprises broadly, within theirmost important corporate functions (Sales, R&D, Marketing, and Finance), and in their newand emerging markets.Conrad SchmidtGlobal Research Officer, CEB4 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 4. Introduction People Intelligence is the insight into behavior,This report is about knowing. It is about questions that organizations worldwide ask ability and potentialthemselves every day. Questions such as “How do we know that our people can achievewhat we want to achieve?” and “How do we know that our talent management programs SHL offers to helpwill deliver?” organizations understand,Knowing requires data and insight benchmark and makeOur mission at SHL is to provide that knowledge and insight through People Intelligence. better decisions aboutThat intelligence is delivered through reliable, scientifically valid and objective measures people.of people’s talents, ranging from their potential to be an effective leader to the specificskills and knowledge required for the thousands of daily transactions that make or break anorganization.With the launch of the SHL Talent AnalyticsTM program this year, we have delivered a newmacro capability in People Intelligence. Organizations can now look at their people againsttheir industry and across the geographies in which they operate. This has helped leadingorganizations articulate their people issues and identify where they need to focus to addressthose issues.The program has also moved the talent conversation on from the cliché that people are ourmost valuable asset. Now organizations can see where the value of their people is and whatthey need to do to realize that value. SHL Talent AnalyticsTM is about actionable insight basedon hard data about talent.Delivering millions of assessments globally places SHL in a unique position to share a globaland a local view of talent. In this report, that view is shared in the context of the mostpressing talent questions of today. What does the supply of leadership potential look like by geography and by industry sector? What are the talents that drive effective innovation and how are those talents distributed globally? Which sectors are most at risk from the behavior of their people? Is the gender imbalance in favor of men for senior positions driven by differences in leadership potential? What are the implications of an aging workforce for the future supply of leaders and the dynamics of the workplace over the next decade? Which geographies are best placed in the global race for skills? Where can I find the talent I need?In the true spirit of big data, this report aims to provide you with a compass to help guideand improve the effectiveness of your talent programs. shl.com | 5
  • 5. Chapter 1The global availability ofcurrent and future leaders shl.com | 7
  • 6. Perspectives on the supply of leadersfor today and tomorrowHow intelligent is your organization about identifying leaders for today andfor tomorrow? Effective leadersMajor economic shifts, swift social and political change, and accelerating technological andcommunications capabilities are driving an ever-greater demand for effective leadership.Which begs the question: where will top leadership talent come from to meet high demand?At SHL, we believe that effective leadership is about influencing people so that they sharecommon goals and work more effectively towards the achievement of the organization’smission1. Effective leaders know how to develop a compelling vision that is based on clearand critical thinking; know how to articulate and communicate goals that motivate othersand provide direction; know how to communicate effectively and to support others throughchange; and know how to get things done and realize tangible goals and objectives.Finding individuals with this rounded repertoire of leadership talents is clearly a challenge,one recognized by both executives and the employees whom they lead. Recent surveysshow as few as 25% of employees believe their organizations have the leaders to succeed inthe future2 and only 33% identify their executives as being among the top leadership talent intheir industry 3.To help organizations understand the global landscape of leadership talent and to framestrategies for identifying, acquiring and developing effective leaders, we have harnessedSHL’s extensive data on leadership potential. We look at the supply of leadership talent fromtwo perspectives: those with potential to lead today, and those who have potential throughadditional development to become the leaders of tomorrow.Leadership gaps and succession riskWhether you ask executives looking at their people from above or employees judgingtheir organizations from below, both express a lack of confidence in the next generation ofleaders 4 – or in the ability of their organization to develop leadership talent5. Organizationsacknowledge this succession risk as one of the most critical factors facing them today 6.However, mitigating this risk requires the kind of intelligence about people’s potential that Only 1 in 4many organizations are missing or, if they have the data, fail to use effectively. employees believe their organizations have the leaders to succeed in the future.28 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 7. Chapter 1: The global availability of current and future leadersThe geography ofleaders for todayThose in the leaders for today group have the strongest behavioral repertoire to be effectiveleaders. They are stronger in the more transactional, managerial and operational behaviors Table 1: Supply of potential leadersthat build effective relationships with people, can drill down to the essence of a problem and for today as a % of population:evaluate the data to identify a solution, can organize and mobilize resources, and can adapt to Top 25 countries7challenges and change effectively. They are also stronger in the transformational behaviorsthat can engage and influence others to get things done (rather than doing it themselves), 14.0% China (Hong Kong)can communicate effectively to gain the support of others, can think laterally and bring 13.4% Germanynew insights, and have the drive to see things through and achieve their personal careerobjectives. 10.3% United KingdomAnalysis of the data shows that a very small number – just 6.7% or 1 in 15 managers, 10.0% Australiaprofessionals or executives globally – fit this category. We have called them leaders for today 9.9% United Statessimply because they are the people who, with the right experience, are most likely to deliverin a leadership position. 9.8% Switzerland 9.5% Canada 9.4% Japan Leadership potential for today: People with the strongest 8.9% Singapore potential to be effective leaders. Most likely to respond to 8.0% New Zealand leadership development and realize that investment through performance in a leadership role. 7.4% Sweden 7.3% China (Taiwan) 7.1% FranceTable 1 shows the Top 25 countries for this level of leadership potential. Countries in North 7.0% ThailandAmerica (Canada and United States), Western Europe (notably Germany, United Kingdom,Switzerland, Sweden, France and Finland), and Australia and New Zealand emerge as the 6.7% Finland Averageglobal hot spots. While Asia as a region does not emerge as strongly in the supply of thislevel of leadership talent, China (Hong Kong), Japan, Singapore, China (Taiwan) and Thailand 6.6% Belgiumare emerging as top hot spots in Asia. 6.3% Spain 6.3% Turkey 6.1% Italy 5.7% South Africa 5.7% United Arab Emirates 5.6% Mexico 5.4% Denmark 5.3% Brazil 5.2% Norway Region 9 North America Africa Australia- Middle East New Zealand Eastern Europe Western Europe Latin America Asia shl.com | 9
  • 8. The geography ofleaders for tomorrowThe next tier of potential leaders includes those who exhibit strengths in some of thekey behaviors but lack fully-rounded potential. They may have strength in some of the Table 2: Supply of potential leaderstransactional facets of leadership and can deliver programs to time, cost and quality, but lack for tomorrow as a % of population:strength in areas such as communication, influencing and lateral thinking. Or they may have Top 25 countries 8strengths in these transformational areas but lack strengths in the areas that turn ideas intoeffective programs of work. 53.9% MexicoThese are the people who would benefit from additional development and we have called 49.5% Turkeythem leaders for tomorrow simply because they have a longer personal journey to become 44.1% Egypteffective and rounded leaders. 43.4% SwitzerlandOrganizations ignore this tier of leadership at their peril. From a supply side perspective, 1 in3 managers and professionals have this level of leadership potential – six times the proportion 41.8% Brazilin the leaders for today tier of leadership potential. Realizing the potential of leaders for 41.3% Indiatomorrow requires targeted learning and development, which in turn requires a deepunderstanding of their strengths and challenges. 41.2% Italy 41.0% United States 40.1% Germany Leadership potential for tomorrow: People with the potential 39.9% Netherlands to become well-rounded leaders, but who have a longer personal 39.4% China (Taiwan) journey to take in order to reach that level of effectiveness. 39.3% United Arab Emirates 39.1% DenmarkThe landscape changes quite a bit when we look at the supply of leaders for tomorrow (see 38.6% Sweden AverageTable 2). The availability of leadership potential for tomorrow is strongest among emergingeconomies, notably the BRICS countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China (Taiwan) – with 37.3% PortugalSouth Africa at 32.3% falling outside the Top 25. Additional strong geographies for leadersfor tomorrow are found in the newly coined TIMS emerging economies: Turkey, Indonesia, 36.9% RussiaMexico, and South Korea. Latin America and the Middle East also feature strongly as hot 36.8% Spainspots for leaders for tomorrow (see Figure 2). 36.7% Ireland 36.7% Indonesia 36.6% China (Hong Kong) 36.6% United Kingdom 35.9% Norway 35.2% Poland 34.5% Canada 34.3% China (Mainland) Region North America Africa Australia- Middle East New Zealand Eastern Europe Western Europe Latin America Asia10 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 9. Chapter 1: The global availability of current and future leadersLeadership by regionWhen we look at the global distribution of leadership potential, we see a marked differencebetween leaders for today and leaders for tomorrow.Figure 1: Regional view: Leadership for today 3 7 1 4 6 8 5 2 Region 9 North America Australia-New Zealand Western Europe Asia AfricaFigure 2: Regional view: Leadership for tomorrow Middle East Eastern Europe Latin America 6 4 3 2 7 1 5 8 shl.com | 11
  • 10. Adapting leadership strategiesto regional needsViewing the supply of potential leadership talent for today and tomorrow suggests thatorganizations need to adapt their strategies to reflect different needs in different regions. Emerging economies haveLooking at the supply of leadership in the countries ranked in the Top 25 for today and strong supplies for leaderstomorrow, and comparing them to the global supply, four distinct groups emerge requiringdistinct leadership acquisition and development strategies. for tomorrow, provided development programs Leaders for today Leaders for tomorrow are targeted to realize that potential. 1. Strongest potential overall. In the first group, the supply of leadership for today and tomorrow is stronger than the average global supply. While competing for leadership talent remains a challenge in these geographies, the odds of finding effective leaders for today are significantly higher at 1 in 10 versus the global average of 1 in 15. With the right intelligence on the leadership potential of their people, leveraging the supplies of leaders for today and tomorrow offers a source of competitive advantage for organizations in these geographies as they engage in an increasingly global economy. This group includes: Asia: China (Taiwan) Western Europe: Germany, Sweden, Switzerland North America: United States 2. Strong today – challenged tomorrow. The second group identified has a different challenge – stronger than global average supply of people with the highest potential today to move into a leadership role, but succession risk in terms of available leadership talent for tomorrow. For this group, the challenge will be to use People Intelligence to maximize the investment in learning and development to build leadership bench strength for the future. Geographies facing this challenge are spread around the globe: Asia: China (Hong Kong), Japan, Singapore, Thailand Western Europe: France, Finland, UK Australia-New Zealand North America: Canada 3. Weaker today, but the future looks bright. Flip the challenge around and we find several countries from the emerging BRICS and TIMS economic blocs with a short supply of top potential leadership talent today, but showing greater potential for available future leaders. In order for this group to stay competitive, using People Intelligence is even more critical to identify leaders now since the odds of successfully doing so are 1 in 20 – half the odds of the strong group one countries.12 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 11. Chapter 1: The global availability of current and future leaders The data suggests the value of People Intelligence extends beyond the hiring phase into development programs to strengthen the effectiveness of those in senior positions; as well as identifying potential in the richer supply of leaders for tomorrow in these geographies. Asia: India Western Europe: Denmark, Italy, Netherlands Latin America: Brazil and Mexico Middle East: Egypt and Turkey 4. Weakest potential overall. This group requires a strategy to build a strong alignment between talent acquisition and development. In these geographies, identifying potential leaders early and ensuring they have the personal and career development to realize their potential is essential. This strategy will also be critical for companies operating across diverse geographies who wish to avoid a crucial error: using a one-size-fits-all approach to identifying and developing leaders everywhere they operate. Such an approach ignores socio-economic and cultural differences in leadership potential and development needs and that these differences require a flexible and localized approach (see Figure 3). This group includes: Middle East/Africa: South Africa Asia: China (Mainland), Indonesia Eastern Europe: Poland, Russia Western Europe: Ireland, Norway, Portugal, SpainFigure 3: The supply of leadership talent in emerging and mature economies10 1 8.7% 4 37.4% 2 6.8% 2 38.5% 3 6.6% 3 38.1% 4 6.3% 5 37.0% 5 5.3% 1 42.6% 6 4.5% 5 37.0% Percentage of population Leaders for today Leaders for tomorrow shl.com | 13
