The New Talent Management Network\'s 2011 State of Talent Management study.

2. EXECUTIVE
COACHING
SEMINARS
The Presenters are Legendary;
The Lessons are Leading-edge
22 - 23 Sept. 2011, New York City
www.conference-board.org/coachingsems
Use discount code NT1 receive a $300 discount
off standard prices.

3. Table of
Contents
About the Survey/About NTMN i
Executive Summary 1
Our 2011 Insights
What Works and Why 2
What We Do and How We Do It 9
Increasing the Investment 17
Appendix
Additional Demographic Data 19
All opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of any survey participants
or advertisers. For additional information about the New Talent Management Network, go to www.newtmn.com
© New Talent Management Network, 2011, All rights reserved

4. ABOUT THE NTMN THE 2011 SURVEY
About the New Talent Management Network
The New Talent Management Network (NTMN) is the world’s largest global network of talent
management professionals. With a focus on serving corporate practitioners, we have more than
2,500 members around the world and 10 City Groups providing members with opportunities to
learn and network. The NTMN is completely free to members – there are no dues or fees
required to participate in any activity. We don’t believe you should have to pay to network and
learn.
The NTMN has three goals:
• Increase the capabilities of TM professionals and the effectiveness of this profession
• Coordinate opportunities for local, free networking amongst TM professionals
• Improve talent management effectiveness by conducting original research that benefits the
TM community
Member benefits include participating in City Groups, NTMN webinars, the ability to search
our member database, access to the NTMN job board and early access to all of our research.
If you’re not already a member, please join us today at www.newtmn.com.
Thank you for your continued support!
Where you see the mouse icon,
Marc Effron click on the advertisement for
Founder more information
New Talent Management Network
marc@newtmn.com
Please follow us at
twitter.com/newtalentmgmtnt
About the Survey
The 2011 State of Talent Management Survey advances the New Talent Management Network’s
(NTMN) goal of conducting original research to benefit the talent management profession. Our goal is
to track and report on the structure, practices, and organization of the talent management community
worldwide.
2011 marks the fourth annual survey that we have conducted on behalf of our members.
About the Survey Process
The survey was administered in March 2011 and was open to any organization interested in
participating. Participation was solicited by direct email to NTMN members, Linked-In solicitations and
tweets. Surveys were anonymous to encourage the disclosure of sensitive information such as
compensation rates. Any survey that did not include a company revenue figure, was missing a
significant amount of information or otherwise appeared invalid was not included in the analysis.
111 companies participated in the 2011 survey.
i i

5. Coach and Mentor matching
shouldn’t be this hard.
With OPTI-‐MATCH you can
optimize your coaching and mentoring program to…
…ask the right questions
…map your staff’s core skills
…prioritize your matches and skills
…match the right people automatically
…monitor progress
…and grow your staff and your business.
OPTI-‐MATCH by MediaPro
Coach/Mentor Matching and Management software
Get started today at www.mediapro.com/mentor
or call (﴾425)﴿ 483-‐4702. OPTI-­
by MATCH
They have A City Group. !
Why don’t you?! !
Start or join a City Group today!
http://www.newtmn.com/CityGroups.aspx!
ii

6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OUR 2011 STATE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
Our fourth annual survey finds that the increased tenure and near universality of talent
management (TM) groups still isn’t translating into consistently effective results. This year’s
survey provides insights to help address that challenge. We find that senior team support, clear
accountability for executing talent processes and simple process design emerge as key drivers
of TM success.
OUR 2011 INSIGHTS
INSIGHT 1: In charge but not in control
The keys to talent management success appear to lie largely outside of our direct control. CEO/
senior team support and managerial accountability top the list of reasons why talent
management practices are successful. These factors are ranked significantly higher than more
controllable factors like having a supportive head of HR or HR team. Surprisingly, HR
technology seems to neither help nor hinder these processes.
One bright spot – the design of TM processes was seen as a moderately powerful enabler and
blocker of success. Survey analytics further show that easy to use process design is
significantly related to perceived process effectiveness.
INSIGHT 2: Here to stay (for now)
Those writing off TM as a passing fad or an exercise in repackaging HR will be disappointed
our 2011 results. The average age of TM groups increased to just over four years and 70% of
participating companies with more than one thousand employees had formal TM groups. A
relative paucity of senior TM talent is keeping compensation at strong levels with pay packages
in the $700K - $800K range for talent executives in larger companies.
INSIGHT 3: Investment flows in
In the post-recession corporate world, increased funding unmistakably signals increased
corporate commitment. With 53% of companies increasing TM budgets and 27% increasing
TM staff, those who control the corporate purse strings are sending a very clear message about
their commitment to talent management. Mid-sized companies were most likely to see
increased budgets with 74% of those with 5K – 15K employees receiving more cash for talent
management in 2011.
Note: In this report we refer to “formal” TM groups and “other” TM groups. Formal talent management groups are those officially called “Talent
Management” in their company. Other Talent Management groups are performing TM work but aren’t formally referred to by that label.
1

