Events

Organizations can help employees develop new skills in all kinds of ways. Which ones do employees rely on? We looked at 49 different learning methods to find out.

When choosing learning methods, L&D should consider their audience and the methods their employees use. But the audience isn't the only consideration, there are 3 more: business needs, culture, and available resources.

In our final report, Choosing learning methods that 'fit' your org, we describe how L&D functions can use 4 considerations when choosing learning methods that fit.

Click on the image below for an expanded view. As always, we'd love your feedback at [email protected].

The goal is fit

In times of crisis and uncertainty, organizations tend to default to what they know best.

At the height of the pandemic, for example, more than one L&D leader asked me the best way to get all of their classroom training online. While we have accepted for years that learning happens all the time in all the places, one little global pandemic threw L&D back into classroom mindset.

In the process of climbing out of the pandemic, however, a lot of people practices got better. And that is particularly true of learning and development. Managers got better at giving feedback; L&D got better at offering existing resources; and tech made it easier to personalize learning for employees more broadly.

The list of options organizations recognizes for developing employees is long. We know because we classified them all last fall in our study: Next Gen Learning Methods: What to use, how to choose, and when to cut them loose. And while knowing the universe of tools available is helpful, it can also be overwhelming. As Elizabeth Robinson, VP of Talent Engagement and Development at Healthcare Consultancy Group said:

It's the idea of using methods in a more integrated fashion. It's choosing the right method for the right purpose.

Our most recent study is aimed directly at that problem. It isn’t enough to know what’s available. L&D leaders must also know how to choose learning methods that fit their organization. What do we mean by fit? We mean:

• How well does it fit the business need?

• How well does it fit the culture?

• How well does it fit the audience?

• How well does it fit the available resources?

Including data from an extensive survey, interviews, and roundtables, our latest study hopefully helps leaders to determine how well methods “fit” with their goals and constraints.

A note: Throughout this report, you’ll see references to learning culture or high learning culture index or a strong learning culture. This measure is an average of 6 questions we asked survey participants:

To what extent are these statements true in your organization?

1. Enables me to plan my career.

2. Enables me to find development opportunities.

3. Enables me to access content and opportunities to grow my skills.

4. Enables me to experiment with new knowledge and skills.

5. Enables me to connect with others for learning.

6. Enables me to perform better in my current role.

The average of these 6 questions gives us a good indication of how well organizations are building a learning culture. Our research explores how well those organizations with strong learning cultures compare to the rest of the population.

Fit the business need

Choose based on how well a learning method fits your business need

To put it succinctly, learning methods should fit a particular business challenge. Over the past few years, the role of L&D functions has been elevated, as senior leaders have asked them to lead reskilling, mobility, and in some cases DEIB initiatives. More L&D pros are also being asked to participate in workforce planning and talent mobility discussions. As a result, we have seen a shift in L&D’s mindset: from caring mostly about how the employee will engage (which is still important) to a more balanced approach that also carefully considers the business need.

We saw this different mindset in our interviews and at our roundtable. Gina Mouch, Senior Training Specialist at the University of Michigan, got right to the point when asked how her organization chooses learning methods:

It really depends on the business goal.

We also saw this mindset reflected in the cold, hard data. Figure 2 shows us that 80% of L&D pros in organizations with a high learning culture index consider the business challenge to a significant extent when determining which methods they should invest in. That is a whopping 34 percentage points more than their peers in other organizations.

Just as interestingly, while their peers in other organizations listed cost as the number 1 way to choose a learning method, organizations with a high learning culture index listed cost as 4th, after business challenge, implementation, and procurement.

While some organizations are already doing this, it bears repeating: start with the business reason for any employee development initiative. As Chris Casement, previously Managing Consultant for System-Wide Learning and Innovation at Sutter Health said:

The reason we implemented that mentoring program was tied to a business reason.

Measure how well a learning method fits by looking at business results—not smile sheets

While implementing methods that align with business goals is key, investing in methods that meet those goals is equally important.

When L&D pros were asked how L&D understands the methods that are most valuable to employees, again, those with high learning culture indexes relied more heavily on all the approaches we asked about more than their peers in other organizations.

Of note: the number 1 way L&D pros in high learning index organizations determine what is valuable is how well a method meets business needs. Usage data and evaluations follow closely.

L&D functions with strong learning cultures are measuring their learning methods against business results and keeping an eye on how valuable (or frequently used) those methods are to their employees.

Other organizations are still highly reliant on evaluations (their number 1 answer), followed by anecdotal feedback.

The sheer difference in reliance on these methods is jarring: 42 percentage points for business results and 26 percentage points for usage data.

This indicates that those organizations with strong learning cultures are listening more—not just with their ears, but with data—to understand what learning methods are important and valuable.

Real World Thread – Learning methods that meet a business need

L&D functions hold more ownership over big workforce development initiatives that allow them to respond to business challenges. At Healthcare Consultancy Group, Elizabeth Robinson, EVP of Talent Development, is an influential L&D leader who recognized the organizational need to upskill her workforce.

To do this, she and her team began using skills assessments. These assessments are intended to measure an employee’s skills around each of the organization’s core competencies. Based on the results, L&D then helps employees to craft intentional learning pathways to address any skill gaps.

For example, they currently have a research-based profiler that looks at eight different skills needed for innovation, one of the organization’s core competencies. Based on the results, L&D assists the employee by mapping out various learning and development activities. The goal is to build the employee’s innovation skills in a pathway that’s customized to them. Elizabeth was able to meet the business challenge by maintaining a sharp understanding of the organization’s current state and creating a solution using learning methods that aligned with its needs.

Fit the culture

Balance methods that support all learning behaviors

Culture is often defined as “the way we do things around here.” Implicit in that definition is “doing” things. Learning cultures, then, are defined by learning or development behaviors employees demonstrate.

Enter RedThread’s Employee Development Framework. This framework describes the behaviors organizations should encourage and enable for a strong learning culture. Figure 4 shows these 6 behaviors and the learning methods that align with them.

When choosing learning methods, organizations should understand what their options are, and which behaviors the methods are likely to encourage or enable.

The goal is not to invest in all methods, but to identify methods within each behavior that work within the confines of the organization.

As such, learning functions should understand

• The extent of the learning methods they are providing or enabling
• The alignment of those learning methods to the behaviors they’re trying to encourage
• The effect those learning methods are having in promoting that behavior

An easy way to think about it may be to visualize all the methods associated with all of the employee development behaviors as the entire universe. Organizations should be looking for the constellation that works best for their organization.

Strongly consider the methods that matter more to learning culture

Much to our surprise, our research revealed a number of learning methods impact learning culture more than the rest.

While learning methods are only a portion of how a learning culture is enabled, they do play a role. In fact, when we statistically analyzed the 49 methods, we collected data on to determine what (if any) effect they had on learning culture, a model emerged that identified 13 learning methods.

Together, these 13 learning methods explain 23% of learning culture. Figure 5 describes these methods and categorizes them by the learning culture behavior they support.

While that number may not seem huge, it is significant. Organizations can account for 23% of their culture by implementing and supporting these 13 methods.

Organizations should consider how they are utilizing and enabling these methods. Organizations can ask themselves:

• To what extent are these methods available to employees?
• How well does our organization enable these methods?
• What role can L&D play in ensuring their availability?
• How do these methods integrate with others offered?
• How well do these methods integrate with the organizational culture?
• How do these methods connect employees to each other?

Experiment to find methods that fit your culture

Choosing the right learning methods for a given organization is often about experimentation. There are no hard and fast rules on what will work best within a given culture, so L&D functions often find themselves using trial and error to determine which ones are best.

Interestingly, our data showed that organizations with high learning culture indexes are experimenting more than other organizations (Figure 6). That is, they aren’t putting all their eggs into a single metaphorical learning method basket.

Chris Casement, previous Managing Consultant for System Wide Learning and Innovation at Sutter Health, saw this to be true within his organization:

What the pandemic enabled us to do is jump ahead about 4 years on some pioneering experiments and push the envelope on how we engage people through different mediums.

In our conversations with leaders, we found that L&D functions approach the alignment of methods to culture a bit differently than other organizations. These high learning culture organizations tend to be more:

Flexible and agile

Organizations that experiment more tend to adopt flexible and agile mindsets and systems, allowing them to quickly adjust when it becomes apparent that changes need to be made to the methods they have chosen.

Data-savvy

Learning leaders in organizations where experimentation is prevalent are more apt to use data for decision-making. More of them tend to run controlled experiments, use A/B testing, and examine usage data to determine if learning methods are working.

Circumspect

L&D functions that experiment tend to be more circumspect, meaning that they are less likely to fall in love with a solution and implement it with brute force. They tend to take a wider view of learning methods, determining if and how they fit and sunsetting them if they don’t.

It also turns out that organizations with high learning culture indexes also just use more methods than everyone else. On average, those in high learning cultures support 21 methods compared to everyone else, who support an average of just 10 methods (Figure 7).

Elizabeth Robinson, VP of Talent Engagement and Development at Healthcare Consultancy Group, expressed her support for this sentiment:

We're using most methods, but we want to make sure that we are pushing ourselves on how we use those methods, strategically and creatively.

While we’re certainly not preaching quantity over quality, we are finding that experimentation and using more methods go hand in hand. Organizations that consistently experiment spend their energy identifying the best methods for their broad employee base.

Don’t forget human connection

We’re at a point in history where human connection really matters. Before the pandemic, many learning strategies (and the tech that supported them) focused on self-service learning—the Netflix of learning, as some people called it—and the ability to both scale and personalize development opportunities with tech.

We’re seeing the pendulum swing, however. Spending 2 years alone in our home offices has taken its toll, and organizations are now actively seeking ways to bring humans together. This effort is particularly important as organizations navigate their way through hybrid and remote work.