  • 12. Which industries have the strongestsupplies of leadership talent?When looking at the data across both industry sectors and geographical regions, specificareas of strengths and weaknesses in the leadership talent pools for today and tomorrowemerge (see Figures 4-6 on pages 15, 16, and 17).Strongest sectors overallBanking, Insurance and Financial Services sectors have the advantage of strong suppliesof leadership both today and tomorrow across most geographies, with the exception ofWestern Europe.Weakest sectors overallIn contrast, the Oil & Gas and Utilities sectors face challenges in the supply of leaders forboth today and tomorrow, particularly in Eastern Europe and North America, despite NorthAmerica being one of the geographical hot spots for leadership talent.Strong today – challenged tomorrowMining, Professional Services and the Public Sector emerge as sectors attracting strongertalent for leadership today but face likely succession risks in the future, with risk highest inAustralia-New Zealand for Mining; in the Middle East and Africa for Professional Services;and in Asia for the Public Sector.Weaker today, but the future looks brightOther sectors are weaker in attracting strong leaders for today but attract stronger suppliesof leaders for tomorrow. For these sectors – Consumer Goods, Healthcare, Telecoms andGeneral Business Services – we see the need for a two-pronged strategy of strengtheningleadership attraction and acquisition programs while also using People Intelligence to meetdevelopment gaps.The data also suggests that relying on recruiting leaders on the basis of sector specificknowledge and experience is simply the wrong strategy for many sectors seeking to build apool of effective leaders for today and tomorrow. For several sectors, taking a broader scan ofleadership talent including talent pools from outside their traditional sectors is essential.14 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 13. Chapter 1: The global availability of current and future leadersIndustries with the strongestleaders for todayFigure 4: Leaders for today by industry sector globallyThe data was cut by 17 industry sectors11 to provide a picture of which sectors are moreeffective in attracting strong leadership for today. 1 Professional Services 1 10.3%* Public Sector 10.3% 11 10 Healthcare 5.9% 11 Business 3 Services Telecoms 6.1% 5.9% 13 Mining 9 8.8% Consumer Retail 17 Goods (Heavy Goods) 6.5% Oil & Gas 5.8% 5.1% 14 15 Consumer 4 6 Goods (Leisure Engineering 15 & Personal) Food, 5.7% 5.4% Travel Insurance Beverages & & Leisure Tobacco 5.4% & Financial 6.6% Services 8.6% 6 5 Utilities 6 Banking 6.6% 8.4% Technology 6.6%* i.e. 10.3% of people working in the Professional Services sector have the potential to be leaders today. shl.com | 15
  • 14. Industries with the strongestleaders for tomorrowFigure 5: Leaders for tomorrow by industry sector globallyWhen we look at the supply of leadership for tomorrow, we geta very different picture by industry. 1 Consumer Goods (Leisure & Personal) 2 59.8% Insurance & Financial Services 56.5% 11 Engineering 10 43.3% 12 Travel 3 Retail & Leisure 44.1% 38.9% Business Services 9 13 55.0% Consumer 17 Mining Goods Public 32.9% (Heavy Goods) Sector 46.4% 22.8% 14 16 Professional 8 Services Utilities 24.3% 15 32.2% 4 Food, Oil & Gas Beverages & 29.2% Tobacco Banking 46.6% 52.0% 7 5 Technology 48.2% 6 Healthcare 51.3% Telecoms 50.5%16 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 15. Chapter 1: The global availability of current and future leadersWhich industry sectors offer the strongest supplies ofleadership talent in the geographies you operate in?Figure 6: Industries with strongest leaders for today and leaders for tomorrow, by region Eastern Europe North America Western Europe Leaders for today: Leaders for today: Banking, Insurance & Leaders for today: Consumer Goods (Leisure Financial Services, Technology Asia Retail, Banking, Insurance & Personal), Mining, Public & Financial Services Sector Leaders for tomorrow: Leaders for today: Leaders for tomorrow: Insurance & Financial Insurance & Financial Leaders for tomorrow: Services, Technology, Travel Services, Professional Banking, Consumer Goods Consumer Goods (Leisure & & Leisure Services, Public Sector (Leisure & Personal), Telecoms Personal), Retail, Technology Leaders for tomorrow: Banking, Healthcare and Technology Middle East & Africa Latin America Leaders for today: Australia-New Zealand Banking, Mining, Oil & Gas Leaders for today: Leaders for today: Consumer Goods (Leisure & Leaders for tomorrow: Insurance & Financial Services, Personal), Healthcare, Insurance Consumer Goods (Leisure Professional Services, Public Sector & Financial Services & Personal), Food, Beverages & Tobacco, Telecoms Leaders for tomorrow: Leaders for tomorrow: Consumer Goods (Leisure & General Business Services, Insurance Personal), Insurance & Financial & Financial Services, Consumer Services, Professional Services Goods (Leisure & Personal) shl.com | 17
  • 16. The question is not whetherthere is leadership talentThe question is how intelligent is your organization in Data shows that therecognizing that talent and developing it. demand for effectiveA more hopeful picture of leadership talent emerges from the data when you look beyond leaders and the demand tothe highest tier of talent to the next tier, where there is potential to be realized if the rightPeople Intelligence is applied to identify and develop it. This talent pool is much more be increasingly thoughtfulevenly distributed globally and much stronger in many geographies, notably the emergingeconomies, and will require time and investment to grow. Organizations will need to put in about managingplace clear and targeted programs to address development gaps. leadership talent will onlyThe supply of leadership talent varies by sector increase.Industry sectors are facing significant challenges both today and tomorrow and need toreconsider their assumptions about the strength of their leadership talent. Many need torecognize succession risks. They especially need to develop greater intelligence aboutthat talent, how to leverage it more effectively, and put in place development programs forthose they hope to move into senior roles.Geography mattersFinally, organizations need to be aware of future leadership challenges at the countrylevel. Organizations need to understand the supply of leadership where they operate andadapt their leadership development and succession programs accordingly. More matureeconomies run the risk of relying on the stronger supply of leadership talent for todaybut failing to recognize a potential future shortfall of effective leaders for tomorrow. Inemerging economies, with an ever more globalized economy predicted to be as volatileas our experience in recent years, the demand for effective leaders and the demand to beincreasingly thoughtful about managing leadership talent will only increase. Just 1 in 15 managers or executives globally have the potential to become a top leader.18 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 17. Chapter 2The global availabilityof innovation shl.com | 19
  • 18. Looking for innovatorpotential around the worldIn a world full of volatility and challenges, innovation has become the single most importantfactor for both private and public sector organizations to transform a crisis into an opportunity. “Management knows itAdditionally, rapidly changing business models highlight the importance of innovation and so does Wall Street:to the success and survival of today’s organizations. The ability to innovate impacts theorganization broadly; whether in the application of technology, development of new products The year to year viabilityand services, marketing, or day-to-day operations. As business management expert Gary of a company dependsHamel has said, “Every company worth its low-salt lunch has identified innovation as a corecompetency.” on its ability to innovate.There are at least three conditions that determine whether the investment in innovation will Given today’s marketdeliver value to an organization: Organizational processes to stimulate, support and translate the innovation of its people expectations, global into tangible value competitiveness, and Geographical context – both economic and social – for supporting innovation the extent and pace of People with the right talent to be true innovators structural change, this isMuch has been written about innovation processes. Global indices such as those producedby the INSEAD and the Boston Group12 (discussed in detail on page 28) have recently been truer than ever.” 13developed to tell organizations what the state of play is geographically in terms of theeconomic and social conditions for innovation. But equally important, what talent is available Harvard Business Reviewto become innovators? How is that talent distributed geographically and across industrysectors? These are the questions we will address in this chapter. The ability to innovate impacts the organization broadly, whether in the application of technology, development of new products and services, marketing, or day-to-day operations.20 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 19. Chapter 2: The global availability of innovationThe DNA of the innovator and the SHL Innovation “Every company worthIndex its low-salt lunch hasWhen you think of innovations in recent years, do Apple products come to mind? If so, you identified innovation asshare a common association with the iconic status of Steve Jobs as an innovator, and hewould more than likely point out that effective innovation calls for more than just coming up a core competency.”with new ideas. Gary HamelEffective innovators need the intellectual capability to see new associations and possibilities,and the analytical skills to interpret and translate market and customer data into specificofferings. They must be able to focus, to persist in the face of initial failures, to be able tomake right hand turns in thinking, to articulate a need, be able to persuade, influence and sellan innovation to others, and to work collaboratively as well as work through potential conflict.Innovation is, after all, about change.To capture this unique blend of talents that mark the true innovator, we have exploredbehaviors that drive effective innovation and captured these in the SHL Innovation Index.This index takes into account two key domains of innovator talent in Table 3 below.Table 3: Index for behaviors that drive effective innovation Focus & Insight Networking & Collaboration Ability to reason Capacity to build effective relationships Capacity to think laterally – or ‘outside Ability to navigate social networks effectively the box’ Capacity to focus on a particular need Strong communication skills required for influencing others Ability to adapt to new data Ability to sell an innovation into an organization or to raise investment capital Ability to persist through those moments when an initial idea does not work, or when an experiment presents challengesYou will find more on the SHL Innovation Index in the Appendix. shl.com | 21
  • 20. Mapping the supply ofinnovator potentialAs illustrated in the previous chapter, the supply of talent to be an effective top leader isscarce at 1 in 15 of the assessed population. Similar results are found when examining the Table 4: Supply of innovator talent:data from the SHL Innovation Index for innovator potential. Just 1 in 17 or 5.8% of graduates, Top 25 countries by % of population14managers and professionals have the potential to be a true innovator.What does the supply of innovator talent by geography look like? 11.1% United StatesNorth America, Western Europe and Asia featured heavily on the list. Countries in Eastern 10.6% China (Hong Kong)Europe emerge as centers for innovator talent, with Hungary, Poland and Russia featured in 10.5% Australiathe Top 25 (see Table 4). 10.1% GermanyThough individual countries such as China (Hong Kong), Japan, Singapore and South Korearank in the Top 25 list for innovator potential, Asia as a region factors lower than North 9.8% SingaporeAmerica, Australia-New Zealand, and Western Europe. In spite of its reputation as an IT 9.7% United Kingdompowerhouse, India did not feature strongly in talent for innovation. 9.4% Sweden 9.1% Canada 8.6% Netherlands 7.3% Denmark 7.1% New Zealand 7.1% Switzerland 6.9% Ireland 6.3% France 6.1% Japan 6.0% Italy 5.9% Spain 5.8% Belgium 5.8% South Korea Average 5.7% Hungary 5.7% China (Mainland) 5.6% Russia 5.4% Iceland 5.4% Poland 5.2% China (Taiwan) Region North America Africa Australia- Middle East New Zealand Eastern Europe Western Europe Latin America Asia22 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 21. Chapter 2: The global availability of innovationTalent for innovationby regionWith the United States and Canada both ranking in the top 10, North America understandablyrates as the top global region for overall innovation, followed by Australia-New Zealand andWestern Europe.Figure 7: Innovator talent by geographical region 3 5 1 4 6 7 2 8 Region15 10.1% North America 4.7% Eastern Europe 8.8% Australia-New Zealand 3.0% Middle East 7.0% Western Europe 2.6% Africa 4.9% Asia 1.0% Latin America shl.com | 23
  • 22. Developinginnovation talentInvesting in learning and development to close thegeographical gap in innovator talent.This raises questions as to what should organizations focus on to be able to strengtheninnovation among their employee populations.Developmental needs for those with innovator talent in Asia for example, lie in theNetworking & Collaboration domain of the SHL innovator model and index. Specifically,talent management programs designed to leverage innovator talent potential in this regionneed to focus on improving competencies such as Building Effective Networks, Influencing& Persuading, and in Communication. This enables those charged with innovation tounderstand how to navigate the culture of their organizations and leverage social networkslocally and internationally, as well as within and outside their organizations.A need for learning and development is also apparent when we compare the more matureand emerging economies (see Figure 8).Figure 8: The supply of innovator talent in emerging and mature economies16 G8 1OECD 2 G20 2 EU 4BRICS 5TIMS 6 Percentage of innovators for todayThis data shows how important it is for organizations to understand regional variations in thebench strength and availability of ‘true innovator’ talent so they can create programs thatstrengthen their ability to execute innovation projects effectively.24 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 23. Chapter 2: The global availability of innovationIndustries with the greatest supplyof potential innovatorsInnovation can take many forms: from creating new products and services, to finding newsupply sources, developing new markets and new ways to reach existing markets, or For the Public Sector asidentifying new ways of organizing. This means the supply of innovator talent is critical across well as other sectors suchall aspects of economic activity and not just in the most obvious ones such as R&D.Figure 9 shows which industry sectors are strong in attracting and employing innovator as Banking, attractingtalent, and which sectors are not. and developing innovatorTechnology ranks No.1, but we see Professional Services, Food, Tobacco & Beverages, talent appears to be aRetail, and Insurance & Finance sectors also ranking high.Regarding the Public Sector ranking near the middle of the list: significant economic, social key priority for talentand political challenges place increasing pressure on how public services are financed, management programs.delivered and measured in terms of value. Finding new ways of organizing has become a keymission for governments and their agencies, particularly in Europe and North America, andthat means innovation.For the Public Sector as well as Banking, attracting and developing innovator talent appearsto be a key priority for talent management programs. These and the sectors that rank lowerdown the list need to reconsider the profile of talent they have traditionally attracted andemployed in order to create the talent profile they will need to move forward and succeed intoday’s increasingly volatile environment.Variations across sectors appear when we factor in geographical region (see Figure 10)showing that organizations need to be aware of and sensitive to the supply of innovator talentwhere they operate, and have the People Intelligence to know where to invest in their peopleto build their talent strength locally. ‘True innovator’ 1 in 17 or 5.8% of the population shl.com | 25