7. WHAT WORKS WHY
• What enables talent management practices to work
• How effective our practices are
• How simple/easy to use our practices are
• How accountable manages are for action or follow-up
• How transparent our practices are
• What the statistically significant drivers of TM process
effectiveness are
• How integrated our talent management processes are
2

8. WHAT WORKS WHY
The secrets to talent management effectiveness begin to emerge
A key 2011 insight is that CEO/executive team support and clear accountability for results were
the magic ingredients in both the success and failure of talent management processes. These
findings were consistent across large and small firms and those with more and less experienced
talent leaders.
What enables talent management practices to work. . .
Most important factor*
Overall
Rank Factor responsible for success 1st 2nd 3rd Those with job
experience outside
1st Executive Team Support 32% 32% 8% HR were more
Manager accountability for likely to say talent
2nd 10% 23% 27% process design
completing the process
was a key to
3rd CEO support 37% 7% 2% success
4th Design of process/program 7% 13% 23%
5th Availability of resources 3% 10% 11%
Despite HR
6th Head of HR support 5% 7% 5% technology’s high
cost, it’s not seen as
7th HR team support 3% 5% 7%
relevant to talent
8th HR technology 1% 2% 8% practice success and
only slightly related
to failure
. . . and what gets in their way
Most important factor*
Overall
Rank Factor responsible for lack of success 1st 2nd 3rd
Accountability and
executive team Lack of manager accountability for
1st 25% 19% 21%
support are the completing the process
critical ingredients in 2nd Lack of executive team support 27% 18% 14%
the success or failure
of TM practices 3rd Design of process/program 12% 11% 21%
4th Lack of resources 7% 13% 14%
5th Lack of CEO support 21% 5% 4%
6th Lack of HR team support 2% 5% 16%
7th HR technology 3% 11% 5%
8th Lack of head of HR support 2% 6% 5%
* How to read these charts: “Overall rank” is determined by combining “votes” for 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices. An item selected by a respondent as 1st
choice is counted three times, as 2nd choice is counted twice and as a 3rd choice is counted once.
3

9. WHAT WORKS WHY
Highly effective talent practices remain within reach but out of the grasp of
many organizations
Process effectiveness remains at 2010 levels with an average of 45% of companies rating their
processes as Always or Often Effective.
• Succession planning practices are seen as being simpler and having greater accountability
than in 2010
• Development planning remains the process with the lowest perceived effectiveness and
lowest managerial accountability by a significant amount.
• Simple design and managerial accountability explain large amounts of why processes are
rated effective.
How Effective Our Practices Are: Succession Planning increased in perceived effectiveness –
moving from 51% to 61% -- while all other practices either scored at or below 2010 levels.
How would your executives/line managers assess the following TM process on the dimension
of effectiveness?
Assessing leaders (360s, et al.)
Development planning
Driving employee engagement
Executive coaching
ID/developing high potentials
Setting clear goals
Succession planning/ talent reviews
Training in management/leadership
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rarely or Never Effective Sometimes Effective Always or Often Effective
Because typical 360’s don’t work . . .
4