The desire to connect is also manifesting in employee development, and came through loud and clear in our roundtable and interviews for this study.

A talent development leader working at a large manufacturing organization we spoke to recognizes the role L&D functions can play in connecting people:

Because so many are now faced with all these ripple effects of what's happening, one of our priorities is to create more opportunities for learning that connects people.

Given this desire for connection and the role L&D can play, leaders are carefully considering the methods they’re investing in and deliberately choosing those that bring people together.

We found that over half of the 49 methods we investigated involve at least 1 other human for learning to take place. (Peer or manager feedback, for example, requires personal connection, whereas something like internet does not.)

We think human connection is an important variable, both because many organizations desire to reconnect, and because human interaction introduces other challenges to consider: lift on the organization (which we’ll talk about in a minute), variability to the learning experience, and additional systems and processes. Elizabeth Robinson, VP of Talent Engagement and Development at Healthcare Consultancy Group puts it this way:

Yes, having more connection in terms of communities of practice and mentoring and coaching to further support development—it's a really important thing for us right now.

As organizations identify the methods to invest in they should consider the level of human touch for each, and its ultimate cost and benefit.

Use methods that fit people into other methods

One of the oldest new ideas in L&D is that of blended learning. For decades, L&D teams have been identifying ways to use several methods together to teach courses or concepts. This seems to have become even more important since the pandemic.

Figure 9 shows learning methods that have strong correlations: the darker the square on the chart, the more likely it is that the organization offers both types of learning methods (row and column).

Interestingly, the Connect behavior correlated more with other methods than any other behavior. It had both high and numerous correlations with learning methods within its Connect category as well as with other behaviors.

Leaders we spoke to backed this up. Christel Londt, Last Mile Capability Manager, said,

started to move away from traditional e-learning because people just don't retain the knowledge. Now we combine e-learning with discussion forums and role-playing—we want people to build a community to share their learning and experiences with one another.

In our roundtable, leaders spoke of particular methods they are using to add a human element, including

• Remote classes with an attached lab or cohort aspect
• Coaching as part of leadership development
• Manager involvement in employee development initiatives
• Communities of practice with a mentoring aspect

This research backs what we’ve known for ages: people learn from people. But we’re seeing new iterations as some of these methods become both more measurable, digitally enabled, and integrated with the work itself. We’re excited to see what comes next.

Real World Thread – A mentoring program to ignite connection

Employees want to learn by connecting with those inside and outside their organization.

Chris Casement, who used to be a Managing Consultant responsible for system-wide learning and training at Sutter Health, saw the desire to learn via connections. In response, his team supported a variety of hybrid programs, including a new-grad mentorship program for incoming nurses at Sutter Health.

Being in the healthcare industry for many years, Chris knows about the impact of high turnover and burnout rates on nurses. Post pandemic, it's even more critical to support new nursing graduates as they transition into a new job and signal to nurses looking for a job that they won’t be alone here, they’ll be developed and supported.

By the end of this mentoring program's first year, the number of mentors increased from 3 to 25. Chris attributed much of the program's success to how it was built, delivered, and enabled by human connections.

Fit the audience

Consider overall preferences in your organization

While some methods can be tied specifically to a stronger learning culture, the appropriateness or fit for many of them depend on the target audience. To this end, L&D functions should consider their audience, its needs, and its preferences as they round out their offerings. Christel Londt, Last Mile Capability Manager said:

We analyze the needs of our target audience, understand their requirements, which helps us determine what will work best for them.

It should also be noted that the methods that fall under the Discover behavior aren’t actually used for learning per se, but rather for finding opportunities for learning. After much debate, we left them blended in with the other methods, as we feel that discovery of development opportunities is key to a strong learning culture.

A few high-level observations about the entire audience—all job levels, locations, business sizes, and industries—before we dive into different sub cuts:

• All but 1 of the top 25 methods tie to all of the behaviors of a strong learning culture. None of the methods in the Top 25 are tied to Experiment behavior. This isn’t surprising, but it is slightly disappointing.
• All the methods in the Discover behavior made this list, except for Automated Recommendations. Employees rely heavily on these methods to identify opportunities for learning.
• Most learning behaviors have an outlier method– one that is relied upon significantly more than the rest.

While this data and these observations can be useful to L&D functions, the data becomes even more interesting when we looked at different cuts.

Because learning cultures are nuanced, we compared reliance on learning methods across different groups. Our data showed some subtle and some not so subtle differences that are worth considering when choosing what to invest in. We explore these subsequently.

Use methods that fit the management level

Not too surprisingly, employees at different leadership levels rely on different learning methods (Figure 11). This was particularly true of the senior leaders who participated in our study.

Many L&D functions (and leadership development functions) intuitively take some of these differences into account. As employees move up the proverbial leadership ladder, some things change. For example,

• Senior leaders likely don’t have the same leadership support that others lower in the organization might (because they may be near the top).
• Senior leaders often have responsibility for strategy and sensing—both of which are often supported better with external resources (professional networks, videos, articles).
• Senior leaders leverage relationships and connection to get work done, and apparently to learn as well. They are more likely to leverage social and professional networks, peer feedback, and customer feedback.

Methods for individual contributors—and to a large extent, managers—tend to be the ones that help them perform in their roles (manager feedback, formal reviews, peer feedback). These employees also rely more on methods that are provided directly by the organization.

Choose methods that fit org size and maturity

This likely goes without saying: organizations should focus on methods appropriate for their size. It might be unreasonable, for example, for a 20-person organization to create all kinds of custom e-learning.

Interestingly, though, the methods employees relied on didn’t differ much between large organizations and small organizations.

In fact, most statistically significant differences could be tied to the maturity of the people processes in the organization. In other words, employees appear to rely on whatever they have access to.

For example, in Figure 12, goal setting is relied on more within midsize and large organizations. This seems consistent with the fact that by the time an organization reaches midsize, goal-setting systems are usually in place. For small organizations, goal setting is not relied on as much because that method is not standardized yet.

This gives us a small hint not just about the methods employees would prefer and rely on, but also the methods that organizations are offering.

Figure 12 clearly shows that large and even midsize organizations are apt to have more systems and processes in place that aid in employee development.

This is interesting on 2 fronts. First, L&D functions in many midsize and large organizations fail to recognize the value of these systems for employee development and may be able to leverage them more. Second, small organizations default to courses for developing their employees (we even made this mistake in our tiny company).

In cases where a full-blown L&D function is not an option, organizations can leverage these other systems, likely already in place, to ensure that employees continue to develop.

Preach what you practice

When we compare how L&D pros learn to how others learn, we see some fairly large differences. We included this nugget just for L&D pros because it highlights a few important points.

First, L&D pros may not be practicing what they preach. Although as a function, they have historically focused on more traditional ways of developing employees, we don’t see any of those methods in their top 10 list. Instead, they are utilizing internet, articles, and professional networks to learn.

From our interviews, we know L&D pros have long been wanting to move away from courses and have started to move in that direction. The knowledge that they aren’t relying on courses much themselves could be a catalyst for change.

Second, we again see the evidence of human connection in this data: 63% of L&D pros significantly rely on professional networks for development, significantly higher than their peers in other functions (by 27 percentage points). They also rely on social networks and peer feedback more than their peers. The takeaway: If it’s important for them, they should be enabling it for others, as well.

Finally, L&D pros have an obvious bent toward learning: of the 49 methods we gathered data on, L&D pros utilize 46 of them at a greater rate than their peers. It’s hardly surprising that they would tend in this direction: it’s their vocation.

So? L&D pros could consider a bias toward learning a potential blind spot, acknowledging that learning may not come as easily or naturally to all employees. Utilizing methods that integrate development into the work itself (like enabling manager and peer feedback) can alleviate some of this bias.

Real World Thread – Choosing the right method for the organization’s size

Organizations should choose learning methods that align to their size and maturity. Larger-sized organizations usually have more institutionalized employee development processes and systems due to the maturity of their organization.

Gina Mouch, a Senior Training Specialist on the Michigan Dining team at the University of Michigan (UofM), understands this concept well. She is one of almost 40,000 employees working at UofM, a university that’s also been around since the 1800s. For employee development in particular, processes for learning and growing staff are not only part of the culture, but they are entrenched into the employee development system.

As a training specialist for over 3 years on the Dining team, Gina relies on standardized processes put in place for employee development. For example, skills assessments are used consistently in the hiring process for Dining staff. It is essential that Gina and her team understand right away where someone needs to upskill and where they are proficient. This helps to drive the development efforts and training content for her staff.

Even now, Gina and her team are looking for ways to further leverage this current process in place to personalize learning for incoming staff as well as start to understand how the focus on skills can add to the value proposition in the hiring process.

Fit your resources

Don't forget low or no cost methods

Like other functions, L&D departments likely undergo a budget approval process toward the end of the fiscal year.

During that process, methods are considered: which ones they will continue to support, which ones they can afford to invest in, and which ones they may have to sunset. Cold hard cash—the cash that shows up on the L&D balance sheet—is a big factor. As one talent leader at a large manufacturing organization said:

Our end goal is to have skill-based career planning, but for budget reasons we've had to postpone that. Now we're trying to use what we have—our LXP—to help people record their goals and skills.

Often, however, L&D functions fail to consider alternatives to expensive methods. Figure 15 classifies the 49 learning methods we have data on into low, medium, and high cost (cost being money out of pocket that shows up on the L&D function’s balance sheet). Each method also shows the percentage of respondents who identified that method as being relied upon significantly.

Interestingly, slightly more than half of the learning methods that employees rely on are low or no cost to the L&D function.

Cost-conscious L&D functions should look for ways to encourage and enable the use of these learning methods, which are less expensive but still meet employees’ needs.