  • 24. Industries with the greatestsupply of potential innovatorsFigure 9: Innovator talent ranked by industry sector globally, as a percentage of population 1 Technology 6.4%* 2 Professional Services 6.2% 11 10 Healthcare 12 4.8% Business 3 Services Banking 4.9% 4.6% Food, Beverages 9 12 & Tobacco 5.9% Consumer Goods 17 Telecoms (Personal & 4.6% Travel Leisure) & Leisure 5.3% 4.1% 14 15 Utilities 8 Oil & Gas 15 4.3% 3 4.2% Engineering Public Sector 4.2% 5.4% Retail 5.9% 6 5 Mining 6 Consumer Goods 5.6% (Heavy Goods) Insurance & 5.8% Financial Services 5.6%* i.e. 6.4% of people working in the technology sector have the potential to be true innovators.26 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 25. Chapter 2: The global availability of innovationIndustries with the strongesttalent for innovation by regionFigure 10: Talent for innovation by industry sector and region Western Europe Eastern Europe North America Stronger innovation talent: Professional Services, Asia Stronger innovation talent: Stronger innovation talent: Technology Consumer Goods (Personal Stronger innovation talent: Retail, Technology, & Leisure), Professional Insurance & Financial Telecoms Weaker innovation talent: Services Services, Professional Banking, Oil & Gas, Telecoms Services Weaker innovation talent: Weaker innovation talent: Consumer Goods (Personal & Oil & Gas, Retail Weaker innovation talent: Leisure), Travel & Leisure Oil & Gas, Travel & Leisure Middle East & Africa Latin America Stronger innovation talent: Australia-New Zealand Food, Beverages & Tobacco, Stronger innovation talent: Mining, Oil & Gas Stronger innovation talent: Food, Beverages & Tobacco, Insurance & Financial Services, Public Sector Weaker innovation talent: Professional Services Consumer Goods (Heavy Weaker innovation talent: Goods), Travel & Leisure Weaker innovation talent: Engineering, Telecoms Retail, Travel & Leisure shl.com | 27
  • 26. A comprehensive view ofglobal innovationRecognizing the growing importance of innovation, the past few years have seen thedevelopment of global innovation indices to provide policy makers and business leaderswith a view of the global landscape for innovation readiness. These indices combine dataon the ‘inputs’ for innovation readiness, such as the infrastructure to support innovation andbusiness sophistication, and data on the scientific and creative ‘outputs’ to rank countries interms of the economic, financial and social context for innovation.We have looked at data from two such indices, one from the United States produced by theBoston Consulting Group with the National Association of Manufacturers in the U.S., andone from INSEAD located in Europe and Asia17. We extend this view of human capital byadding SHL intelligence on innovator potential and the behaviors and attitudes that turn theknowledge inputs to innovation into tangible outputs that create value.Analysis shows both the Boston and the INSEAD indices correlate strongly with the SHLInnovation Index. It also shows that insight into the ‘talent to innovate’ combined with data oneconomic and social conditions provides a more comprehensive view of the global innovationlandscape. Of note is the strong correlation we found between both economic indices andthe Networking & Collaboration component of the SHL Innovation Index, emphasizing howcritical social and interpersonal factors are to effective innovation.We combined data on both the Boston and INSEAD indices to create an overall score wecalled ‘context for innovation’ (business confidence, social, economic and financial factors).Figure 11 shows the results when this was plotted against the SHL Innovation Index18.What we found were four distinct clusters. Cluster 1 countries have both stronger economiccontext and stronger supplies of innovator talent, and are countries with a clear globalcompetitive advantage for innovation. This cluster includes: Asia: particular strength in China (Hong Kong) and Singapore Australia Western Europe: particular strength in Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. North America: both Canada and the U.S. featuring stronglyCluster 2 countries have the economic and social infrastructure in place but have weakersupplies of innovator talent. Clearly identifying and developing innovator talent will yield ahigher economic return from the investment potential available in these countries. In thiscluster we find: Asia: China (Mainland) Western Europe: Finland, Norway and Portugal Eastern Europe: Hungary Middle East: United Arab EmiratesCluster 3 involves just three countries – Italy, the Netherlands and New Zealand. These arecountries with stronger supplies of innovator talent but weaker infrastructure to realize thepotential that a stronger supply offers.28 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 27. Chapter 2: The global availability of innovationCluster 4 countries have stronger challenges in both the economic and social conditionsfor innovation as well as weaker supplies of innovator talent. For this cluster, a key priorityhas to be the identification and development of innovator talent to sustain and build on theeconomic growth that many of these countries have enjoyed in recent years. This clusterincludes: Africa: South Africa Asia: India, Indonesia and Thailand Eastern Europe: Poland, Romania and Russia Western Europe: Greece Latin America: Brazil and Mexico Middle East: Egypt and TurkeyFigure 11: Combined data on the economic and social conditions for innovation with the supply of innovator talent.19Higher Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Singapore Switzerland Finland Sweden China (Hong Kong) Ireland Denmark U.S. Japan Canada U.K. Norway France Germany Belgium Australia China (Mainland) Spain Hungary Context for innovation Portugal United Arab Emirates Italy South Africa Thailand Poland India Greece Russia Romania Turkey Brazil Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Egypt IndonesiaLower Cluster 4 Supply of innovator talent Cluster 3 Lower Higher shl.com | 29
  • 28. Innovation isn’t an option– it’s a must doEvents in recent years have forced governments, the public sector, and private businessesin the more mature economies to think hard about how they are organizationally andfinancially structured. Adopting new technologies in the search for productivity gains andcost reductions has driven efficiencies. In Europe, North America and Australia-New Zealandorganizations are already leaner or will be soon. However, more is necessary to ensure asecure future. New ways of working, new and more sophisticated goods and services, aswell as innovative ways of delivering those goods and services are becoming critical globally.In the emerging economies, product driven growth achieved by scalable and low costproduction processes is set to come under increasing pressure for two reasons.First, broader economic growth globally will bring new challenges to the powerhouses ofChina and India. Other countries will become more competitive for a share of the globalmarket for goods and services. From a talent perspective, SHL’s data indicates that China isbetter positioned to weather this competition, India less so. Our research also points to thecountries in Eastern Europe being well placed, with the innovator talent to compete for agreater share of the global market.The second reason is what the Economist has recently called a “third industrial revolution”in which digital manufacturing will change the landscape for manufacturing, service deliveryand ways of working. To quote “... some of the business of making things will return to richcountries.”20 Despite their travails, the older economies are not finished yet and results fromour study indicate they have the talent to make this third industrial revolution happen.Innovation will be key to moving up the value chain from more traditional goods and servicesto more value-intensive goods and services in the future, particularly under challengingeconomic and trading conditions.Knowing that innovation is a critical core competency will not be enough for organizations tosucceed.SHL’s data shows that the sectors with the greatest need to recognize this and take actioninclude Travel & Leisure, Oil & Gas, Banking, and the Public Sector. They face significantchallenges, including reduced consumer spending, environmental concerns, distrust of theirproducts and services, and a need to work within constrained government budgets.Whatever the geography or sector, those organizations with the People Intelligence toidentify, acquire and develop innovator talent will be the organizations to thrive.30 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 29. Chapter 3The landscape oforganizational risk shl.com | 31
  • 30. The landscape oforganizational risk“Fortune favors those who dare” – or does it?21 “Perceptions of risk haveTypically, analyses of risks by geography and industry look at regulation, legislation, and evolved significantlya variety of social, economic, political and financial factors. Few indices of organizationalrisk look at the behavior of the people employed by organizations. This is a key flaw in in the intervening twohow organizations approach risk. There is a wealth of scientific research showing that it isprecisely what people do or fail to do that are key to an organization’s resilience to risk. With years. In all regions ofrecent news of a judicial inquiry into telephone hacking by the media22, the continued falloutin the finance sector resulting from Lehman Brothers bankruptcy 23, and a parliamentary the world, across allcommission in the U.K. into the banking sector 24, we are again seeing evidence that how sectors, business leaderspeople act at all levels in an organization is a fundamental driver of risk. now perceive the worldHow confident are you that your organization is as an inherently riskierresilient to risk? place.”26 Lloyd’s Risk IndexWhile many organizations are waking up to the need to understand the behavioralrisk profiles of the people they employ, most are at an early stage in developing that 2011understanding. Few have begun to look to their talent management programs as a significantcontributor to their risk management strategies.The Lloyd’s Risk Index surveys business leaders’ sense of how well they are preparedto manage operational risks. To quote their 2011 survey, “More than 70% of surveyrespondents report that their company is better prepared to manage business and productionline risks than they were two years ago... One should not ignore the fact that, for manycompanies, there will be a difference between actually 25 being prepared and simply believingthey are prepared.”The goal of this chapter is to fill this gap between perception and reality by providingbusiness leaders, risk managers and talent managers with data on levels of behavioral riskfrom three perspectives: by employee job level, industry sector and geography. The note ofcaution about confusing the perception that you are prepared and actually being preparedis backed up by what our findings show, and that gap is likely to be greatest in sectors thatrank highest in our analysis of behavioral risk.32 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 31. Chapter 3: The landscape of organizational riskBehavioral risk byIn contrast to our indices for leadership and innovation, SHL’s behavioral risk index flags theproportion of people who are most likely to create risk. At the manager and professional level,the greatest risk comes from lower decision quality and lower communication quality. SHL’sdata shows that 12.2% or 1 in 8 managers and professionals exhibit high levels of thesebehavioral risks.The greatest risks at the production line and front line level are lower compliance and qualityand lower commitment. Data from assessments of production line and front line employeesshows that 12.5% or 1 in 8 exhibit high levels of these behavioral risks.Table 5: Behavioral risk components by job level Managers and professionals Production line and front line Decision quality risk: Compliance and quality risk: Miss or ignore data Failure to comply with procedures Ignore decision impact on organization Lack of attention to detail Fail to seek other views and opinions Communication quality risk: Commitment and teamwork risk: Inability to articulate decisions Inability to accept individual or shared objectives responsibility Inability to persuade or influence Lack of team orientation Lack of credibility Failure to build networks/relationships Average level of high behavioral risk 1/8 employees shl.com | 33
  • 32. Behavioral risk at the managersand professionals levelWith a global average of 12.2%, here is how 17 industry sectors rank in terms of behavioral risk inthe people they attract and employ.Manager and professional rolesFigure 12: Levels of behavioral risk for managers and professionals by industry sector globally 1 Travel & Leisure 18.2%* 2 Oil & Gas 16% 11 10 Telecoms Business 10.5% 12 Services Banking 10.7% 10.2% 3 9 13 17 Utilities Healthcare Consumer Public Sector 14% 11.3% Goods 9.9% (Personal & Leisure) 8.3% 14 16 Insurance 8 15 & Financial Technology 8.8% Food, 9.8% 4 Engineering Beverages 11.4% & Tobacco 9.2% Professional Services 7 12.9% 5 Consumer Goods (Heavy Goods) 6 Retail 11.5% 12.4% Mining 11.7%* i.e. 18.2% of people working in the Travel & Leisure sector exhibit high levels of behavioral risk.34 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 33. Chapter 3: The landscape of organizational riskTurning from the analysis of risk in various sectors, Figure 13 illustrates which job levels mostindicate behavioral risk among managers and professionals, from individual contributor toexecutive level.On a positive note, it appears that behavioral risk is lower at more senior levels: calculated tobe 1 in 15 of executives and 1 in 10 of senior managers.As organizations depend upon senior leaders to account for and mitigate risk, finding thatthose leaders exhibit lower levels of behavioral risk should be reassuring. However, there isstill behavioral risk at the top, which means organizations should examine how effective theirsenior leaders are when managing behavioral risk.Additionally, the increasing level of behavioral risk from middle managers down indicatesthat organizations cannot rely on the effective communication of decisions from the C-suite.Middle managers sit at the intersection between strategy and operational execution. Theymust be able to translate executive decisions into effective action or execution fails.Given the higher levels of behavioral risk at the team leader and individual contributorlevels, organizations need to ensure middle managers are equipped to identify and addressbehavioral risk from the people who report to them.Figure 13: Where behavioral risk sits among managers and professionals by job levelExecutive 1/15 6.7%Senior Manager 1/10 10.4% Global Average 12.2%Middle Manager 1/8 13.2%Team Leader 1/7 14.7%Individual Contributor 1/7 14.2%Percentage of high behavioral risk shl.com | 35