10. WHAT WORKS WHY
How Simple/Easy to Use Our Practices Are: Across all talent management practices, an average of
48% of companies rate theirs as perceived to be simple and easy to use. While succession
planning’s score improved from last year, other processes either remained the same or declined on
this measure.
How would your executives/line managers assess the following TM processes as
being simple/easy to use?
Assessing leaders (360s, et al.)
Development planning
Driving employee engagement
Executive coaching
ID/developing high potentials
Setting clear goals
Succession planning/ talent reviews
Training in management/leadership
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Very or Not At All Moderately Mostly or Extremely
How Accountable Managers Are for Action or Follow-Up: On average, 36% of respondents say
there is managerial accountability for following-up on talent management practices. Setting clear
goals fares the best (55%) while development planning rates lowest (19%).
How would your executives rate managers’ accountability for action or
follow-up for the following practices?
Assessing leaders (360s, et al.)
Development planning
Driving employee engagement
Executive coaching
ID/developing high potentials
Setting clear goals
Succession planning/ talent reviews
Training in management/leadership
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rarely or Never Sometimes Always or Often
5

11. WHAT WORKS WHY
How Transparent Our Practices Are: Transparency remains a highly variable factor in talent
management practices, with very low transparency for processes that identify high potentials and
relatively high transparency for goal setting and training.
How would your executives/line managers assess the following TM processes on the dimension
of transparency?
Assessing leaders (360s, et al.)
Development planning
Driving employee engagement
Executive coaching
ID/developing high potentials
Setting clear goals
Succession planning/ talent reviews
Training in management/leadership
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not Very or Not At All Moderately Mostly or Extremely
Clarity for today’’s key
talent management issues.
Valtera’’s measurement, analytics and
consultation services are focused on getting
unequivocal information that will allow you
to make the best decisions in choosing new
hires, leveraging your existing work force
most effectively, retaining key talent, and
improving employee engagement and the
service climate. When you’’re tasked with
strengthening your organization by making
the most of your human capital, any or all of
our three practices is the perfect place to start.
SURVEYS | SELECTION | ASSESSMENT
Ph: 847-640-8820 | Fx: 847-640-8830 | sales@valtera.com | www.valtera.com
6

12. WHAT WORKS WHY
What Drives Effectiveness: Simple practices and clear accountability emerge as having a large
impact on the perceived effectiveness of nearly every talent practice.
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DRIVER OF EFFECTIVENESS?*
Simplicity/
Talent Management Practice Ease of Use Accountability Transparency R2
Assessing leaders/360s ✔ ✔ .40
Development planning ✔ ✔ .48
Driving employee engagement ✔ ✔ .64
Executive coaching ✔ ✔ .45
Identify and develop high potentials
✔ ✔ .54
Setting clear goals
✔ ✔ ✔ .58
Succession planning/talent reviews
✔ ✔ .68
Training in management/leadership
✔ .50
* Linear multiple regression using p .05 to test significance of items. The analysis used perceived effectiveness as the dependent variable and the items assessing simplicity,
accountability and transparency as the independent variables.
7

13. WHAT WORKS WHY
Talent Process Integration
Integration of talent processes increased slightly from 2010 with performance management and
succession planning showing single-digit gains. On-boarding – a new item this year – rated as one
of the least integrated processes
To what extent are each of the following processes/practices integrated into your overall
talent management system?
Change from 2010 in Fully or Mostly Integrated rating
-6%
+2% +4% +9%
100%
6% 7%
13% 13%
90% 23%
18% 17% 31%
80%
24% 26%
70%
17%
60% 19% 33%
34%
50% 22% 29%
32%
40%
27%
30% 20% 28%
17%
20% 36% 16%
10%
10% 21% 9%
18% 13% 13% 7%
On-boarding Compensation 360 Assessment Leadership Succession Performance
Training Planning Management
Fully integrated Mostly integrated Somewhat integrated Slightly integrated Not integrated
Talent Philosophy
Only 36% of companies say they have a talent philosophy or “rules of the road” for
managing their talent.
• Large firms are no more likely to have a talent philosophy than small firms
• Having a talent philosophy is not related to how long your talent management group
has existed
• If you have a talent management philosophy you’re more likely to rate your company’s
talent management processes as more integrated
8

14. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
• For what processes is your talent management group
responsible?
• How long has your talent management group existed?
• What relationship is there between company size and
number of TM staff?
• How many direct reports does the head of TM have?
• Which levels of management do you serve?
• How many years of experience do you have in the TM field?
• In which areas of HR do you have experience?
• What are the compensation levels for the top talent
management executive (VP or Director): Base, bonus, long-
term incentive?
9

15. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
An increasingly distinct focus
The increasing specialization of talent management groups is reinforced in our 2011 data. A small
set of activities defines the typical responsibilities of a TM group – succession planning, high
potential management and assessment/feedback. Activities like talent acquisition, engagement and
change management are increasingly located outside the domain of talent management.
For what activities is your talent management group responsible?
100%
RESPONSIBLE
FREQUENTLY
90% Succession Planning/Talent Reviews
High Potential Identification/Development
80%
Assessment/Feedback/360s
% of TM groups responsible for process
Talent Strategy
70%
RESPONSIBLE
Performance Management
Capability/Competency Model Development
OFTEN
60% Career/Development Planning
Executive Coaching
Training: Management/Leadership
50%
Employee Engagement (surveys/analysis)
RESPONSIBLE
Organization Development/Change Management
40% Talent Acquisition/Recruiting - External SOMETIMES
30% Diversity
Workforce Planning
Workforce Analytics
20%
RESPONSIBLE
RARELY
10%
0%
Is there anything that non-formal TM groups do more than formal TM groups?
These other groups more frequently engage in traditional OD activities like engagement surveys (67%
vs. 47%), change mgmt. (75% vs. 46%), and executive coaching (75% vs. 58%)
10

16. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
Talent management groups are more established
With 65% of responding companies having formal talent management groups, the function appears
to have established a strong foothold in corporations worldwide. The function is also maturing, with
the average tenure of talent management groups shifting upward for the third consecutive year to
4.1 years.
How long has your talent management group formally existed?
2010
25% * 5 or more years
Fewer new TM groups
in 2011, and a longer 20%
average existence, 2010 2010
21%
suggests that the field 2010
15%
is maturing 2010
16%
10% 17%
13%
10% 2010 10%
5%
6% 8%
Less than 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 – 9 years 10 or more
1 year years
AVERAGE (4.1)
The Mentor Partnership LLC
New York – Geneva – Chicago – Australia
Experience Matters
Our faculty of former Global 1000 CEOs mentor, support, and develop current
CEOs, members of the executive team, senior leaders, and high potentials.
We work with those newly appointed to the top leadership, aid in succession
planning, guide expatriate leaders, develop high potentials, and help those facing a
higher level of business complexity. Many call on us when they need a finishing
school for their top leadership.
Steve Dumont, Managing Partner, 203.640.8869
sdumont@thementorpartnership.com www.thementorpartnership.com
11

17. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
Insights to their structure are starting to emerge
Two structural components of TM groups – their size and span of control – were explored in our
2011 survey. TM team size showed a curvilinear relationship with the number of employees in
the firm but, surprisingly, no relation to company revenue.
Relationship of company size to number of TM staff
Talent Management Staff
20 Fewer new TM groups
in 2011, and a longer
15 average existence,
Number of
suggests that the field
is maturing
10
5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Employees (000’s)
12

18. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
No consistent organization structure exists for talent management groups
Span of control data shows that no standard structure exists for this function, with spans of control
ranging from 1 to 20.
Number of direct reports to the head of talent management
18%
Percent of respondents
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or
AVERAGE (4.7) more
We’re slightly more likely to serve executive leadership
Our 2011 data shows a significantly smaller gap between the groups served by formal talent
management groups and other groups (OE, OD, etc.) that have talent management responsibilities.
Previous surveys showed the “other” groups primarily focused on middle managers and below.
Which of the following groups do you serve?
90%
80%
70%
60%
86%
50% 77% 69%
65%
40%
63%
30% 53%
20% 40%
10% 26%
CEO and Senior leaders below Middle managers Professionals
executive team the executive team
“Formal” TM Groups Other groups engaging in TM work
13

19. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
We’re highly experienced in our field
The typical TM practitioner is a deep expert specialized in talent management and closely related
areas like leadership development. Few of us have experience in other HR disciplines but many of
us have worked outside of HR.
How many years of experience do you have specifically in the talent
management field?
20%
DID YOU KNOW?
% of respondents
69% of TM
practitioners have 15%
held a role outside 20%
of Human 10%
Resources during 17%
15% 14%
their career 12% 13%
5% 9%
1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 12 13 – 15 16 - 18 19 - 20
years years years years years years years
Many of us have job experiences outside of HR but those with generalist experience are the
least likely to have had this.
In which of the following areas have you held a full-time assignment during
your career?
70% 72% of those with leadership
development experience have
% of respondents
60% also had a full-time experience
50% outside of HR.
40% Only 38% of those with generalist
66% 64% 60% experience had a job experience
30%
outside HR
46%
20%
10%
7% 6%
14

20. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
What We Earn
2011 compensation figures were largely unchanged for base salary, bonus and total direct
compensation. The graphs below are for Directors and Vice Presidents who are in the the top talent
management role in their company.
Vice President Compensation Director/Exec. Dir. Compensation
$800 450
400
700
350
600
US Dollars (000s)
US Dollars (000s)
300
500
250
400
200
300 150
200 100
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Company Revenue ($ Billions) Company Revenue ($ Billions)
Base Salary Base + Bonus Total Direct Compensation
The earning opportunity from annual and long-term incentives also remain essentially unchanged
from 2010, with levels consistent with those provided in other functions.
Compensation Components Manager Director VP
Average Bonus Opportunity* 20% 28% 46%
Average Long Term Incentive* 25% 48% 64%
*As a % of base salary
15

21. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
Our Availability
Building on 2010’s slight easing in the availability of high quality talent, slightly more respondents
said that talent at the VP and Director level was Easy to find. However, overall, the market remains
tight for VP/SVP talent.
How easy or difficult is it to find high quality talent management staff when recruiting
externally at the following levels?
Impossible Very Difficult Average Easy
VP/SVP 2% 45% 47% 7%
Director/Executive Director 4% 29% 53% 12%
Manager/Sr. Manager 0% 17% 61% 22%
Accelerating
time to experience
Eliminating Complexity, Adding Value
Marc Effron + Miriam Ort
h a r va r d b u s i n e s s p r e s s
Business Simulations Filled with bright ideas . . .
Leadership Programs
One Page Talent Management shows in practical detail how
Strategy Workshops to use simplicity, accountability and transparency to design
incredibly effective talent management processes.
Learn more at onepagetm.com
www.insight-experience.com
Get your copy today at hbr.org and Amazon.com
16

22. TRACKING THE INVESTMENT
• In 2011, how do you expect your talent management staff
count to change?
• In 2011, how do you expect your talent management
budget (excluding staff) to change?
17

23. TRACKING THE INVESTMENT
Cautious increases in talent management headcount trumped by a second straight
year of significant increases in talent management budgets
In an area of tight budgets, spending increases suggest corporate support. While a modest 27% of
firms plan to add talent management staff in 2011, 53% will see their budgets increase with 26%
seeing increases of more than 10%.
In 2011, how do you expect your talent management staff count will
change in size?
80%
70%
60% 68%
50%
40%
30%
Compares 20% 16%
11%
to 8% in 10% 3%
2%
2010
Decrease staff by Decrease Staff count will Increase Increase staff
more than 10% staff by up to remain relatively staff by up by more than
10% stable to 10% 10%
In 2011, do you expect your company's spending on talent management
(not including staff), will:
80%
70%
Mid-size firms
60% investing the most
50% 74% of companies with
5k – 15K employees are
40% increasing TM budgets,
41% vs. 42% for all other
30%
firms
20%
27% 26%
10% 3% 4%
Decrease more Decrease by No change Increase by Increase more
than 10% up to10% up to 10% than 10%
18

24. APPENDIX
19

25. 2011 PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
Employees in participating companies
$
20%
Participating 15%
Company 10%
Revenue (in USD) 5%
0%
Average: $15.8B
Median: $4B
Has a group/dept. formally referred to as “Talent
Management”
• Overall: 63%
• Companies with less than 1,000 employees:
30%
• Companies with more than 1,000 employees:
70%
111
companies
participated
What level is the head of your talent
management group?
Mgr. Other
(7%) (2%)
SVP Location of participating companies
(18%) 90%
Director 80%
(37%) VP 70%
(35%) 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
North Asia Pacific Europe: Europe: Middle East Central or
America (Including Western Central or South
India) Eastern America
20