For example, Goal Setting and Manager Feedback have high usage, 46% and 52% respectively, and incur low out-of-pocket costs to the L&D function (and in most cases, the organization as a whole).

L&D can partner with other functions across the organization, to provide guidance, reminders, feedback, and data to encourage employees to utilize these methods.

One other observation: Some of the most expensive learning methods are not the ones employees rely upon the most. Granted, this could be because fewer organizations offer them due to their cost, but it may also indicate investments that could be redeployed into more effective options.

L&D should also take time to understand how valuable these learning methods are to their employees before doubling down on them.

Take into account organizational lift

When considering potential learning methods, one of the factors that is often overlooked (or at least not quantified) is the amount of lift on the organization. We define organizational lift as the effort exerted by the organization (IT, PR, managers, leadership, etc.) to implement and support the employee development method.

Interestingly, L&D pros in organizations with a high learning culture index do pay attention to organizational lift. In fact, 61% of L&D pros in high-learning culture organizations significantly consider implementation when determining learning methods, compared to 40% of L&D pros in other organizations. There are 3 reasons it’s important to consider organizational lift.

Investigation may prompt a different method

Often, once L&D functions understand the organizational lift required by a given method, they reconsider the method altogether. Figure 14 classifies the 49 methods we examined into high, medium, and low lift. It also shows the percentage of respondents who rely on the method significantly.

Considering lift can help L&D functions find fit-to-org solutions that still meet employees’ needs.

Think through whom L&D needs to collaborate with to implement a method

Our roundtable and interviews told us that L&D leaders actively collaborate with their peers in other functions to identify the changes to culture, tech, leadership, and communication necessary for getting a learning method off the ground.

In situations where L&D doesn’t own the method outright, their focus should be on, first, accounting for it in a development method, and second, on helping the owner make it more effective and efficient—through processes, necessary aids or guides, skill development, or knowledge.

What shows up on the balance sheet rarely explains the total cost to the organization

Considering organizational lift helps L&D functions identify all costs associated with a given method. Those costs may appear as time, effort, and resources. For example, IDPs (individual development plans) are used broadly and require a fairly large organizational lift. Collecting data about or from IDPs may require extra effort on the part of L&D. Employees and managers will spend time putting them into place and tracking against them. In some cases, software needs to be implemented, maintained, and integrated.

Most organizations utilize IDPs, but they often don’t consider the full lift it requires to get them done. Organizations understand that they’re valuable and would probably do them anyway. But when L&D functions properly take into account the full scope of the lift, they can identify ways to simplify processes, provide tools, and increase communication to make sure they are more effective.

Real World Thread – Using cost-effective methods for development

L&D teams have always needed to be mindful of cost when choosing learning methods, and this was especially true during the pandemic when profits were uncertain.

For one large organization in New Zealand, the operational demand within the business exploded at the height of the pandemic. They needed additional resources but were under resource constraints. The learning and development team had to quickly and cost-effectively upskill a large part of the organization to support the new demand.

The team decided to create and distribute standard operating procedures, checklists, and job aids to those transitioning to operational roles. These learning methods enabled employees to learn while on the job and fulfilled low-cost criteria. Even the learning and development team had to shift to working as operational staff and saw first-hand the usefulness of the resources they had distributed.

Learning methods that allow workers to learn while doing their jobs have been adopted by other teams across the company as a cost-effective learning strategy.

Wrap up

More than anything, this research has given us empathy for the position of today’s L&D leaders. The decisions they’re facing, coupled with the expectations placed on them, are putting them under a load of pressure.

Choosing the right learning methods may be a small piece of their overall responsibilities, but it’s a balancing act: not all methods work in all situations, and not all methods stay valid in an organization or for a specific function long-term. And the post-pandemic work environment is likely to continue to shift for some time in the future, making learning needs even more fluid.

The good news is that there are choices—lots of them. This body of research has identified 66 methods that contribute to employee development, and provides data on 49 of those methods.

Another piece of good news is that with that data, L&D leaders can be more confident about their choices. No organization needs to consider all the methods. The L&D leader’s role is to consider the universe of methods and choose the constellation that fits best.

And, as a reminder, by fit we mean:

• How well does it fit the business need?
• How well does it fit the culture?
• How well does it fit the audience?
• How well does it fit the available resources?

We strongly encourage you to complement this study with our previous study on learning methods: Next Gen Learning Methods: What to Use, How to Choose, and When to Let Them Go. If you still have questions, please reach out. We love to learn from you.

Note: for Appendices, including study demographics, research methodology, and contributors please download the PDF report.

Small organizations = less than 100 employees. Midsize organizations = 101-1,000 employees. Large organizations = 1,001 employees and above.

 

9 common and systemic obstacles make it harder for some employees to find, access, and participate in development opportunities.

L&D functions can reduce or remove these obstacles to make employee development more equitable and inclusive–ensuring more employees have the skills they (and their organizations) will need in the future.

This infographic summarizes key findings from our research report, Less DEIB Training, More Learning Equity. Click on the image below for an expanded view.

As always, we'd love your feedback at [email protected].

 

Download Report[/button]

Introduction

2021 brought its own set of challenges beyond the continuation of COVID-19: a rise in job resignations, the beginning of high inflation (which is still perniciously present), and the start-stop pattern of planning for hybrid work. Now that we are fully in 2022, we continue to manage those challenges, which are exacerbated by the persistence of COVID and its variants, the war in Ukraine with its far-reaching impacts, and a rise in commodity prices. Leading a business is never easy, but the past few years have been especially volatile.

To address this volatility, leaders have turned to people analytics like never before. When workers weren’t physically present, people analytics provided insights into their needs. When organizations needed to pivot to meet changing customer needs, people analytics helped leaders identify staff with the skills and capabilities to lead those efforts. And when leaders needed to understand why employees were leaving in droves, people analytics provided insights and helped stem the tide. In short, people analytics has been a beacon of rationality and calm in a world that has had little of either during the past few years.

For these reasons, understanding the people analytics technology (PAT) market is more important than ever. These PAT tools are helping millions of leaders make better choices about their people in a time when uncertainty and confusion can cloud decision-making capabilities. Therefore, understanding what’s happening in this market—and what needs to come next—are critical to leaders’ abilities to manage the next phase of volatility and uncertainty yet to come.

This PAT study is our third and builds on the rich knowledge we’ve built up—as well as the feedback our readers have provided to us—over the last few years. As you see in Figure 1, our study relies on 2 vendor surveys, 1 customer survey, and hour-long briefings / demos with most participating vendors.

This study is designed to roll up our insights on the market broadly and provide information on the specific categories within it. For more about specific vendors, check out our People Analytics Tech tool, which vendors can update on a 24/7 basis.

As always, we aim to help you better understand the PAT market and, thus, enable you to make better people decisions with the help of technology. We are grateful to all the vendors and customers who participated in our study—and without whom this report wouldn’t be possible.

After reading this study, if you have further questions, then please reach out to us at [email protected].

Key findings

1. Employee engagement and experience continue to be the biggest vendor category. Of the 58 vendors in our survey, a large percentage (42%) fall into the employee engagement and experience category—making it the biggest vendor area within our PAT study. It was also the dominating category in 2020, albeit with a smaller percentage of vendors (34%).
2. 2021 saw the biggest market growth, along with high levels of investment. Based on our calculations, the PAT market size is $3 billion, with a growth rate of 53% for 2020–2021 and a 5-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 80%. Among the vendors, 47% reported receiving investment funding in 2021.
3. Prices for large customers have gone up. More vendors (34%) are now charging $500,000—$1,000,000 in subscription fees for companies with more than 50,000 employees, as compared with only 23% of vendors in 2020. Conversely, fewer vendors now serve smaller companies than in 2020.
4. Vendors help customers by focusing on attrition and wellbeing. The vast majority of vendors (73%) reported attrition as a primary talent area of focus in 2021—with almost half also focused on wellbeing, an increase of 14% since 2020.
5. Use cases are shifting over time, but vendors might be slow in responding. The shift in use cases comes as people analytics practitioners (PAPs) export data out of vendors’ systems for additional analysis in other tools, while non-PAP users increasingly rely on data for business decisions and adopt it Vendors should focus on non-PAP users to ensure continued usage.
6. Data ethics and privacy are a priority for most vendors. More than 80% of vendors work with their customers to ensure compliance with different legal requirements in different regions and countries. Additionally, more than 70% design guidelines and policies—and align stakeholders around data collection, access, and sharing of insights.
7. Customers are less satisfied than before, but vendors have high expectations for the future. Average customer Net Promoter Scores® (NPS) for vendors fell to 58 in 2022, as compared with 67 in 2021. Yet, 55% of vendors anticipate more than 30% growth for 2022.

Market trends

Employee engagement & experience continue to dominate the solution market

The largest vendor category (at 42%) in our study continues to be the employee engagement / experience / voice category. This is similar to our 2020 study in which 34% of vendors fell into this category—making it the most dominant (see Figure 2).

We didn’t find this surprising for a few reasons:

• Employee engagement / experience has become a top priority for organizations over the past 2 years. As we see in Figure 3, when we asked customers about the top challenges they’re trying to solve for, both employee engagement and experience were among the top 5.
• The employee engagement / experience software market has traditionally been a busy space with growing potential. According to one source, the total investment made into this market in 2021 was more than $200 million and the total addressable market (TAM) for employee engagement solutions in 2022 is $77 billion. As surveying capabilities became a common commodity in the space, many vendors upped their game by adding measurement and analytics capabilities—thus moving into the people analytics space.

The percentage breakdown for the remaining categories remains similar to what we saw in 2020—suggesting that vendors are both continuing to focus on their areas of expertise and, as our data show later in this report, doubling down on differentiating themselves within their submarkets.