  • 34. Behavioral risk at the productionline and front line levelLevels of behavioral risk increase as one moves from the C-suite to lower levels in anorganization. The next set of data shows trends in behavioral risk on the production line and outon the front line. Figure 14 shows how industry sectors rank when looking at SHL’s index forproduction line and front line employees.While the global average rate for behavioral risk on the production line is about the same as formanagers and professionals, the rankings by sector differ. Consumer Goods (Personal & Leisure)and Technology move up when we look at the production line and front line, while Oil & Gas,Retail and Utilities move down, as does Travel & Leisure. What do these differences mean? Aswe will explore in more detail later, having a full understanding of where behavioral risk exists iscritical for organizations to have a clear view of where they are most at risk from the actions oftheir employees.Production line and front line rolesFigure 14: Levels of behavioral risk for production line and front line roles by industrysector globally27 5 5 Business Services 7 Banking 15.7% Food, 15.7% Beverages & Tobacco 4 15.6% 8 Consumer 15 Goods Engineering (Heavy Goods) Public Sector 15.3% 20.8% 7.1% 14 Retail 8 8.4% Insurance & Financial 3 13 Services 15.3% Utilities Technology 9.9% 21.4% 10 12 Travel Oil & Gas 11 & Leisure 11.3% Healthcare 12.9% 11.9% 2 Telecoms 23.9% 1 Consumer Goods (Leisure & Personal) 24%36 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 35. Chapter 3: The landscape of organizational riskThe geography ofbehavioral riskAs shown, levels of behavioral risk can vary significantly at different job levels and acrossindustries. Combining both of those indices gives a more complete understanding of the Behavioral risk variesgeography of behavioral risk. by region:Managers and professionals in Australia-New Zealand rank highest for behavioral risk. Andwhile much lower levels of risk are found at the manager level in Africa and the Middle Managerial risk is highest inEast, those same regions exhibit increased rates of behavioral risk at production line and Australia-New Zealandfront line level.These trends are illustrated in Figure 15. This graph shows that for most geographies Front line risk is highest in thethe levels of behavioral risk are higher on the production line than at the managerial and Middle Eastprofessional levels. However, Australia-New Zealand bucks the general trend by havinghigher levels for managers and professionals than on the production line, while fororganizations in Western Europe, behavioral risk between job levels is generally aligned.Figure 15: Levels of behavioral risk by geographical region28 Percentage high behavioral risk Managers & professional Front line & production line 28 Average Overall ranking for risk globally 24.1 19.6 18.9 19 18.4 17.5 17.2 1 2 16 16 15.3 3 3 5 13.5 12.9 12.7 12.4 6 12.3 12.1 11.6 11.3 7 10.8 9.7 8.7 See Endnote 28 Africa Asia Australia- Latin North Middle Eastern Western New Zealand America America East Europe Europe shl.com | 37
  • 36. Behavioral risk byindustry sectorThe role of talent management in mitigatingorganizational riskIn 2004, SHL conducted a research project with the Future Foundation29 and found that, inthe U.S. alone, 23% of people surveyed saw their colleagues as incompetent and that 68% ofmistakes made by workers were hidden from their managers.To address the gap between perception and reality in terms of preparedness for risk,organizations need valid metrics through which they can understand behavioral risk at all levelswithin their organization. In Figure 16 patterns emerge in terms of which sectors show higherlevels of behavioral risk at the managerial level and which sectors show higher levels of risk onthe front line.What do the results tell us about where organizations and their managers need to focus to bettermanage behavioral risk? In Western Europe, while levels of risk are generally aligned betweenmanagers and professionals and those in production line and front line roles, there is still risk to bemanaged.In Australia-New Zealand, the focus has to be the managers and professionals who lead andtask organizations. Key priorities here include adopting behavioral risk measures in selectionprocesses, as well as focused coaching and development programs.For the other geographical regions where behavioral risk appears more strongly in production lineand front line roles, the ability of managers to identify that risk is clearly important. What will beequally critical are the decision-making skills of managers and professionals to ensure goals andexpectations are clearly understood by those on the front line.Figure 16: A comprehensive view of behavioral risk by industry sector Higher Risk Risk higher at Risk higher at the Behavioral risk: managers & professionals Travel & managers and Leisure production line and professionals level front line level Oil & Gas Utilities Consumer Retail Goods Engineering Healthcare Mining Public Business Services Sector Telecoms Banking Insurance & Financial Services Technology Food, Beverages & Tobacco Behavioral risk: production line & front lineLower Risk38 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 37. Chapter 3: The landscape of organizational riskRanking behavioral risk by industry sectorFigure 17 ranks fifteen sectors by the average across SHL’s two behavioral risk indices(the average across our index for managers and professionals and our index for productionline and front line employees) to give a final industry sector ranking. A note about thelower ranking sectors: these represent sector averages. An analysis of the data showsconsiderable variation across organizations within sectors, which is not detailed in this report.Complacency is also a risk.Figure 17: Aggregated data showing overall behavioral risk for all job levels by industrysector globally30 Telecoms 1 Consumer goods (Heavy Goods) 17 % .2 Travel & Leisure 2 16.1% 3 Technology 15.6% Oil & Gas 4Higher Risk 15.1 % Engineering 5 13.7 % Business Services 6 13.4 % Banking 7 13.2 % Insurance & Financial Services 8 13% Food, Beverages & Tobacco* 9 12.6% Utilities 10 12.4% Healthcare 11 12% Mining 12 11.6 % Retail 13 10.9 % 14 Public Sector 10.4% 15 8.5% Global Average Lower Risk* Global average of these two indices is 12.4%. shl.com | 39
  • 38. Talent management asrisk managementTalent managers, those in recruitment, selection and succession, have always been inthe business of risk management. Placing the wrong person in the wrong role is a critical Putting a number onorganizational risk they have traditionally been employed to manage. behavioral riskWe hope this chapter points to the next evolution in talent management by helpingorganizations articulate the key driver of risk – what people do. The data in this chapter points SHL’s 2004 research showed that:to two ways that talent managers can grasp this opportunity and realize it.The first is to provide People Intelligence that goes beyond the perceptions captured by riskand safety surveys by providing data and insight based on how employees are likely to act.That is what SHL’s risk indices address.The second point is to ensure that evaluations of behavioral risk are incorporated throughout a year dealing with performancetalent management processes – from acquisition through performance and development, and issueson to succession and promotions.As we hope this chapter illustrates, the know-how exists. Talent managers need only step upto the plate and use that know-how. GDP or $105 billion a year40 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 39. Chapter 4The landscape of diversity shl.com | 41
  • 40. Diversity, diversity,diversity...In this chapter, we look at what our data reveals about one of the key factors that willshape the future for global organizations within both the public and private sectors. Their Leadership gender gapscapabilities in recognizing, managing and leveraging diversity. We have focused on two favoring men will putimportant areas, gender and generational differences. increasing pressure onLet’s start with the U.S. as an example. “By 2025 over 76 million Baby Boomers will haveretired from the American workforce and by 2030 the U.S. is set to face a shortfall of 30 organizations in regionsmillion workers.” 31 The same trends are apparent in other countries. Emerging economicsuperpowers such as China face significant challenges with the declining population with aging populations.numbers accompanying greater economic and social expectations of Chinese consumers32.Technology and innovation may aid in mitigating challenges such as these. But from a genderstandpoint, it will be critical to understand and leverage diversity as more women enter theworkforce33. In the U.S. and U.K. the workforce is nearly 50:50 male/female, though womenremain under-represented in certain sectors, on boards and in senior roles 34. We are likelythen to see not only a generational transition from the well-known Boomers to the Gen Xersand Millennials (also known as Gen Y35) but a gender shift as well.Recognizing and working intelligently with diversityin talent managementSHL approaches diversity as a talent management issue through the lens of business need.As we explored in the chapter on leadership, our leaders for today potential is rare at 1 in15 job applicants and employees. So, what does our data say about gender differencesin the supply of leadership potential globally? We will see why it points to women as anincreasingly important source of leadership talent not to be overlooked. For countries withaging populations, ignoring women as potential senior leaders may become a critical failurepoint.Motivation to succeed is just as important as having the talent to perform in senior roles. Weuncover what our data says about the differences between men and women in the criticalmotivational factors 36 that are key to succeeding to a senior position in an organization. The difference inWe then look at the global workforce from a generational perspective to address thesequestions: leadership potential1. What will organizations need to understand to keep employees across three generations for women and men is engaged over the next years and decades?2. How will the supply of talent with leaders for today potential shift as the generational transitions take effect? less than 1%3. Which learning and development priorities will organizations need to focus on Millennials, the true leaders for tomorrow, to realize the talents of younger potential leaders? but men hold senior positions 3 to 1 over women.42 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 41. Chapter 4: The landscape of diversityGender and leadershipThe 2012 Olympic Games were remarkable for many reasons. In the context of thischapter, it was a milestone. With the introduction of women’s boxing, men and women The supply of leadershipare now represented in every sport at the Olympics. There is now equal opportunity for potential is generally asboth genders to realize the ambition to be an Olympian and to be a winner in every event.Yet, while every other person in the world is a woman, we are a long way from equal strong for women as it isrepresentation at the most senior levels in business, government, the law and in science. for men across our Top 25Evidence is mounting that greater gender equality at the top is associated with betterfinancial performance of businesses37. It is widely acknowledged that the recovery from countries.today’s economic woes will require nations to capitalize on the full range of talent theyhave available. As noted in a 2010 report by the European Commission: “As Europecollectively strives to recover from the recent recession and build a platform for futuregrowth and stability ... One crucial resource for future growth lies in the untappedeconomic potential of women and their full integration into the decision-making process inall areas of the economy is crucial.”38While the exact numbers may vary, most reports are consistent in showing that womenare far less likely to hold a senior position in either public or private sector organizations.A just released global survey cited the proportion of women holding senior positions hasdropped to 2004 levels at 1 in 5 39.As in sports, career achievement is affected by potential, motivation and opportunity.Table 6 shows how men and women compare at the top level of potential we have calledleaders for today, across the 25 countries with the strongest supply of this potential. Wehave calculated the differences between these proportions and then compared them tostatistics on the proportion of women holding senior positions in those countries 40.One of the barriers identified for women succeeding into a senior role is gender-basedstereotypes of personal characteristics and abilities 41. This was the highest factoridentified in one survey and ranked above family commitments as a stumbling block42.Our data says there is no evidence to support stereotypes, a finding backed up by otherindependent research43. The supply of leadership potential is generally as strong forwomen as it is for men across our Top 25 countries for leaders for today.The average difference between men and women across the Top 25 countries is a mere-0.8%, a negligible difference in favor of women. Yet, 76% of senior positions are heldby men. shl.com | 43