2021: The biggest market size yet with significant investment

The PAT market grew at an unprecedented rate in 2021. We calculated the market size at more than $3 billion for 2021 (see Figure 4). Overall, the market grew at the following rates:

• 53% growth rate for 2020—2021
• 80% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) for the past 5 years

For those who read our 2020 research, you may notice that we’ve updated the revenue numbers for 2017—2020. This is because we have several new participants in our study and a number of older participants provided us with updated figures for previous years.

Vendors indicated that growth has been driven by both new and established customers which expanded their user base beyond people analytics practitioners (PAPs).

Growth’s also been partially driven by significant investments in the space. As Figure 5 shows, almost half of the vendors participating in our study received funding in 2021. Additionally, about one-third of vendors reported undergoing a merger, an acquisition, or some type of ownership change. This isn’t surprising as we know record investments ($30.8 billion by some estimates) had been made in work technologies in 2021.

Vendors are charging more & moving away from serving smaller companies

When we compare subscription fees vendors charged in 2021 with those of 2020, we observe (see Figure 6):

• Vendors charge more for very large In 2020, 23% of vendors charged subscription fees in the range of $500,000—$1,000,000 for companies with more than 50,000 employees. In 2021, this increased to 34%.
• Fewer vendors serve small and midsize A larger percentage of vendors no longer serve companies with fewer than 10,000 employees,:
  • 21% of vendors don’t serve small companies with less than 1,000 employees, as compared with 13% in 2020
  • 13% don’t serve midsize companies with 1,000—10,000 employees, as compared with 5% in 2020
  • Only 8% of vendors offer a low subscription fee of less than $50,000, as compared with 23% in 2020
  • 63% of vendors charge a higher ongoing subscription fee of $50,000—$100,000 for midsize companies, as compared with 43% in 2020

While the pandemic made people analytics a must-have for larger companies with enough resources, it’s possible that this also resulted in smaller companies putting their investments in PAT on the backburner since they likely had fewer resources to spare.

“ tool itself is totally effective, there might be 2 challenges: one is the pricing, and the other is consultancy required to effectively translate .”

—Large telecommunications company for an employee network and communications solution

2021 necessitated different approaches

Similar to 2020, vendors quickly responded to customer needs last year. The pandemic, growing resignation rates, and a shift from remote to hybrid work required leaders to seek insights–based on real-time data and from multiple sources–to make the best informed decisions.

Our data reveal that vendors responded to these needs. As with previous years, in 2021 vendors demonstrated a much clearer understanding of their own strengths and the characteristics that set them apart in the market.

As we see in Figure 7, in 2021 vendors differentiated themselves based on their data integration, collection, and engineering capabilities—as well as ease of use—as compared with 2020.

Customers appreciated this. When asked about the strengths of the PAT solution they utilize, customers cited ease of use and data integration capabilities among the top 3 (see Figure 8). Additionally, many customers also listed advanced analytics as a top strength. This is likely because multisource analysis platform solutions—that offer predictive analytics, machine learning (ML), and artificial intelligence (AI)—received a significant number of customer feedback responses.

“Extremely knowledgeable team and focused feature set. Solves a massive integration problem that would be impossible otherwise.”

—Small real estate company for an employee engagement / experience / voice solution

Data ethics & privacy are a priority for most vendors, but only some are focused on education

When it comes to data ethics, security, and privacy, the majority of vendors take the lead in collaborating with their customers. As we see in Figure 9, more than 80% of vendors

comply with the different legal requirements in different regions and countries. (This does, of course, make us wonder what the other 17% are doing, but we will take that up with them separately!) Companies increasingly look to their technology partners to understand how policies differ across regions as well as their potential implications.

In addition, we also see that many vendors are working closely with their customers to design guidelines and policies, and align stakeholders around data collection, access, and sharing of insights.

The one area in which we see only some vendors taking the lead is education. Our data indicate that about half of vendors reported working with their customers to educate the broader organization on data ethics and privacy. This is a bit surprising and seems counterproductive to their other efforts in the area.

Without helping their customers gain an understanding of the complexities and legal challenges surrounding issues of data ethics, vendors may find it hard to align different stakeholders and move ahead with their work. It’s possible that vendors still see this as a job for the legal teams. However, as adoption of these tools scales across organizations, we hope to see more vendors envisioning this as an integral part of their role.

Use cases are shifting over time

Over the course of our conversations, we began to see that how organizations use PAT is changing, depending on the organization’s level of people analytics sophistication and the type(s) of users. Figure 10 is a simplified depiction of how organizations currently use these technologies.

• Phase 1. PAPs use vendor tools for understanding a specific HR area (e.g., engagement), integrating data from other HR data sources (e.g., HRIS), and presenting it in dashboards; senior leaders begin to leverage dashboards.
• Phase 2. PAPs use vendor tools to integrate a broader set of people-related data and some operational data, and provide a continuous stream of data; other leaders increasingly use these more robust dashboards and insights.
• Phase 3. PAPs use vendor tools to export the integrated data, to add it to a data lake or run additional analyses on tools of their choice, such as Tableau and Power BI; leaders broadly adopt the dashboards and other capabilities to answer business questions.

As shown in Figure 10, once PAPs move to Phase 3, the level of usage of the tool declines for them. Importantly, though, this is when the tools can achieve broader scalability via adoption by business, HR, and people leaders—if the tools target those non-PAP audiences. Unfortunately, most don’t.

“Adding users is a bit cumbersome and, depending on the end-user, they may have some difficulty with understanding the complexity if there are a lot of dashboards / reports.”

—Small healthcare company for an employee engagement / experience / voice solution

Overall, customers aren’t as happy as before, but multisource analysis platforms are a bright spot

We saw a dip in customer satisfaction levels for 2021 when compared with 2020. Specifically, we saw a decline in NPS® from 67 in 2020 to 58 in 2021 (see Figure 11). This NPS is based on 21 vendors with 5 or more customer responses.

A few potential reasons for the decline in NPS include:

• Some vendors may not be doing enough to cater to the needs of non-PA leaders, resulting in a poor experience for them (see the first quote below)
• The pandemic made everything urgent, which shortened the required timeline from deployment to insight: this may have been challenging for many vendors (see the second quote below)
• With an increasingly crowded market space and rapid growth, there’s growing competition, along with customers’ high expectations of vendors to provide unique and differentiating capabilities (see the third quote below)

Given that employee engagement / experience / voice and multisource analysis platforms (MSAPs) are the 2 biggest categories in our study, we analyzed those categories specifically to see if their customer NPS scores varied from the average. As you can see in Figure 12, on average, the multisource analysis platforms received an NPS score of 64, while vendors in the employee engagement / experience / voice category received an average NPS of 58, suggesting that customers are happier with MSAPs, as compared with other vendors.

“The concept and idea is good, the analytics is good—but the content and features are not attractive for users.”

—Large technology company for an employee engagement / experience solution

 

“Flexibility is good for what you can build / do in the application. But for strategic workforce planning, it needs to be more robust and aligned to the overall WFP process if it wants to be a successful player in this competitive market.”

—Small healthcare company for an employee engagement / experience / voice solution

 

“They do not deliver the roadmap and are way behind what the competition can offer.”

—Large technology company for an employee engagement / experience solution

Vendors have high expectations for 2022 & made business changes to meet them

Vendors expect to see continued growth in the future. Specifically, for 2022 (see Figure 13):

• All vendors expect growth of at least 6% or more
• More than half of vendors expect growth greater than 31%

Our briefings revealed that vendors expect this growth to be driven by a few factors. Specifically, customers are:

• Using people analytics to implement and manage hybrid work
• Exhibiting a growing emphasis on using data and metrics for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB)
• Preparing for more SEC reporting requirements around human capital metrics

The optimism is perhaps also driven by business changes made by vendors to meet customer needs. Vendors reported that they (see Figure 14):

• Adjusted their products, roadmap, and / or marketing strategy to meet the needs of the changing 2022 environment
• Are offering greater technical and admin support, as well as resources, to customers as part of their subscription
• Changed their sales and pricing models

Our briefings also revealed that vendors are actively engaging with the wider customer community to understand emerging issues, and creatively working to help customers solve them—through better data capabilities, partnerships, and expansion into other talent areas. As customers face more nuanced challenges while navigating the complexities of hybrid work, we expect to see more vendors make such business changes.

Vendor capabilities

Vendors are helping solve current challenges

Vendors are actively working on solving the pressing challenges that organizations face today, such as (see Figure 15):

• Managing employee engagement and experience. Similar to 2020, the top challenge is issues around employee engagement and experience.
• Enabling action through insights. Companies need help identifying insights that can drive action, prioritizing efforts, and finding areas of need. Several vendors reported this as a primary challenge they’re helping to resolve.
• Providing insights across areas. Companies need contextual insights to make better decisions―which means pulling in data from many different sources to get a holistic picture. Vendors are increasingly helping customers gain such insights.
• Designing a data-based HR strategy. Several vendors report helping customers design an HR strategy based on data—linking talent and HR decisions to business outcomes, and identifying objective KPIs to track and measure.
• Advanced workforce planning. The pandemic recast strategic workforce planning as a priority for companies. Additionally, the conversation around skills has accelerated, making workforce planning a top area of focus.

Vendors focused on areas of top priority

In addition to asking vendors about the primary challenges they’re helping to resolve, we also asked about the top areas of talent management on which their solutions are focused.

As we see in Figure 16, most vendors (73%) reported attrition and employee engagement as their primary areas of focus. Interestingly, attrition wasn’t even featured among the top 5 areas of primary focus for 2020. This increased attention isn’t surprising, though, when we consider that conversations around the “Great Resignation” dominated a good part of 2021.

Another unsurprising, but worth acknowledging, finding—almost half of the vendor solutions in our study now focus on employee wellbeing. The number of vendor solutions focusing on this area grew significantly from 34% in 2020 to 48% in 2021. This growth is primarily driven by the increase in vendors that focus on employee engagement and experience.