  • 42. Gender and leadershipTable 6: Top 25 countries for leadership potential – broken down by gender Leaders Country % Men % Women Difference in % for today rank leaders leaders for for today today leaders for today (+% Leadership roles held more senior positions than favor men, -% favor by men44 women. women) 1 China (Hong Kong) 13.5 13.3 0.2 67 2 Germany 12.7 14.0 -1.3 87 3 U.K. 9.5 11.7 -2.2 80 4 Australia 8.5 12.5 -4.0 76 5 U.S. 8.6 11.8 -3.2 83 6 Switzerland 9.9 9.3 0.6 78 7 Canada 7.7 9.9 -2.2 75 8 Japan 9.3 6.8 2.5 95 9 Singapore 9.7 8.0 1.7 77 10 New Zealand 6.7 9.6 -2.9 72 11 Sweden 7.4 8.2 -0.8 77 12 China (Taiwan) 7.6 6.8 0.8 73 13 France 6.6 6.4 0.2 76 14 Thailand 8.2 5.9 2.3 61 15 Finland 6.9 6.7 0.2 73 16 Belgium 6.6 6.2 0.4 79 17 Spain 6.3 6.4 -0.1 76 18 Turkey 5.1 8.3 -3.2 69 19 Italy 5.5 5.5 0.0 64 20 South Africa 4.5 6.8 -2.3 72 20 United Arab Emirates 5.0 6.5 -1.5 85 22 Mexico 5.3 8.0 -2.7 82 23 Denmark 4.5 6.1 -1.6 85 24 Brazil 6.9 5.5 1.4 73 25 Norway 4.5 6.5 -2.0 58 Average 7.5 8.3 -0.8 76Leaders for today is our definition for the highest level of leadership potential reflecting a rounded repertoire ofboth transactional and transformational behaviors. Differences shown as positive favor men and those shown asnegative favor women.44 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 43. Chapter 4: The landscape of diversityDo men and women differ in their motivation to be People higher across all 6a leader? motivational factors areSo, if it isn’t the supply of potential that’s the barrier to women succeeding to senior three times more likely topositions, is it a factor of motivation? A survey of 60 leading companies suggests this mightbe so and why only 7,000 of 150,000 women professionals or 1 in 21 have achieved Vice hold an executive position.President or higher senior positions in those companies 45. Responding to the question “I havethe desire to advance to the next level in my organization”, 69% of women said yes compared The difference betweento 74% of men. Yet, when asked “If anything were possible, I would choose to advance to men and women on thoseC-level management”, 18% of women said yes compared to 36% of men – exactly half. factors is negligible.Interestingly, we see some differences across the globe with men in the U.K. seeingadvancement to the next level as fundamental to developing their career compared towomen, but the reverse for women in the U.S. and Australia46.To understand which motivating factors distinguish those holding senior positions, we lookedacross five job levels: individual contributor (employee), team leader, middle manager, seniormanager, and executive 47. We found six motivational factors that increased systematically ateach level48. People that succeed to higher job levels value these motivational factors more(see Figure 18).While the differences in motivational factors between executives and other employees aresignificant, we did not find the same to be true when comparing genders49. Overall, we foundan average three percentile difference in favor of men, which is negligible. None of thesedifferences are either statistically or substantively significant.Figure 18: The key motivational factors for executives* Level of activity Interest Working at a fast pace and Work that provides variety and multi-tasking with pressure to stimulation deliver against deadlines Flexibility Power Environments that allow for Opportunities to take more fluid ways of working and responsibility, exercise less structured and procedural authority and influence others approaches Immersion Autonomy Work that requires a personal Independence and scope for commitment above and beyond determining how they approach the norm and organize their work* Refer to the Appendix for the data shl.com | 45
  • 44. We found no substantial overall differences between men and women on the motivationalfactors that distinguish those who succeed to the executive level. Are there differences in The C-suite culture hasother motivational factors that help to explain why women are not progressing to more senior to change if it is going toroles? The answer is yes. attract aspiring femaleLet’s go back a for a moment to the survey of those 60 companies and the results thatshowed that men and women were equally interested in a move to the next level but men leaders.were twice as interested as women in an opportunity to reach the C-suite. In recent SHLresearch, reasons for not being interested in a C-suite position included: “When you see itup close… It’s not clean at the top. Motives are not always enterprise-related. It’s more aboutpersonal agendas.” And “Members of the executive management team above me are allmen and I feel they see strong women as a threat.”50This concern with politics at the top resonates in our data when we compare fourmotivational factors showing the largest differences between men and women. Powershowed the largest difference between men and women when we looked at the motivationalfactors that distinguish those holding executive positions. While the difference between menand women is modest, it is in favor of men and contrasts with Ease and security, which holdsgreater motivational value for women (see Figure 19). There is also a clear contrast betweenRecognition, stronger for women, and Fear of failure, stronger for men.The importance of individual differences is key in assessing motivational patterns andstrengths, so it is important to highlight that not all men or all women are motivated tosucceed in the same way. However, our data suggests that if the C-suite is dominated bythose who are more motivated by Power and Fear of failure, then this environment will be anatural turn-off for people wanting a constructive environment where they will be recognizedfor achieving. Our data shows that the people who are most likely to experience that turn-offare women.That means the culture of the C-suite or perceptions of that culture have to change if it isgoing to attract aspiring female leaders. There’s been much talk about the need for values-driven and authentic leadership, and the time has come for organizations to make that areality. The research we have cited from those such as McKinsey shows that is the type ofleader women want to work for and to be. Not only are women more likely to value Ease andsecurity and Recognition, they are likely to reflect those motivational factors in the way theymanage and incentivize others.The development and preparation of people for senior roles must take into account thatmotivational factors are going to be especially important transitional hurdles for women,though our data also recognizes the need for attention to development of male leaders too.For either gender, an organizational shift from a culture framed by Fear of failure to onefounded on Recognition for contribution and performance will be a stronger attraction forpotential leaders.46 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 45. Chapter 4: The landscape of diversityFigure 19: Motivation by gender Men Women Ease and security Constructive and pleasant What gets me out of bed in the morning? working conditions and a sense of job/role security Ease and security Percentile Power 30 46 57 70 Opportunities to take responsibility, exercise Power Percentile authority and influence others 30 40 49 70 Recognition Recognition and praise for their contributions and What brings me back the next day? achievements Recognition Percentile Fear of failure 30 45 57 70 The need to avoid failure and associated loss of Fear of failure self-esteem Percentile 30 44 56 70 Numbers represent percentile rankingWhen it comes to the supply of leadership talent, thegender math isn’t complicatedThe top tier of leadership talent that we have called leaders for today is in short supply. Failingto leverage the potential of women is only going to make the supply of leaders even smaller.The data shows the differences between men and women is negligible across our Top 25countries. All the research says that one of the key challenges for organizations is addressingthe motivation of women to step up to the C-suite. Our data does supply evidence ofmotivational differences between men and women. Women look to Ease and securityand Recognition more than men. Simply flagging that women are less attracted to seniorpositions isn’t going to change the gender balance at the top. We can identify tangible waysin which organizations can address the imbalance.The first step is to understand what motivates women to become leaders and how it variesbetween individuals. The second is to use that People Intelligence earlier in the careerpath to shape mentoring, coaching and learning experiences. This will equip women withleadership potential for the times when they meet inevitable motivational roadblocks. And, ofcourse, the same advice applies to potential male leaders. Indeed, enabling potential leadersto understand what makes them and others tick will strengthen their leadership talentirrespective of their gender. The arithmetic is simple, ignoring what is effectively 50% of theglobal talent pool just makes the search for leaders all the more challenging. shl.com | 47
  • 46. Talking about “my” generationLet’s turn to the much debated generational differences and the impacts that the shift fromthe Boomer generation to the Millennials is having and will continue to have on the world ofwork. This section focuses first on motivation, and concludes by returning to what our datareveals about the ongoing supply of leadership potential as a generational shift occurs overthe next decade and a half.challenges of the multi-generational workforceDespite much that has been said and written about the differences between the workattitudes of the three generations, the research data is mixed and often conflicts51. Thesimple reality is that organizations need each of these generations. They can reap thebenefits of the wisdom of aging workers and the fresh ideas and perspectives of youngerworkers if they understand the differences and how to respond to them appropriately.Where the broader research data is more consistent is in showing a general trend towardsdeclining employer loyalty from generation to generation: 65% of Boomers would considerstaying with an organization throughout their working lives in contrast to 40% of Gen Xersand only 20% of Millennials52. Clearly, this trend shows organizations and their managersneed to be astute in their understanding of what motivates and engages employees, andbe able to reflect that understanding in the way that work is rewarded and contributionrecognized.We looked at our data on motivation to see what differences would help inform organizationsabout how to engage a multi-generational workforce. We found six factors any organization Decliningneeds to be aware of (see Figure 20).Just as the war for talent is set to become more intense as workforce shortages emerge, the employer loyaltyretention of skilled talent is clearly going to be more important. Flexibility is and will continueto be key to how organizations reflect these differences in their reward and recognition Who would stay with anprocesses to address retention issues. employer throughout their working lives?So what does this mean for organizations that need to build a sustainable, diverse leadershippipeline, which does not peter out? Among the strongest motivational factors for theMillennials is progression and personal growth. Sustaining career progression, therefore, is Boomers 65%the most singular challenge organizations face in energizing and retaining younger talent whoare hungry to learn and compete for opportunities53. Since any organization will only have somany senior positions open at any one time, reframing what career progression means hasbecome a critical must-do for talent managers54.And what of the Boomer generation that will remain as the largest inhabitants of theworkplace for at least the next 15-20 years? These are the people who are most likely to have Gen X 40%broader skills and experiences from which they can draw insight. They are also the peoplewho hold much of the intellectual property that drives knowledge work, much of the socialcapital in terms of key networks inside and outside the organization, and the tacit knowledgeof “how things really get done around here”. Millennials 20%48 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 47. Chapter 4: The landscape of diversityOur data shows that reward and recognition that emphasizes Competition (they’ve alreadybeen there and done that), Progression (most of them will be at their maximum careerpoint) and Personal growth (they’ve already developed skills and knowledge) is not going tomotivate the Boomers.At first glance and reflecting the way generational differences have tended to be portrayed,these differences may be seen as potential sources of conflict. This is not necessarily thecase. The effective manager will be sensitive to these differences and know that they requireflexibility in how people are managed. And the manager who is most likely to be impactedby these differences is the Gen X manager. They bridge the Boomers on the one hand andthe Millennials on the other. Understanding differences and managing diversity is now acritical competency for these managers in driving performance and sustaining employeeengagement.Figure 20: Motivation by generation Boomers Gen X Millennials Power Opportunities to take What gets me out of bed in the morning? responsibility, exercise authority and influence others Power Percentile Competition 30 41 52 55 70 Opportunities to distinguish themselves from others and Competition Percentile to show they are the best 30 50 54 59 70 Autonomy Independence and scope for determining how they What brings me back the next day? approach and organize their work Autonomy Percentile Progression 30 41 42 57 70 Opportunities for career Progression progression and promotion Percentile 30 40 53 59 70 Personal principles Environments which promote ideals, high ethical standards and quality What will make me stick around? Personal principles Percentile Personal growth Opportunities to learn, 30 32 42 50 70 acquire skills and for personal development Personal growth Percentile 30 37 48 54 70 Numbers represent percentile ranking shl.com | 49
  • 48. The supply of leadership potential asthe Millennials inherit the earthJust as the workplace becomes more diverse, the need for effective leadership will increase.When we look forward, what does our data say about the supply of leadership potential forthe coming decade and a half? On the whole, for the technically savvy and digitally drivenMillennials, the prospects are good – the supply of leadership talent is improving overall.While 6.3% or 1 in 16 of the Boomers in our data have the leaders for today level of potential,7.4% or 1 in 13 of Gen Xers and 8.4% or 1 in 11 of Millennials possess this level of leadershippotential.What drives this trend is greater potential among the younger generations for thetransformational competencies underpinning innovation, entrepreneurial thinking as well asa focus on execution. However, we also see a need for focused learning and developmentprograms to harvest the potential of young leaders. Using the SHL Corporate LeadershipModel55, we looked at how the three generations compared across four key managementand leadership functions: Developing the vision, Sharing the goals, Gaining support andDelivering success (see Figure 21).We found modest differences in the talents that underpin the creation of ideas and proposals(Developing the vision), and negligible differences in the talents required to socialize thoseideas effectively (Sharing the goals). Significant and substantive differences appear in thetalents required to mobilize others in support of ideas and proposals (Gaining support) withthe differences favoring the older generations, and in turning those ideas into actions anddeliverables (Delivering success) favoring younger generations.Figure 21: Management & leadership functions Boomers Gen X Millennials Developing the vision Percentile 30 44 50 53 70 Sharing the goals Percentile 30 47 52 52 70 Gaining support Percentile 30 42 52 64 70 Delivering success Percentile 30 40 49 56 70 Numbers represent percentile ranking50 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 49. Chapter 4: The landscape of diversityIt’s not really about genderand generationsDoes this mean that the workplace of the future is set to become one in which executionsupersedes the niceties of collaboration and getting the buy-in of others? The demands ofan increasingly global and networked working world would suggest not. Framing objectivesthat motivate and develop others, empowering people and inspiring them with the trustto succeed will grow rather than diminish in importance and, ironically, these are the veryleadership qualities required to meet the motivational needs of the younger generations forPersonal growth and Progression.Here is where the wisdom to leverage differences will be key in the development ofleadership potential. Mentoring and coaching programs that will pay a dividend are the onesthat understand the motivational and competency profiles of the different generations andcan bring those differences together to effect the transfer of the softer skills that are mostlikely to be the greatest hurdles for younger aspiring leaders in realizing their ambitions.who know how to leverage differences effectivelyWe began this chapter by noting that 76 million American Boomers are set to exit theworkforce in the coming years, a trend that will be followed in other mature economies. Thatmeans many organizations will have to face a simple fact – there is going to be an even biggershortage of talent.A shortage of talent means a rethink. That rethink will have to include re-framing the world ofwork and many of the assumptions we hold today about that world will have to be discarded.But, discarding one set of assumptions for another set of assumptions will not serveorganizations well. There is a need to develop clearer and more evidence-based perspectiveson people and their talent. Organizations would be better served by understanding where Potential todifferences matter and what those differences mean for employee performance andengagement. become ‘leaders for today’ Boomers 1/16 Gen X 1/13 Millennials 1/11 shl.com | 51
  • 50. Chapter 5The global race for skills shl.com | 53
  • 51. The supply and qualityof key hard skillsIn this chapter, we look at the hard skills of employees who administer and carry out thethousands of daily transactions that can make or break an organization. These hard skills are 1 in 3 employers acrossessential if the aspirations of leaders and the great ideas of innovators are to become a reality geographies are unableand deliver value.The supply and quality of key skills has become critical on a number of fronts. The most to find talent with theobvious need is for employers to find people who can execute and achieve organizational necessary skillsets.goals. Leading staffing firm Manpower reports that the search for skilled labor is provingdifficult in many geographies: “Despite the continuing caution exercised by manyorganizations amid ongoing economic uncertainty, a substantial proportion of employersaround the globe identify a lack of available skilled talent as a continuing drag on businessperformance. Overwhelmingly, a lack of available candidates with the right technical expertiseand employability skills continues to vex employers.” 56The Manpower report also states more than 1 in 3 employers across geographies are unableto find talent with the necessary skillsets. The most acute shortages occur in both matureand emerging economies, including Australia, Brazil, India, and Japan. Almost half of theemployers in the U.S. report difficulties filling jobs. In contrast, Europe, the Middle East andAfrica report less critical talent shortages.Two other key factors are driving the dynamics in the global market for skilled labor –increased competition in the outsourcing market for services and IT, and the start of aninsourcing trend among mature economies, which are looking to bring jobs back home. In arecent survey by The Engineering Employers Federation57 in the U.K., 2 in 5 companies wererestoring domestic production.Valued at U.S. $62.4 billion in 2010 58, the IT outsourcing market has played a significant rolein the growth of many emerging economies in Asia, Eastern Europe and South America.Today the trend may be in reverse, as insourcing is the option many companies are exploringwhile they regroup and rethink their business strategies.Increased demand for skills coupled with perceived shortages in supply has created aninternational competition for skilled labor. Employers facing shortages at home may alsoface competition for skills from outside their home geographies, creating what has beendescribed as the global race for skills59.54 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 52. Chapter 5: The global race for skillskey global skillsMuch of the information available to date on skills by country is based on perception andexpert judgment60. We do not question the value of those judgments. What SHL contributesis hard data to understand objectively how countries, geographical and economic regionscompare on skills levels. The data is based on standardized certifications administeredglobally, providing a common set of metrics to make comparisons. We have grouped the datafrom different certifications to ensure they are equivalent in terms of the skills levels theymeasure.Skill certification scores indicate the likely results achieved from training programs in terms ofexpected pass rates and average scores achieved by different populations globally. Our datashows where regions are placed in the global race for skills. Where pass rates and averagescores are high, organizations have stronger skills pools to draw upon.Conversely, where we see lower pass rates and lower average scores, greater investment intraining and education is required to create the volume of skilled labor to meet demand.Two critical skills areas – business administration & ITBoth Manpower and Hays61 agree that among the skills employers are finding most difficultto source are those in business administration and IT, which is where we have focused ouranalysis. In this chapter, we examine results from certifications delivered between 2006 and2011 to view the global supply of talent in these two skills areas62. Business administrationdata covers administrative/clerical and essential business skills, and IT certifications are forprogramming, database development, and systems and networking.Since these skills areas are critical to all organizations regardless of region, we have used ourdata to develop a global view for comparison. We provide an overview by geographical regionof where the supply of skills is strongest and where it is weakest.Table 7: The two critical skills areas Business Administration Information Technology (IT) Administrative/clerical skills Programming & database development Bookkeeping, Microsoft Office, office C, C#, COBOL, Java, UNIX, .NET, XML, HTML, management & procedures, typing speed & JavaScript accuracy Essential business skills Systems & networking Business mathematics, business writing & MS SQL Server, Oracle, RDBMS concepts, business communication, marketing, presentation skills analysis, software configuration management, networking concepts, network security, LAN/WAN communications, CISCO network design and support, LINUX administration, MS desktop and server administration shl.com | 55
  • 53. The global supply of businessadministration skillsTo get a view of general business administration skills globally, we constructed an overall Table 8: Top 25 countries for combinedranking of certification results by country that represents the two subsets: administrative/ business administration skills*clerical and essential business skills. The rankings in Table 8 are derived from the combinedpass rates and average scores for each subset. 1 JapanThis ranking has significant meaning when one considers the dynamics driving the race 2 Netherlandsfor skills. Eastern European countries appear to have strong talent pools for administrative/ 3 Germanyclerical and essential business skills, giving them an advantage in their home markets aswell as offering strong sources of skilled labor to other neighboring economies as Europe 4 Polandemerges from the current economic downturn. 5 SwedenWestern European countries also rank as hot spots for administrative/clerical and essential 6 U.K.business skills. One factor that would support the forward growth of European economies 7 Russiais the mobility of skilled labor across that region. To be effective, this requires clear PeopleIntelligence on available skill levels. Organizations across Europe need to understand the 8 Czech Republicskills available in their home and neighboring markets. 9 AustraliaThe picture elsewhere is more mixed. Asia shows a divergent range in skills levels impacting 10 Estoniaboth the more mature economies in this region as well as the emerging ones. India, rankingin the Top 25 for essential business skills (see Table 10) does not make it into the Top 25 11 Bulgariaoverall due to lower levels of administrative/clerical skills (see Table 9). China does not make 11 Singaporeit into our Top 25 whether we look at specific skills sets or take an overall view of skills levels. 13 New ZealandThe data suggests at best an imbalance in the skills profiles for these countries.For Latin America and Africa, there are emerging talent pools with Mexico, South Africa and 14 RomaniaBrazil in our overall rankings. But, there are challenges for these countries with lower pass 15 Latviarates and average skills scores that speak to a need for greater investment in training and 16 Argentinaeducation to raise skills levels. Similar challenges emerge in the Middle East whether we lookat the data at a macro regional level or at an individual country. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the 17 ItalyUnited Arab Emirates all sit outside our top 25’s for specific skills and overall, showing that 18 Lithuaniathe gap is particularly severe in this region for the key skills that enable the smooth day-to-day running of any organization. 19 IrelandBreaking down the business administration skills area into subsets of administrative/clerical 20 Canadaskills and essential business skills, the macro perspective shows additional differences 21 U.S.by region. Beginning with administrative/clerical skills, the landscape is clearly polarized 21 Ukrainebetween the emerging and mature economies, and between geographies (see Figure 22).Certification results are higher in terms of both pass rates and quality among the more 23 Mexicomature economies in Australia-New Zealand, both Eastern and Western Europe, and in North 24 South AfricaAmerica. 25 BrazilSkills strength in Eastern European nations is notable given the transition over the past twodecades as they have adopted more open labor markets, with many joining the EuropeanUnion (EU), and moved towards more free market economic models. RegionThe lower overall skills levels for Asia mask significant diversity across that region. Looking at North America Africaspecific countries in more detail shows this region spans the spectrum from high pass rates Australia-New Zealand Middle Eastand high average scores to much lower levels. Western Europe Eastern Europe Asia Latin America * Final rank was determined by summing rankings by pass rate and average score, and then by re-ranking countries from smallest to largest summed rank.56 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 54. Chapter 5: The global race for skillsA look at administrative/clerical skillsTable 9 shows the Top 25 countries ranked by pass rate and average score for administrative/ Table 9: Top 25 countries for administrative/clerical skills. Two countries in Asia rank in the Top 25 – Japan and Singapore – with China clerical skills certificationsand India notably absent. Average pass rates for these two countries are below the globalpass rate at 54.1% and the average score across both countries ranks just above the pass Rank* Country Pass Averagemark for certification in administrative/clerical skills at 2.81. Rate ScoreThe Netherlands, Germany, the U.K. and Sweden rank high from Western Europe, joined 1 Japan 85.0% 3.97by Poland, Russia, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic in the top 12 overall. Australia and NewZealand also have high rankings. Stronger quality of administrative/clerical skills is shown 2 Netherlands 80.5% 3.38for Argentina with Mexico and Brazil coming in the second half of our table, supporting an 3 Germany 75.6% 3.24emerging skills base in Latin America. South Africa’s ranking at 24th reflects lower, athoughabove global average, pass rates, but with average scores approaching the pass rate 4 U.K. 73.6% 3.21minimum of 2.75. 5 Australia 72.3% 3.23The U.S. and Canada rank in the lower half of the Top 25. This seemed counterintuitive, so 6 Argentina 75.3% 3.13we looked for supporting data from other sources. The PISA program results for 2003 and2009 showed the U.S. ranked middle to lower for reading and science literacy, with one of 7 Singapore 73.3% 3.20the widest gaps seen between most and least-proficient students across OECD countries63. 7 Sweden 74.3% 3.13For both Canada and the U.S., higher skills levels cited in other reports tend to focus onuniversity graduates. Data on skillsets of those without a university degree is scarce, and 9 Poland 71.4% 3.18those are the people most likely to take the certification tests covered in this chapter. 9 Russia 68.4% 3.21 11 New Zealand 73.5% 3.11Figure 22: Administrative/clerical skills pass rates by geographic region 12 Bulgaria 68.1% 3.12 12 Czech 68.6% 3.11High Republic 71.2% 14 Italy 70.4% 3.08 69.8% Australia- 15 Latvia 64.3% 3.16 New Zealand Western 66% 15 Ukraine 66.2% 3.12 Europe 65.8% 17 Romania 67.7% 3.06 Eastern Europe North 18 Estonia 67.5% 3.04 America 19 U.S. 65.8% 3.06 20 Ireland 63.8% 3.08 21 Mexico 67.1% 3.00 54.8% 54.7% 22 Canada 65.5% 3.03 Latin America 22 Lithuania 61.8% 3.07 Africa 49.9% 24 South Africa 63.9% 2.95 25 Brazil 60.2% 2.92 Asia 44.8% Middle EastLow Global average pass rate is 60.3% * Final rank was determined by summing rankings by pass rate and average score, and then by re-ranking countries from smallest to largest summed rank. shl.com | 57