As companies continued with remote working in 2021, tracking and managing employee wellbeing has become an integral part of the employee experience. In this new era of growing focus on mental and physical health at work, it’s great to see vendors offer capabilities that allow customers to identify, solve for, and facilitate conversations around burnout, collaboration overload, and isolation.

Vendors make it easier to connect data

One of the most positive findings from this year’s study is that vendors are making it easier for customers to pull data from different sources and technologies. As we mentioned earlier, customers also see this as a top strength of PAT solutions.

We expected to see the majority of vendors continue to use traditional methods, such as CSV or flat-file upload, to connect data with a few exceptions. Instead, we were pleasantly surprised to see that a large number of vendors have built API integrations, connectors, or some other designed integrations to pull continuous data from different systems.

As we see in Figure 17, almost 50% of vendors have designed integrations to connect data from HRIS systems. While CSV continues to be the method of choice for vendors integrating sales, CRM, and employee survey data, several vendors have built APIs for cloud-based technologies and learning systems. Particularly interesting, we found that more vendors have built APIs to integrate data from work technologies, such as email, Slack, and MS Office365, than use a flat-file upload. This makes sense, given the structure and continuous nature of the data.

Additionally, almost half of the vendors offer capabilities to integrate existing employee data with other internal and external sources (see Figure 18). As companies look to connect more and more data for better contextual insights, we expect to see these capabilities become tablestakes in the future.

“Insightful data, good user experience, seamless integration with IT.”

—SMB technology company for an employee engagement / experience / voice solution

Vendors may not be responding quickly enough to changes with end-users

The vast majority of vendors (93%) continue to focus on PAPs as their primary end-user (see Figure 19). Additionally, when compared with previous years, there’s a decline in usage frequency by all other groups except people managers.

This growing gap is indicative of what we heard during our vendor briefings and found in our surveys. Vendors now understand the value propositions their solutions can provide for different users—but they’re not doing enough to attract greater usage from non-PAP users.

We heard from numerous vendors about their efforts to design user experiences around a specific set of users and provide them with targeted capabilities. However, given the significant gap in usage between PAPs and all other users, clearly vendors need to do more. For example, vendors should consider:

• Surfacing relevant insights for HR and HRBP users that tie in directly with business priorities—benchmarking those against other business units and making it easy to share those insights more broadly
• Giving tool access to employees, so they can see insights based on data collected about them and compare their own historical performance with that of other teams

For years vendors have said they would expand their end-user focus: We’re still waiting

In our first study in January 2019, we asked vendors the extent to which different users were current users and the extent to which those users would use the solution in 3 years’ time.

Well, now it’s nearly 3 years later. When we compare vendors’ predictions from 2019 about usage rates at the end of 2021 with the actual rates from the end of 2021, it’s a bit dismal (see Figure 20):

• Business & C-suite leaders. The estimate from 3 years ago was 72%; actual usage is 51%
• People managers. The estimate from 3 years ago was 81%; actual usage is 56%
• Employees. The estimate from 3 years ago was 54%; actual usage is 23%

Here’s the really depressing part: All of those actual usage percentages for 2021 are lower than the actual usage numbers given in 2019.

With the near stagnant levels of usage by non-PA leaders and the shifting use cases we discussed earlier, vendors could face a real challenge if they don’t start providing value to non-PA leaders and thereby increase their usage.

C-suite leaders & employees are the most infrequent users of PAT insights

Current tool usage by non-PAPs has been stagnant for the past 3 years. This can be partially explained by the low frequency with which these groups use insights from their people analytics solutions.

In our survey, we asked vendors to tell us about the frequency of different users receiving and using the insights from their solutions, even if they don’t access the solution themselves. As we see in Figure 21, PAPs are at the top, with more than 60% of vendors reporting that PAPs receive insights from their solution on a daily or weekly basis. Given the critical role that people analytics can play for C-suite and business leaders, it’s surprising to see that only one-third of all vendor solutions provide these user groups with continuous insights. Even more depressing is the fact that only 19% of vendor solutions do this for employees.

As we’ve previously highlighted in our research, insights from people analytics can be crucial for driving the CEO’s agenda and making data-driven people decisions. The pandemic has made this all the more urgent and necessary. Similarly, the pandemic has changed the way employees feel about work. In a recent survey, 50% of employees agreed that the pandemic changed the expectations they have of their employers—one of which is their employer provides them with more control over their work. Sharing insights and data with employees is one way companies can do that.

“ has enabled us to transform to a data-driven HR organization. Not only the HR division makes use of it, it enables line managers unfamiliar with both data and HR to understand and incentivize, to look into their people data through a simple and beautiful UI/UX.”

—SMB media and entertainment company for a multisource analysis platform

Vendors need to offer more targeted capabilities for non-HR users

As we indicated earlier, the near constant level of usage by non-PA leaders could be due to the fact that vendors aren’t providing enough value to other user groups. One way vendors can do this is by providing targeted capabilities that help non-PA leaders use the tools for their own specific purposes. This includes providing them with insights that are relevant for them and are also based on their team data, as well as recommending actions suited to their roles and levels. Some vendors are doing this, but more needs to be done.

As we see in Figure 22, when it comes to non-HR users such as people managers, a little more than half of vendors report providing them with recommendations for relevant analyses. While this is certainly more than the number of vendors doing this for PAPs (34%), it’s not enough—people managers need more support and guidance when it comes to analytics.

If the aim of people analytics is to drive decision-making by putting the right insights in the hands of the right people at the right time, then the majority of vendors are falling behind.

For non-technical users such as people managers who need to take action based on data, a tool that helps them to prioritize based on business needs is critical. Similarly, although 70% of vendor solutions provide customized insights to business and C-suite leaders, there’s certainly room for growth.

Understanding the PAT market: Our 2×2 matrix

A crowded marketplace

We continue to use our matrix approach to classifying the PAT market, for which we compare 2 aspects of solutions’ capabilities—usage frequency and data sources. (See Appendix 1 for more details; note that a firm’s placement up and to the right in the matrix is not necessarily better.)

The number of logos on our matrix (see Figure 23) has almost doubled since our first PAT study in 2019. A few things caught our attention this year:

• The majority of new vendor participants have survey capabilities. In particular, we’ve seen a crowding of vendors in the 2 quadrants to the right of the Y axis, indicating a greater focus on more continuous analysis driven by employee listening.
• More vendors are integrating data than before. We’ve observed the addition of vendors above the X axis, meaning a larger number of vendors are:
  • Pulling disparate internal organizational data (e.g., sales, CRM, learning data, etc.) as well as external data (e.g., labor market data)
  • Combining active data collected directly from employees with passive data, such as metadata or data from collaboration tools (e.g., Slack, MS Teams, etc.)

(For information on individual vendors, see our People Analytics Tech vendor tool: https://redthreadresearch.com/pat-tool/)

Understanding the market

While the 2×2 matrix is helpful to understand market changes, it’s not necessarily as helpful as it could be to identify the vendors you need to do certain types of analysis. We have, therefore, for the first time with this research, also grouped vendors according to 4 categories of actions that they help practitioners perform (see Figure 24):

• Plan. Vendors grouped under this category primarily concentrate on helping customers with strategic planning around their current and future workforce, based on internal organizational data and external labor market data. The subcategories within the plan category include:
  • Workforce planning
  • Labor market analysis
• Manage. In this category, vendors focus on helping customers manage their existing talent by connecting different HR processes under one system. Currently, only one subcategory exists within this area:
  • HCM / HRIS
• Discover. These vendors help customers discover and identify insights around their existing talent by connecting disparate data sources from HR, as well as non-HR systems. The subcategories include:
  • Multisource analysis platforms
  • Employee networks and communication
• Engage & learn. Vendors in this category help customers understand their employees—and, thus, engage and develop them by bringing together data collected directly from employees, as well as data from systems in which they work. Subcategories are:
  • Employee engagement / experience / voice
  • Learning analytics

Plan: Workforce planning

As shown in Figure 25, workforce planning technologies integrate data from a range of sources and are used often (depending on the organization’s current talent needs), but not continuously.

Specifically, workforce planning technology can:

• Enable planning and finance professionals to identify the supply and demand of talent, and plan for current and future talent needs
• Integrate internal HR data to identify needs with external labor market data to provide insights on workforce supply
• Provide insights around internal mobility and skills identification

The workforce planning technology market tends to be hot when the talent market is at its extremes—either growing quickly (as we’ve seen for the last 18 months) or contracting rapidly (as we may see soon). It’s during extreme times of change—specifically the need to rapidly acquire talent or to determine which talent must be kept in times of layoffs—that leaders turn to the insights provided by workforce planning.

That said, strategic workforce planning works best when it’s done on a regular basis. It takes consistent effort to understand specific talent markets, plan and execute talent strategies, measure change, and then make adjustments. One-off projects don’t fully leverage the power of strategic workforce planning. As data become easier to integrate, our expectation is that strategic workforce planning will be used more consistently within organizations.

“Increased collaboration and accountability (more people involved), increased availability of insights (faster analysis and planning), increased accuracy of workforce needed and its cost.”

—Small professional services company for a workforce planning solution

Plan: Labor market analysis

As shown in Figure 26, labor market analysis technologies integrate data and are used frequently, especially in hot talent markets. In particular, these technologies:

• Collect and analyze external talent market data (e.g., from the S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, but also from LinkedIn and job boards) to help organizations with their current and future hiring needs
• Help companies understand compensation trends
• Provide insights into the types of talent that competitors are hiring and in which geographies

We’re starting to see a focus on skills data by these vendors—a growing trend that’s being driven by the necessity to understand current skills and plan for needed future skills. As a result, we’re seeing labor market analysis platforms collate skills information for organizations from labor market data, such as job vacancy posts, to identify “in-demand” skills and general trends.