  • 55. The view of essentialbusiness skillsFigure 23 shows the macro landscape for essential business skills. The pattern that emerges Table 10: Top 25 countries on essentialis similar to that for administrative/clerical skills. The macro view by geography becomes business skills certificationsclearer when we look at the strongest levels of essential business skills by country (see Table10). Countries in Eastern and Western Europe dominate the upper rankings, sharing the top Rank* Country Pass Averagewith Japan. Australia-New Zealand, North America, Latin America and individual nations Rate Scorescattered by geography populate the lower half. 1 Estonia 96.9% 3.75One distinct feature of the business skills landscape is the strong representation of countries 1 Japan 93.7% 4.25in Eastern Europe with Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia, Romania and Bulgaria allranking among the top 10 countries. 3 Poland 92.7% 3.80Again, Japan ranks near the top of our table, with Singapore and Malaysia ranking lower, 4 Netherlands 94.5% 3.59showing that, even among the strongest Asian countries for essential business skills, there isa wide range in skills throughputs and levels. 5 Czech 92.3% 3.71 RepublicThis diversity is also shown for Western Europe and North America, with countries in theseregions spanning the range from higher to lower rankings. 6 Russia 87.4% 3.58 6 Sweden 85.75 3.62 8 Germany 88.3% 3.53Figure 23: Essential business skills pass rates by geographical region 9 Romania 87.2% 3.56High 10 Bulgaria 83.6% 3.45 83.4% 82.8% 10 U.K. 83.3% 3.48 Western 12 Latvia 83.8% 3.44 Europe Australia- New Zealand 13 Australia 84.5% 3.42 76.3% 14 New Zealand 83.3% 3.44 15 Singapore 82.1% 3.45 Eastern Europe 16 Lithuania 81.9% 3.43 69.8% 17 France 82.5% 3.29 68.2% 18 Canada 80.8% 3.40 Latin America 66.1% 19 Ireland 78.4% 3.32 North America 20 Italy 79.7% 3.27 Asia 21 South Africa 70.9% 3.24 22 India 72.1% 3.12 59% 58.1% 23 Brazil 64.9% 3.18 Middle East 23 Malaysia 68.6% 3.11 AfricaLow Global average pass rate is 68.7% 23 Mexico 65.0% 3.12 23 U.S. 67.9% 3.11 * Final rank was determined by summing rankings by pass rate and average score, and then by re-ranking countries from smallest to largest summed rank.58 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 56. Chapter 5: The global race for skillsThe global supply ofIT skillsNow we take a macro view of how countries rank in terms of the overall consistency and Table 11: Top 25 countries for combinedquality of combined skills supporting IT development and infrastructure. Table 11 shows IT skills*those rankings, emphasizing again the consistent strength of skills levels in Europe andparticularly Eastern Europe. 1 Czech RepublicThe outsourcing market is a competitive one. SHL’s data indicates that traditional 1 Polandpowerhouses such as India, which can provide high personnel numbers but do not feature 3 Germanyin any of our Top 25 rankings, may be facing challenges. The dynamics of this market arechanging and other centers for IT skills are emerging in Eastern Europe and in Latin America, 3 Russiawhich may benefit from geographical access to the U.S. and Canada. Both Brazil and 5 LithuaniaArgentina rank in our overall Top 25 for IT skills. 6 SwedenThe strong position of countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland has featured ina recent review of global service locations64. Germany and the U.K. have strengthened their 6 U.K.positions as locations for the delivery of global services. 8 RomaniaDrilling down in this category, we focus first on the IT programming skills subset, which 9 Netherlandsdrives much of the innovation in our networked, mobile and online lives. Figure 24 10 Estoniasummarizes programming skills by geographic region. Mature economies in Western Europe,Australia-New Zealand, Eastern Europe and North America hold the strongest levels of 11 Japanprogramming skills with high pass rates and average skills scores. 12 Bulgaria 12 Latvia 12 New Zealand 15 France 16 Australia 17 Italy 18 Canada 19 Ireland 20 Argentina 21 Singapore 22 China 23 Egypt 23 U.S. 25 Brazil Region North America Africa Australia-New Zealand Middle East Western Europe Eastern Europe Asia Latin America * Final rank was determined by summing rankings by pass rate and average score, and then by re-ranking countries from smallest to largest summed rank. shl.com | 59
  • 57. IT programming anddatabase management skillsStrong programming skills in Eastern Europe are clear when viewed at the country level Table 12: Top 25 countries for programming(Table 12), with six countries from that region – Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, skills certificationsEstonia and Romania – appearing in the top 10. Germany, Sweden and the U.K. also rank inthe top 10, confirming Europe as a programming skills center. Rank* Country Pass Average Rate ScoreAsia again shows a wide range of skills. Japan, Singapore and China rank in the Top 25, butIndia does not. In India, pass rates fall below the global average (68.1% against 75.3%) and 1 Czech 92.4% 3.67its average skills score of 2.99 is just 0.24 score points above the pass mark for programming Republicskills certifications. 2 Poland 91.9% 3.62From North America, Canada and the U.S. appear in the lower rankings of our Top 25. The 3 Russia 90.6% 3.60U.S. and Canada have held dominant positions in the IT world for decades. As well as beinga key source for much of the technology that drives businesses and our personal lives, North 4 U.K. 88.6% 3.52America has been a major player in the outsourcing market as both customer and supplier. 5 Germany 87.7% 3.53Why do we see North American countries sitting to the lower end of our rankings? First, it ispossible that outsourcing overseas has shifted the skills landscape and that has implications 6 Lithuania 88.6% 3.50for companies wishing to bring IT services home. Second, other geographies have developed 7 Estonia 86.8% 3.53as players in the global knowledge economy, specifically those in Eastern Europe. This isreflected not just in our data but in the rankings of Eastern European countries in educational 7 Japan 88.0% 3.50comparisons such as those reported by PISA65. As the race for skills in IT heats up, there are 9 Romania 87.3% 3.45new leaders in that race appearing, with clear implications for North America. 9 Sweden 86.3% 3.46 11 Argentina 86.2% 3.46Figure 24: Programming skills pass rates by region 12 New Zealand 84.8% 3.45 13 Australia 85.2% 3.44High 87.4% 13 Italy 85.6% 3.43 15 Bulgaria 84.4% 3.39 Western Europe 15 Ireland 84.4% 3.39 84.1% 17 Netherlands 82.7% 3.43 82.5% Australia- 18 Latvia 83.3% 3.37 New Zealand Eastern 19 Canada 83.9% 3.33 Europe 20 Egypt 81.3% 3.25 78.2% 20 Ukraine 78.0% 3.36 North 22 Singapore 80.1% 3.29 America 23 France 80.2% 3.24 73.6% 73.5% 24 U.S. 77.9% 3.23 Middle East Africa 71.3% 25 China 75.8% 3.21 Latin America 68.6% AsiaLow Global average pass rate is 75.3% * Final rank was determined by summing rankings by pass rate and average score, and then by re-ranking countries from smallest to largest summed rank.60 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 58. Chapter 5: The global race for skillsIT infrastructure skillsWe turn next to IT infrastructure skills, specifically in database design & administration, and Table 13: Top 25 countries for database,systems & networking skills. The importance of the back office infrastructure supporting IT systems and networking skills certificationssystems has increased as demand for speed and system capacity has skyrocketed, not leastdue to the adoption of cloud computing. Rank* Country Pass Average Rate ScoreEurope emerges with strong rankings, as does Australia-New Zealand (see Figure 25). ForNorth America, average skills scores approach those for Eastern Europe but are achieved 1 Poland 91.4% 3.58at lower pass rates. Average scores for the Middle East, Asia and Africa all exceed thoserequired to pass these certifications, but pass rates are below the global average for these 2 Czech 89.2% 3.54 Republicregions.With all average scores consistently above the pass line, the important factor that 3 Netherlands 88.2% 3.42distinguishes geographical regions is pass rates. Lower pass rates indicate significantly lower 4 Finland 87.7% 3.47returns on the investment in education and training for IT infrastructure skills. 4 Germany 87.6% 3.49The variation in pass rates stands out when we look at the country detail for IT infrastructureskills in Table 13. There is an over 20-percentage point difference between the highest pass 6 Russia 87.9% 3.41rate for Poland at 91.4% and the lowest for South Africa at 71.1%. That marks a difference in 7 Sweden 87.4% 3.41the odds of 9 passes to every 1 fail versus 3 passes to every 1 fail, a substantial difference. 8 Latvia 86.4% 3.30A notable ranking towards the lower end of the pass rates is the U.S. at 73.3%, with Chinaslightly higher. India does not factor in the Top 25 with a pass rate of 64.7%. In contrast, the 8 Lithuania 86.3% 3.35first 11 places are taken by European countries, split 7 to 4 between Eastern and Western 10 Romania 85.6% 3.30Europe, with these countries showing an average pass rate of 86.9%. 11 Bulgaria 85.8% 3.28 12 Canada 83.8% 3.29Figure 25: Database, systems and networking skills pass rates by region 12 U.K. 82.3% 3.30 14 New Zealand 83.0% 3.28High 82.7% 15 Australia 82.8% 3.28 82.4% 81.6% 16 Estonia 81.2% 3.26 Western Eastern Europe 17 Italy 79.3% 3.22 Europe Australia- New Zealand 18 Japan 78.4% 3.21 19 China 74.6% 3.13 20 Brazil 76.3% 3.10 73.8% 72.5% 20 Singapore 77.0% 3.09 North 22 Ireland 73.0% 3.12 America Latin America 23 U.S. 73.3% 3.09 24 Mexico 72.4% 3.06 67.4% 25 South Africa 71.1% 3.06 Middle East 65.1% Asia 63.2% Africa * Final rank was determined by summing rankings byLow Global average pass rate is 70.8% pass rate and average score, and then by re-ranking countries from smallest to largest summed rank. shl.com | 61
  • 59. A global map of skills levelsIn total, 28 countries made it onto our top 25 list for either business administration skills,IT skills or both. Figure 26 shows how those countries compare in terms of overall skillsstrength across both business administration and IT. Countries to the top right have strengthsin both skills areas, while others have strengths in business administration but not IT and viceversa. Those countries in the bottom left of our map face stronger challenges in terms ofboth the throughput from skills training and education (i.e. pass rates on certifications) as wellas the quality of skill achieved (the average score achieved on a certification test). Howeverkeep in mind that these countries are in our top 25 for one or both skills areas.Figure 26: Overall skills strengths across countriesHigher Czech Republic Poland Russia Germany Lithuania Sweden U.K. Romania Netherlands Estonia Overall IT skills rank New Zealand Japan Latvia Bulgaria France Australia Italy Canada Ireland Region Argentina North America Singapore Australia-New Zealand China Western Europe Egypt U.S. Asia Brazil Africa Ukraine Middle East South Africa Eastern Europe Mexico Latin AmericaLower Overall business administration skills rank Lower Higher62 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 60. Chapter 5: The global race for skillsPutting it all togetherEurope is suffering severe economic stress and yet there is economic growth in Germany.For countries in Eastern Europe, there is opportunity to supply skilled labor for both businessadministration, and IT development and infrastructure. The question facing Europe as aunified economic region is how to leverage these skills within its own geography as well asglobally to realize the competitive advantage in the quality of skills it has to offer.Australia and New Zealand have comparatively strong skills levels when we look at the qualityof that supply in terms of pass rates and average scores achieved on our certifications. Thechallenge to employers in this region is the financial pressure that low volumes of high qualityapplicants creates66.While North America does rank among the stronger geographies, it is not the strongest forthe skills we measured. If Canada and the U.S. are to remain competitive, their comparativelylow pass rates suggest action needs to be taken to ensure an improved return on theirinvestment in skills training and education.Asia shows diverse and often polarized skills availability. India did not emerge as one of thestronger players in any of our analyses. Yet, the demand for skills has to increase in India if itis to maintain its first mover advantage in outsourcing, and maintain the remarkable economicgrowth of recent years.Whether a geography is competing as a preferred outsource location or a companyconsidering insourcing, this can only add up to one thing – greater competition for skills.Organizations wishing to navigate intelligently through the rapid changes in the demand andcompetition for skills need to have hard data to get a clear view of skills strength locally andglobally, rather than relying on subjective inputs. shl.com | 63
  • 61. Conclusion shl.com | 65
  • 62. Do you have whatyou need?In the introduction we said knowledge requires data and insight. The data and insight in thisreport offers the type of knowledge across regions, industries and functions that is critical tothe strategic workforce planning, and arguably survival, of organizations.There are a finite number of forces that influence business success. Most of these are drivenby the abilities and motives of the people who make up our workforce. As such, the use ofobjective talent data to align your organization’s talent with its strategic objectives yieldsa significant return. This is the value of the data in this report and is what we call PeopleIntelligence.In the previous five chapters we have extracted some important data-driven insights to focusyour thinking around the integration of talent data into organizational decision-making:LeadershipAnalysis of the supply of leaders for today and leaders for tomorrow shows an alignmentwith, respectively, the ‘established’ versus ‘emerging’ economic powerhouses. This shouldserve as a warning not to assume leadership potential is evenly spread geographically or that‘traditional’ sources of leadership will be able to maintain that supply into the future. Equally,it warns that the future leadership supply will only be realized if organizations are seriousabout the need to drive development initiatives that ensure leadership potential translatesinto leadership success.InnovationIndustry sectors with the greatest need to demonstrate innovation are often those sectorswhere the potential talent to achieve this is most lacking. More focus and investment isneeded in the talent management initiatives that will identify, source and develop innovatorpotential in these sectors.RiskIt’s ill-advised to assume risk is evenly spread across an organization’s workforce,geographies or indeed across industry sectors. Moreover, to manage risk effectivelyorganizations need to take into account the behavioral risk represented by their employees.Processes don’t take risks – people do. Evaluating a risk management process is not the onlymeasure of an organization’s susceptibility to risk. Understanding the behavioral risk inherentin the workforce is at least as, if not more, important.DiversityFirstly, it is apparent that most organizations are stifling their own success through theperpetuation of gender-based leadership stereotypes. To deliver a strong leadership pipeline,organizations need to ensure that gender stereotypes play no role in the identification ofleadership talent. Secondly, if organizations are to fully benefit from having employees fromdifferent generations in their workforce they need to expend more effort in understandingwhat drives each generational cohort and equip managers with the skills to recognize andleverage these differences.66 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 63. ConclusionSkillsIn the past, data about the availability of job seekers at an economically attractive rate wasperhaps overly weighted in decisions regarding where to base a new operation. Our analysisof the skills landscape shows more attention should now be given to the availability of skilledjob seekers. In most cases, invaluable data exists around the potential effectiveness of theworkforce, not just the availability of employees.Data is only useful if you use itFinally, a key aim of this report is to provide a compass to guide your thinking as you strive toimprove the effectiveness of your talent management initiatives.This report provides you with data. But we know, as you do, that data on its own doesn’tsolve problems. At most, it will throw some light on your current challenges, identify themost relevant trends for your industry and geography and give you insights to help you solvethem.The value of analytics is in the insight it provides. The value of People Intelligence is in theinformed actions you take. shl.com | 67
  • 64. EndnotesChapter 1: Leaders Chapter 3: Risk 35. Date definitions for these generations vary and for our analyses we sought the most common date1. Bartram, D. & Glennon, R. Right for the moment 21. This is a paraphrasing of Virgil who in the original is ranges from several sources. Boomers are essentiallyleadership. SHL, 2009. quoted as ‘Fortune sides with him that dares’. the post war generation and our date definition is2. Closing the leadership gap in Asia. Corporate 22. http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk from 1946 to 1964. We have focused on what areExecutive Board, 2011. called Late or Trailing Edge Boomers born between 23. Wall Street’s Fears on Lehman Bros. Batter 1956 and 1964 using our date range definitions, as3. Leadership competencies: Preliminary pulse Markets. The New York Times. 09 Sept 2009. these are the members of the Boomer generationsurvey results. i4cp, 2009. 24. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/uk- who will continue to have the greatest impact on the4. Closing the leadership gap in Asia. Corporate britain-libor-cameron-idUKBRE8610T820120702 workforce of the next decade and a half. Generation XExecutive Board, 2011. 43% or around 1 in 2.5 or Gen X we have defined as born between 1965 and 25. Underlining used for emphasis.regional executives had confidence in their executives, 1981, and Millennials or Gen Y as between 1982 anddropping to 26% or around 1 in 4 in Asia. 26. Lloyd’s Risk Index 2011: Global and historic 1999. Our data does not contain people post Gen Y. insurer Lloyd’s and the Economist Intelligence Unit We have looked at whether shifting the date ranges5. Leadership competencies: Preliminary pulse have published a joint report assessing corporate risk in defining samples for analysis has a material effectsurvey results. i4cp, 2009. Less than 1 in 4 priorities and attitudes around the world. The findings on the results presented in this chapter by generation,employees surveyed saw their organization as strong are based on a global survey of over 500 C-suite and and they do not.at developing leadership talent. Board level executives conducted in August 2011.6. Lloyds Risk Index 2011. 36. Data on motivational profiles used in this chapter 27. Data on Consumer Goods (Personal & Leisure) and is drawn from the SHL Motivation Questionnaire.7. Based on the potential of graduates, managers, Professional Services is limited for the period covered Information on this questionnaire can be obtained viaexecutives and professionals assessed between 2006 by the analyses for this report. These sectors will be http://www.shl.com/uk/solutions/products/docs/fact_and 2011. See the Appendix to this chapter for details added in future reports as data becomes available. sheet-motivation_questionnaire_uke.pdf. More detailof the data used. on the data taken from this assessment and used for 28. Localized versions of our talent measurement8. Based on the potential of graduates, managers, tools for predicting behavioral risk at this level have this chapter is given in the Appendix to this chapter atexecutives and professionals assessed between 2006 only recently been developed. Production line and the end of this report.and 2011. See the Appendix to this chapter for details front line employees for Latin America will be included 37. Desvaux, G., Devillard, S., and Sancier-Sultan, S.of the data used. in future versions of this report as data becomes (2010). Women at the top of corporations: Making it available. happen. McKinsey & Company.9. Western and Eastern Europe are used to distinguishthose countries and economies that have emerged 29. For an example of the results from this research, 38. More women in senior positions: Key tofrom the former Soviet Bloc. see http://www.inc.com/articles/2004/12/karsh.html economic stability and growth. Brussels: European10. See the Appendix to this chapter for details of the 30. Data on Consumer Goods (Personal & Leisure) Commission Directorate-General for employment,data used. and Professional Services is limited for the period Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. January, 2010. covered by the analyses for this report. These sectors 39. Women in senior management: Still not enough.11. We use the Industry Classification Benchmark will be added in future reports as data becomes Grant Thornton International Business Report 2012.(ICB) to define industry sectors. available. Percentages represent the average across risk indices for managerial and professional and for 40. For all countries bar Norway, data is taken fromChapter 2: Innovation production line and front line employees. the Grant Thornton International Business Report 2012. Data for Norway is not given in this report,12. We cover both indices in more detail in the so we have taken the proportion of women holdingAppendix to this chapter, but you will find more Chapter 4: Diversity senior positions for Norway from data provided by theinformation on these indices via http://www.bcg. 2010 European Commission report (see 39 above). 31. Hankin, H. (2005). The new workforce: Fivecom/documents/file15445.pdf and http://www. sweeping trends that will shape your company’s 41. Reevell, Karen. “Gender diversity in theglobalinnovationindex.org/gii/main/analysis/rankings. future. New York, NY: AMACOM Books. workplace.” SHL research, 2012 (unpublished)cfm#CGI.SCRIPT_NAME# Sample: 32. http://www.asiabusinesscouncil.org/docs/13. Naji, B., and Tuff, G. (2012). Managing your U.K.: The research was carried out between: 7/3/2012 EndofPopnGrowth052011.pdfinnovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review, May. and 7/24/2012 - Sample: 511 33. Statistics from various sources support the U.S.: The research was carried out between: 7/3/201214. See the Appendix to this chapter for details of the trend for an increase in women’s participation in the and 7/24/2012 - Sample: 509data used. workforce. While a recent UN Report (The world’s Australia: The research was carried out between:15. See 9 above. women 2010: Trends and statistics) shows that 3/7/2012 and 24/7/2012 - Sample: 50816. See the Appendix to this chapter for details of the participation rates are uneven across countries, SHL research “Gender diversity in the workplace”data used. in most of the mature and many of the emerging shows gender stereotypes based on the Great 8 set economies the trend towards greater participation in of competencies, reinforcing male or female perceived17. See 12 above. education and employment is now well established. abilities.18. Figure 11 was constructed by first combining data Among the statistics cited in Female Power, 42. Women in leadership: A European businessacross the Boston and INSEAD indices and ranking Economist, December 30th. 2009 are: women now Imperative. Catalyst and the Conference Boardcountries to create percentile scores for the ‘context make up half the American workforce (49.9%); U.S. Europe, 2002.for innovation’. We then took the country data for Bureau of Labour statistics show that women make‘supply of innovator talent’ and created percentiles up 2/3 of the employees in 10 of the 15 fastest 43. A study in leadership: Women do it better thanon that data as well. This is the basis for the country employment categories; women have filled 6m of the men. Zenger Folkman, 2012. This compared 360plots. This is explained in more detail in the Appendix. 8m jobs created in the European Union since 2000; degree appraisal data for 7,280 men and women half of women MBA graduates who chose to have in leading U.S. companies and found that women19. China (Taiwan) does not appear in this index as children have remained in the workforce. generally outperformed men on 16 leadershipit was not present in the original BCG and INSEAD competencies.indices. 34. International Labor Organization data: http://www.ilo.org/stat/lang--en/index.htm 44.Grant Thornton 2012 International Business20. A third industrial revolution, The Economist, April Review.2012.68 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 65. Endnotes45. Barsh, Joanna, and Yee, Lareina (2012). Chapter 5: SkillsUnlocking the full potential of women at work.McKinsey & Company. 56. 2012 Talent shortage survey: Research results. Manpower.46. SHL research “Gender diversity in the workplace”suggests that in the U.K. compared to men, 57. Boost to U.K. manufacturing as companies bringwomen do not see advancement to the next level business home, The Telegraph, 20th. August 2012as fundamental to developing their career whereas 58. Goodbye outsourcing, hello insourcing: A trendin the U.S. and Australia it is more fundamental for rises. CIO, 17th. February 2011.women. (See 41 above) 59. Not coming to America: Why the U.S. is falling47. The Appendix provides more detail on the behind in the global race for talent. The Partnershipdata sources used to explore differences in the for a New American Economy & The Partnership formotivational profiles by job level, gender and New York City, May 2012.generation. 60. Examples include the Business Software Alliance48. Details of the differences between job levels on IT Industry Competitiveness Index 2011 whichthese motivational factors is shown in the Appendix uses expert analyst judgments to evaluate qualityto this chapter. of technology skills (http://globalindex11.bsa.org/49. We constructed percentiles for scores on each methodology/) and the World Economic Forum’sof the motivational factors measured by SHL’s Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 (http://Motivation Questionnaire combining data across www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness)both men and women. The percentiles and their which incorporates the judgments of economists asdifferences reported are based on where men and well as data from an executive opinion poll.women sit on average when compared to the general 61. Top 10 global skill shortages, April 2012. http://and global population. www.hays.co.uk/press-releases/HAYS_56476050. SHL research “Gender diversity in the workplace” 62. See the Appendix to this chapter for details of the- narrative response to the question “what are the data used.potential restrictions in getting to the next level?” 63. Details of the 2009 PISA rankings can be found at(See 41 above) http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf51. Examples where data point in different directions 64. Offshoring opportunities amid economicare provided by Mitchell, S. (2001). Generation turbulence: The A. T. Kearney Global ServicesX: Americans aged 18 to 64. Ithaca, NY: New Location Index 2011. A. T. Kearney. http://www.Strategist Publications; Smola, K. W., and Sutton, atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/offshoring-C. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting opportunities-amid-economic-turbulence-the-at-generational work values for the new millennium. kearney-global-services-location-index-gsli-2011.htmlJournal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382;Tang, T. L., and Tzeng, J. Y. (1992). Demographic 65. See 63 above.correlates of the protestant work ethic. Journal of 66. Manpower report. See 56 above.Psychology, 126, 163-170.52. Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generation gap:How employees young and old can find commonground. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.53. SHL research “Gender diversity in the workplace”shows that Graduate level respondents in the U.K.,U.S. and Australia all said that advancement to thenext level in their career was fundamental to theircareer development plan. (See 41 above)54. SHL research “Gender diversity in the workplace”narrative response to the question “what are thepotential restrictions in getting to the next level?”include “no open positions” or “Unclear career pathavailable in the organization” and thus it is critical fortalent managers to reframe what career progressionmeans. (See 41 above)55. Bartram, D., and Inceoglu, I. (2011). The SHLCorporate Leadership Model. This is available asa free download via http://www.shl.com/assets/resources/White-Paper-Corporate-Leadership-Model.pdf and is explained in more detail in theAppendix to this chapter. shl.com | 69
  • 66. AppendixThe Appendix to this report is available as a downloadfrom: www.shl.com/talentreportappendixThe Appendix provides a general introduction to the data used and the procedures applied toselect countries for analysis. Specific appendices for each chapter then follow.70 | The SHL Talent Report
  • 67. About the authors Eugene Burke Eugene Burke is Chief Science & Analytics Officer at SHL where he leads analytics programmes that support organizations’ talent initiatives. A regular contributor at professional events, he has served on committees and task forces for local and global bodies such as the Association of Test Publishers, British Psychological Society, the International Test Commission and the International Standards Organization as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Eugene has been published widely, his work including contributions on psychometrics and talent measurement, innovations in the use of technology in the assessment of talent, decision making, safety and risk, as well as addressing the talent issues of multinational organizations. Ray Glennon Ray Glennon is a talent management consultant and proposition development manager at SHL. Ray has worked with many national and international organizations on the design and implementation of major talent management initiatives, as well as formerly leading SHL’s Australia and New Zealand professional services and product business. He is a Chartered Psychologist, an Affiliated Fellow of the British Psychological Society and regularly writes and represents SHL on topics including leadership and talent assessment.
  • 68. SHL Americas555 North Point Center East, Suite 600Alpharetta, Georgia 30022, U.S.A.Tel 800-367-2509©SHL All rights reserved. Incorporated in Delaware, U.S.A. FEIN: 23-294 9514.Registered office: 555 North Point Center East, Suite 600, Alpharetta, Georgia 30022, U.S.A.Tel 800.367.2509 Web shl.com