Also, we see more partnerships and integrations between labor market analysis platforms and other vendors, particularly those that integrate many data sources. For example:

• Visier, a multisource analysis platform, partners with EMSI, a labor market analysis vendor, to help customers with job classification and insights on
• Claro (recently acquired by WilsonHCG) feeds benchmarking data via a widget to another multisource analysis platform, eqtble, to provide customers with insights on the labor market next to their talent metrics.

This is a smart move as it not only allows vendors to leverage more data for better contextual insights, but also makes it easy for users to access more information in one place.

Manage: HCM / HRIS

As shown in Figure 27, HCM / HRIS analysis technologies are less uniform in their distribution on the matrix than are other categories due to how they’re used. Specifically, these technologies:

• Provide analytics capabilities embedded as part of their HCM / HRIS solution
• Target HR practitioners as their primary users
• Cover many talent areas, including candidate selection, attrition, performance, DEIB, compensation / total rewards, and succession planning
• Conduct analyses based on data primarily collected by the HCM system with capabilities to integrate additional data

A major benefit for customers that use the people analytics technologies offered by their HCM / HRIS systems is that they’re able to access all their data and analyses within one place. Further, they’re often also able to action decisions made as a result of analyses (i.e., increasing the compensation of certain people, approving promotions, or allocating budget for compensation increases). Also, fewer data security and privacy risks exist in this case as all data resides in one system.

The technologies in Figure 27 are leaders in the HCM space and have, in recent years, added people analytics capabilities as part of their solution offerings. For example:

• ADP offers the ability for customers to integrate external data, as well as employee survey data, and provides insights geared toward front-line managers delivered via their mobile application
• Workday HCM is able to integrate insights from its Workday Skills Cloud for customers, along with analyzing data from its HCM and financial systems

“So far, the solution has reduced manual tracking of many items. It has a very comprehensive amount of data collection for HR.”

—Small government / military organization for an HCM / HRIS solution

Discover: Multisource analysis platforms

As shown in Figure 28, multisource analysis platforms (MSAPs) tend to be used very frequently and integrate data from other systems. In some cases, MSAPs also create that data.

Specifically, these solutions can:

• Integrate and analyze data from HR and other operational systems, and distribute insights at appropriate levels of security throughout the organization
• Provide insights to people analytics and HR leaders—and, increasingly, to business leaders and managers
• Offer data architecture capabilities along with a data warehouse for storage
• Offer insights on the skills and behaviors being exhibited in organizations

By bringing together disparate data, MSAPs can create a single, integrated source of data truth that can then be used to answer critical questions about what’s happening with the workforce. Our research shows that effectively using integrated people analytics data can help impact businesses in terms of millions and sometimes billions of dollars. These significant business outcomes are typically the result of people analytics teams working to help answer strategic business questions, with the support of the CHRO and senior business leaders, who make the final decisions.

Yet, the people analytics team is only so big in any organization. By putting data into the hands of more business leaders, managers, and employees, organizations could enable more people to make better, data-backed decisions about people—and, thus, better enable those organizations (and people!) to thrive. This represents a critical future direction for MSAPs.

“It truly democratizes data in a self-service manner across the enterprise and enables people insights to be accessed at scale.”

—Large healthcare company for a multisource analysis platform

Discover: Employee networks & communications

As shown in Figure 29, vendors in this subcategory are mainly used on a continuous basis and can be both data creators as well as integrators. Specifically, the solutions in this space:

• Collect passive data (from collaboration tools, emails, calendars, ) and / or active data (from surveys, forms, etc.) on employee networks to understand the relationships and collaborative behaviors among them
• Target people managers, PAPs, and employees as users
• Provide insights around DEIB, burnout, collaboration patterns and overload, isolation, and wellbeing
• Offer some of the highest levels of security around data access and privacy due to the nature of data collected

These vendors offer what are commonly referred to as organizational network analysis (ONA) tools. Readers should notice that only one vendor is in the bottom left quadrant of Figure 29, Innovisor. Based on our last briefing with the vendor in 2019, it’s the only one in this subcategory that solely focuses on creating data by collecting information from employees via surveys. All other vendors in this space collect active as well as passive data (data from work technology and collaboration tools), and integrate the 2 data types to provide insights around employee networks.

ONA has become especially useful for organizations looking to understand how employee networks have changed over the last 2 years. We know that connections which are important for collaboration and innovation deteriorated with virtual work environments during the pandemic. We expect to see a continued focus on these tools in a hybrid work world as well.

Engage & learn: Learning analysis

As shown in Figure 30, learning analysis platforms tend to be used with different levels of frequency, depending on the vendor and its customers. These technologies can:

• Provide customers with insights around employee learning, knowledge, and skills
• Collect data from systems and tools that employees use to learn or work, such as multimodal learning resources (e.g., formal, informal, and on-the-job learning), and employee behavior and performance data
• Help admins understand utilization and cost implications of different platforms

The learning analysis category is sparse because these technologies are still a bit of a niche offering. Many learning organizations are not very mature at using analytics, continuing to rely on Kirkpatrick Level 1 “smile” sheets or rudimentary analysis run in Excel. Further, learning analytics aren’t often within the purview of people analytics practitioners, so PAPs haven’t necessarily been a potential buyer of these technologies.

All that said, there’s clearly a need for learning analysis technologies. For example, as we think about the big push toward understanding skills, a critical part of “upskilling” is in understanding which learning experiences actually drive the acquisition of critical skills sets and the timeline on which those are acquired. Further, as organizations are analyzing how learning happens with hybrid work, they’ll need more sophisticated tools to measure effectiveness. Learning analysis platforms have the potential to provide this type of insights.

Engage & learn: Employee engagement / experience / voice

Representing 42% of the vendors in this year’s survey, employee engagement / experience / voice platforms create data and, in some instances, integrate data from other systems (see Figure 31). They tend to be used very frequently by organizations. Specifically, they can:

• Help companies track and manage employee engagement, experience, and voice
• Collect active data from employees via engagement surveys, pulse surveys, and / or feedback forms
• Collect and integrate passive data from collaboration tools (such as Slack, MS Teams, emails, calendars, )
• Integrate HR data with non-HR data, such as information from sales and CRMs

The employee engagement / experience / voice category has experienced some of the most significant growth during the pandemic. It’s also seen some of the greatest market activity in the last few years—with Workday purchasing Peakon, Perceptyx purchasing Waggl and Cultivate, and Visier purchasing Yva.ai.

*Yva was acquired by Visier during the compilation of this report. Although it’s featured under “Engage & Learn” in this report, moving forward it’ll be covered in the “Discover” category.

We expect to see employee engagement / experience / voice vendors continuing to augment their survey data (which measure perceptions) with passive “objective” data (that reflects what’s actually happening). This passive data will almost certainly come from collaboration analytics tools—which use the metadata from work tools such as Slack, MS Teams, emails, and calendars, to understand how people work together. Therefore, we also expect to see some action with other vendors in this space, such as Glickon, Network Perspective, RSquared, Swoop Analytics, and Worklytics.

"They are great to work with and the tool works for what we need it for, but still would like the experience side and the engagement side to talk to each other.”

—Large healthcare company for employee engagement and experience solution

Final thoughts

What’s next for the PAT market?

We foresee a few trends for this tech market in the near future.

• More use of collaboration and digital exhaust. The market is clearly headed in this direction—the recent acquisition of Yva.ai by Visier is an indicator of this. Employers increasingly want to understand how their people work and collaborate, especially in a hybrid world of work. The combination of passive data with active data can help leaders better understand how work gets done.
• “Widgetization” of one technology into another. As more and more vendors partner with each other, they look for ways to make it easy for customers to access the different insights. We’re starting to see this with vendors integrating their tools into other software, similar to embedding a We expect to see more vendors adopt this approach to provide customers with greater contextual insights.
• More partnerships between vendors. We’re already seeing a large number of PAT vendors from different categories partner with each other to provider a broader set of capabilities to their customers. For example:
  • Visier has partnerships in place with Medallia and EMSI
  • Medallia has a partnership with Humanyze

We expect to see such partnerships become more commonplace as organizations adopt hybrid work models, and require new and different types of data to understand and manage their workforce.

Wrapping up

People analytics continues to be a guiding light for many in these turbulent times. Findings from our research show that the PAT market continues to gain momentum and grow stronger. Even though our data revealed lower customer satisfaction scores than we’ve seen in the past, we’re optimistic about the market, and believe in its ability to help lead organizations by separating fact from fiction and myth.

Our vendor briefings and conversations with practitioners further strengthen our belief that the market is moving in the right direction when it comes to solving the toughest challenges faced by its customers, such as:

• Integrating disparate data
• Managing employee wellbeing and attrition
• Understanding skills
• Providing advanced analytics capabilities to answer workforce-related questions

Vendors are highly optimistic about the future and anticipate more growth moving forward. There’s certainly a growing appetite to work with people data within organizations. We look forward to continuing to watch this market and how it evolves in the coming months, and reporting these changes to you next year.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Summary of methodology

This study is a culmination of 5 months of qualitative and quantitative research (see Figure 32).

We kicked off our People Analytics Technology study early in 2022—and did a few things differently this year. For example, vendors were required to complete 2 surveys, Vendor and Market, in order to participate in the study (instead of 1 robust survey as in the past). A couple of reasons for this include:

• Having 2 separate surveys allowed us to capture information and compartmentalize it between market trends and vendor trends more While the majority of findings from the Market survey are included in this report, the information from the Vendor survey are shared in our updated PAT tool.
• Going forward, our Vendor survey will remain live 24/7—allowing vendors to update us about changes to their solutions as and when they happen, without waiting a full year. The Market survey will be conducted annually.

Similar to previous years, we conducted 60-minute live briefings with 40 vendors and reviewed recorded briefings for 3 of them (vendors had the option of providing prerecorded briefing videos if they preferred). The briefings took place from January to April 2022.

In addition, we also conducted a customer survey. Customers were asked to:

• Share the challenges they’re using the solution to solve
• Give feedback on the vendor’s strengths and areas of improvement
• Determine a customer Net Promoter Score® (NPS) for their vendor

Vendors were also asked to share case studies, representative screenshots of their technologies, and logos with us.

Each vendor was required to receive a minimum of 5 customer reviews to be included in our study, with no limit on how many reviews they could receive. We received 5 or more customer reviews for 21 vendors as of the end of March 2022.

A total of 43 vendors completed our surveys. In addition, publicly available data for 15 vendors were included in the dataset, bringing the total n to 58.

2×2 matrix

Once our qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis were complete, we revisited the 2×2 matrix that we introduced in our 2019 report. Our matrix compares 2 aspects of vendors’ capabilities—usage frequency and data sources. This approach allows us to identify some points of differentiation and categorize vendors in different, meaningful segments.

Understanding the X-axis

Starting with the X-axis (see Figure 33), we range from solutions that users tend to use / access on a frequent basis (e.g., quarterly, bimonthly, or monthly) on the left side of the matrix to solutions that are used on a continuous / always-on basis (e.g., biweekly, weekly, or daily) on the right. Please note: We’re specifically thinking about how frequently users tend to utilize the solution, not the frequency with which it’s updated or can give insights. We focused on user frequency because it allows us to understand, from a practitioner’s perspective, how frequently a solution tends to be used— which can help us understand how and by whom it’s used.

For example, the solutions on the left side of the model tend to be used to consistently check in on specific areas of interest. These are leveraged by HR, people analytics, and other business leaders who are looking to make strategic talent decisions.

As we move toward the right, we see solutions that both provide analysis for strategic, organizational decision-making, and inform users about themselves or their team. Many of these solutions’ typical primary users are people analytics or HR—but the vendors have expanded (or are in the process of expanding) their user groups to include senior leaders, managers, and employees.

On the far-right side of the graphic are solutions that both tend to be used more continuously, which lend themselves to more operational (nonstrategic) adjustments, and alert individuals about their own or their team’s behavior. Obviously, when this type of data is pulled together and analyzed longitudinally, it could inform strategic decision-making as well. These vendors tend to focus more on providing greater accessibility to data and sharing insights directly with employees in the form of nudges, individual reports and dashboards, and notifications.

Understanding the Y-axis

On the Y-axis, we classify solutions as follows—from whether vendors collect (via any method) and “create” the data themselves, as shown at the bottom of the graphic, to whether they integrate the data from other sources (e.g., government data, other third-party solutions, or other internal technologies), shown at the top of the graphic. Note that almost every vendor in our study pulls data from the HR information system (HRIS) for basic demographics, hierarchy, location, and other facts, so we don’t “count” integration with HRIS as one of the integrations on this axis.

Figure 34 indicates how the scale changes. At the bottom of the model, we have solutions that “create” data primarily by collecting it directly from employees (i.e., engagement, onboarding, exit surveys, etc.). Moving up the axis, we add in solutions that collect data as well as integrate other data captured on employees, such as wellbeing or performance management data, via their own tools.

Moving up further (closer to the X-axis), we have solutions that still capture data but also integrate a wide range of data sources (e.g., 360-feedback data, financial / business outcome data, work productivity data like email or Slack / MS Teams, and customer experience data).

Finally, toward the top third of the Y-axis, we have solutions that primarily integrate data from others. Unlike those on the bottom, the majority of these solutions don’t offer the capability to collect data. A number of them work in tandem with those lower down on the matrix as part of the bigger people analytics technology ecosystem.

When we put all of this together, we end up with 4 different quadrants with distinct characteristics (see Figure 35):

• Accumulated analytics. Vendors in this quadrant rank high in their ability to provide users with a longitudinal view of data, including insights that enable strategic talent decisions. Data tend to be aggregated and integrated from several sources, including external data. The insights from these vendors can be used by teams on a frequent basis to track specific areas of interest.
• Snapshot analytics. Vendors in this quadrant are data collectors and provide insights that are reviewed for strategic talent decisions on an event-driven basis. These vendors are primarily focused on active data collection, though they may also have some newly introduced data integration capabilities.
• Targeted analytics. This quadrant includes vendors that focus on a specific talent area (e.g., engagement / experience, performance management, wellness). They collect data directly from employees—enabling both quicker deployment and adoption, and access to insights and analysis by multiple teams on a very frequent or continuous basis. Several of them push insights directly to employees to promote faster action.
• Guiding analytics. This quadrant includes vendors that integrate data from several different sources and which are used very frequently to continuously. This combination of elements enables users to frequently access deep and broad information that can guide strategic organizational decisions, operational decisions, and individual’s decisions about themselves or their team. Our mental model for solutions in this section is like a guided missile—they can give insights that can change the trajectory quickly.

It’s important to note that none of these quadrants is superior to the others. In fact, there’s likely a place for all of them in an organization’s people analytics technology ecosystem. However, by putting technologies into these boxes, we can start to think about what that ecosystem might look like and how organizations might begin to build them.

Appendix 2: Vendor demographics

This year, a total of 43 solutions participated in our study. We included publicly available information for an additional 15 vendors, bringing the total to 58. The demographic breakdown of survey participants by year founded, number of employees, and HQ location is shown in Figures 36–38.

Appendix 3: Customer demographics

We received a total of 128 customer responses. The demographic breakdown for the customer respondents by industry, roles, and number of employees is shown in Figures 39–41.

 

L&D's DEIB commitments are growing

As we head further from the catalytic events of summer 2020, it’s heartening to see that organizations are continuing to ramp up efforts on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB). For example, the Association for Talent Development (ATD) reported that 39% of organizations have introduced DEIB programs in the past 2 years. And organizations appear committed to continuing this trend: A study by Traliant and WBR Insights reported that 79% of organizations planned to allocate more budget and / or resources to DEIB in 2022 compared to 2021.

Like their broader organizations, L&D functions are doing more to foster DEIB. LinkedIn Learning’s 2 most recent annual workplace learning reports (2022 and 2021) indicate that L&D functions plan to deploy more DEIB programs in 2022 compared to 2021. In addition, more L&D functions said they own or share responsibility for DEIB efforts in their organizations (Figure 1).

These growing commitments make a lot of sense: L&D functions should be more involved in DEIB efforts. With their broad and cross-functional reach and their ability to influence expectations for the ways people work and interact with one another, L&D functions are uniquely positioned to drive the kind of deep and widespread culture change that DEIB requires. As Emma Birchall, Global Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Ericsson, put it:

You can’t overstate the importance of L&D in DEIB. L&D is the part of the organization that translates the business strategy into signals to individuals and teams about how they execute on the strategy.

Moreover, improving DEIB is (or should be) an enterprise effort. In our experience, DEIB efforts that are seen as 1 group’s job face an uphill battle. DEIB culture change isn’t something that can be achieved if only 1 team, no matter how dedicated and capable, is committed to it.

As L&D functions continue to become more deeply embedded in their organizations’ DEIB efforts, partnering with teams across the organization—especially DEIB teams—will be key. We touch on this idea of partnership throughout this paper.

3 reasons L&D isn’t more effective on improving DEIB (yet)

Despite the growing sense that L&D functions can and should do more to improve the DEIB cultures in their organizations, many are not contributing as effectively as they could. We see 3 reasons for this:

1. Lack of organizational DEIB policy / guidance. Many of the leaders we talked to said they were waiting for an organizational DEIB strategy to be developed before they started incorporating DEIB into employee development experiences.
2. Defaulting to training. In many organizations, it’s assumed that training is all L&D functions do (or should do). This can lead to an over-focus on DEIB training as a strategy for effecting change. There’s a good deal of research indicating that one-off, compliance-focused diversity training alone does not improve DEIB in organizations. The article “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” by F. Dobbin and A. Kalev, gives a good overview of why this may be.
3. L&D’s own blind spots. In the learning survey that we conducted in December 2021, about 75% of L&D respondents were white (Figure 2). This lack of diversity may make it difficult for L&D functions to recognize their own biases. For example, in our survey, 50% of L&D pros who identified as white said their L&D function proactively applies a DEIB lens to learning opportunities. Only 36% of those who did not identify as white agreed with the same statement.

Jeffrey M., Senior Manager for Organizational & Leadership Development at a commercial space company, articulated the challenges associated with a lack of diversity within L&D functions in this way:

If you don’t have like me, or someone Latino or Asian on the team, then there’s a certain lack of diversity of thought that’s built into the development opportunities that are offered.

Fortunately, these challenges aren’t insurmountable. There’s a lot that L&D functions can do—starting now—to more effectively drive DEIB cultures in their organizations. That’s the focus of this study.

Focus on learning equity

In our lit review on DEIB & learning, we identified 4 main areas L&D functions consider when approaching DEIB (Figure 3):

1. Delivering DEIB training. L&D functions deliver training on topics like unconscious bias, with a focus on making the training more effective and “stickier."
2. Making all training more DEIB. L&D functions adapt the language, visuals, physical and virtual spaces, etc., for all trainings to make them more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.
3. Developing employees’ DEIB skills. L&D functions identify the skills that will drive a DEIB culture in their organizations and focus on enabling employees to develop those key skills.
4. Focusing on learning equity. L&D functions take a systemic approach to DEIB in employee development. They make the systems and processes of employee development more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

Our research focused on this 4th approach: learning equity. We chose this focus largely because much has been written on the first 3 approaches, but learning equity is a relatively new concept for organizations. This systemic approach was described by Kate Shaw, Director of Learning at Airbnb:

DEIB has to be not just a piece of what you do, but woven throughout everything you do.

In addition, there’s a correlation between a systemic focus on DEIB and high performance. In our learning survey, 61% of L&D pros in high-performing organizations said their L&D function proactively applies a DEIB lens to employee development, versus 36% of L&D pros in the rest of our dataset.

3 elements of learning equity

Our research indicates that organizations are making development opportunities more diverse, equitable, and inclusive by paying attention to 3 specific aspects of employee development (Figure 4):

• Discovery is how employees find out about development opportunities. Employees use a range of formal and informal methods to get information about the opportunities available to them
• Access is which employees can take advantage of a development opportunity if they want to. Employees’ access to many development opportunities is determined by the organization, often based on an employee’s role, skills, job function, job level, or management status.
• Participation refers to which employees actually participate in the development opportunities they have access to.

L&D functions should assess Discovery, Access, and Participation in their organizations to identify where systems and processes may be inequitable or hamper diversity and inclusivity. With a more nuanced understanding of where the gaps are, they can take more targeted actions to close those gaps and improve learning equity.

Discovery

Discovery is a critical component of learning, as it’s what connects employees to the opportunities they need. Some of the ways employees discover opportunities to learn and grow include:

• Informational emails from the organization
• Newsletters
• Assigned or required training
• Searching / browsing on the internet, intranet, LMS, LXP, or other learning platform
• Automated recommendations from learning systems
• Recommendations from senior leaders, managers, peers, or colleagues

Even when several of these methods are available to employees, some groups of people face consistent and systemic barriers to discovering opportunities.

For example, many L&D functions rely on email to share info about development opportunities. But if a large portion of the workforce doesn’t have an email address or can’t easily check their work email regularly, then defaulting to email isn’t an equitable or inclusive method for Discovery. As one roundtable participant put it:

It's inequitable if L&D sends an email about a development opportunity and 30% of your workforce doesn't use email.

We also know—for example, through research we did on DEIB skills—that information about opportunities often flows through informal channels. Some opportunities, like job rotations or special assignments, are open only to those who know about them.

Interestingly, our research found that high-performing organizations make opportunities more transparent (Figure 5). About 81% of employees in high-performing organizations reported their organizations are transparent about the development opportunities that are available, compared to 61% of employees in other organizations.

L&D functions can make employee development more equitable and inclusive by making all opportunities explicit and transparent to everyone. With this transparency, employees can find and take advantage of the learning that’s right for them.

Making Discovery more equitable and inclusive

This research uncovered a number of challenges associated with Discovery, as well as some effective ways that L&D functions are addressing those challenges.

Challenge 1: Organizations make access to opportunities too narrow

Historically, organizations make development opportunities available only to employees with an immediate or obvious need. In general, this choice applies not just to costly opportunities, but even to the ones that are free or inexpensive.

This narrow focus limits Discovery: Employees are told only about the opportunities that the organization feels they need, rather than having the choice, freedom, and equity to determine their own career path.

Action: Increase transparency about what’s available

To the extent possible, L&D functions can make Discovery more equitable and inclusive by becoming much more transparent about all the development opportunities that are available.

For example, they might:

• Remove limitations based on role, function, seniority, etc. from what’s visible / searchable in the LMS or LXP
• Review any matching or recommendation algorithms to ensure they’re equitable and inclusive
• Communicate directly with employees rather than relying on managers to disseminate information about opportunities
• If there are different newsletters or email distribution lists for different target audiences, publish those lists and allow employees to opt into them
• Implement a talent marketplace to make projects, gigs, rotations, jobs, mentoring opportunities, etc. more explicit and discoverable by anyone in the organization. This doesn’t necessarily mean implementing a new tech tool: It can be done in a low-tech / low-cost way with spreadsheets, or it can be an add-on to existing learning or HR systems

Making opportunities visible to everyone, even if not everyone gets Access to them, at least enables employees to see more options—to envision different paths they might pursue.

Challenge 2: Different groups of employees use different methods to discover opportunities

Part of what drives inequities in Discovery is the simple fact that not everyone accesses information in the same way.

In our research, we saw some of the largest and most consistent differences in Discovery between frontline and not-frontline workers. Frontline employees often experience challenges using some of the most common methods that L&D functions rely on to share information about opportunities (e.g., email).

Action: Tailor Discovery method by employee group

Leaders said they put a lot of effort into understanding how different groups of employees discover info about development opportunities. Two specific ideas for uncovering these differences are:

• Experiment with different channels. Do some A/B testing. Try putting the same message in different communications channels (e.g., email, chat, intranet, etc.). Track open rates and clicks by employee group and by channel to find out who’s accessing the message where. Reach out to the IT team for information from systems the L&D function can’t pull data from.
• Ask for feedback. Many learning leaders said they value their relationships with Employee Resource Group (ERG) leaders and DEIB team members in part because these individuals can provide insight into how certain employee groups find information about development opportunities.

Mike Murphy, Director of Inclusion and Community Programs at CFA Institute, talked about the importance of having data to identify obstacles to Discovery:

Let’s say I've reached the entire 70-person marketing team but only 12 of the huge IT team. You have to have the data and then ask: What was the obstacle? What's keeping me from getting that message to all the places they are?

With a more nuanced understanding of how different groups of employees acquire information about development opportunities, L&D functions can adjust their efforts to utilize the channels that target audiences rely on the most.

Action: Cast a wide communications net

Another approach is for L&D functions to communicate more, and more widely. Many leaders talked about the need to overcommunicate. They suggested:

• Repeat messaging multiple times in multiple channels
• Leverage influencers in the organization—such as ERG leaders—to get the word out about development opportunities
• Don’t assume tech is best: Think broadly about all the communications channels available. Sometimes paper flyers in a break room are most effective

Leaders emphasized the importance of trying multiple ways of sharing info about development opportunities to increase the chances that all employees will find what they need.

Challenge 3: Some employees have more time and ability to find opportunities

To be sure, employees have a responsibility for their own learning—and part of that responsibility is finding relevant development opportunities.

However, it’s also true that employees’ ability to find opportunities can differ based on the strength of their networks, how much time they can spend looking for opportunities on the clock, their position within the organization, their location, their tech capabilities, and more. Some employees are more privileged in their ability to Discover opportunities than others.

Action: Make Discovery easier for all

L&D functions can make Discovery more equitable and inclusive by making it more automatic and embedded in employees’ work. Some specific ideas include:

• Embed information about opportunities into the places employees do their work—such as chat, browsers, intranet homepages, point of sale systems, time clock systems, etc.
• Incorporate information about opportunities into processes that all employees go through, such as performance and development conversations, onboarding, required / compliance training, or open enrollment for benefits. All these events offer touchpoints where employees could potentially share information about their skills and interests and receive information about opportunities.
• Use tech to match employees with opportunities based on their skills, abilities, experiences, and desires. The recommendation engines in many learning tech systems, especially LXPs, are intended to surface relevant opportunities for employees.

One company makes Discovery easier by asking employees, as part of their regular development planning process, to identify and write down the skills they’d like to work on. This information is fed into the LXP so that it can make recommendations based on those skills.

Real-World Thread: Making Discovery a 2-Way Street

Ericsson, a multinational networking and telecommunications company, has over 100,000 employees around the world. Unsurprisingly, these employees have very different development needs and goals.

To address the challenge of enabling such a varied population to discover development opportunities, Ericsson is taking the burden of Discovery off the employee’s shoulders as much as possible.

To do this, the company is implementing a skills-based learning tech ecosystem that will match employees with opportunities based on their skills signature.

CLO Vidya Krishnan described:

The ecosystem should be intelligent enough that you don’t have to find the opportunities. They find you. It’s a 2-way street.

The skills signature will comprehensively and holistically describe not only what an employee can do now, but what they want to do in the future. This will allow matching algorithms to surface highly relevant opportunities to employees of all kinds.

Access

Access to employee development refers to who can take advantage of a development opportunity if they want to. Access is determined by things like:

• Nominations for select programs
• Logins / permissions to view / consume certain courses in an LMS or LXP
• Manager approval to participate in development opportunities
• Technology (access to computer, tablet, mobile, good internet, etc.)
• Technical capability / tech savvy
• Cost (particularly the ability to pay for opportunities that are then reimbursed)
• Time zone
• Language

In the past few years, some organizations have been working to make Access more inclusive. For example, RedThread's research on coaching found they’re offering coaching in various forms to more employees. They’re also opening courses to more participants (which, in many cases, became possible as in-person courses were put online during the pandemic) or removing restrictions on inexpensive or free content.

Valarie Williams-Foy, Organizational & Staff Development Lead at the University of London, described how the university opens Access to all employees:

We were founded on the value of access, as we were the first university in the UK to allow women. We allow anyone to register for any development opportunity.

In high-performing organizations, more respondents agree that employees have equal Access to development opportunities (compared to employees in other organizations). Figure 6 illustrates this difference: In high-performing organizations, 84% of employees agree employees have equal Access, compared to 58% of employees in other organizations.

Of the 3 aspects of learning equity, Access is the one with the biggest power differential between employees and organizations. No matter how hard some employees try, they may not be given Access to certain opportunities. This means it’s especially incumbent on organizations to ensure the Access they do provide is as equitable and inclusive as possible.

Making Access more equitable and inclusive

L&D functions are taking targeted actions to address 3 challenges associated with making Access to development opportunities more equitable and inclusive.

Challenge 1: The way skills / abilities are defined, prioritized, and measured may cause Access to be inequitable

In many organizations, there are assumptions and implicit biases that influence how skills and abilities are defined for various tasks and roles. If these assumptions are not reviewed, identified, and addressed, then the criteria used to measure skills and match employees with opportunities may be inherently inequitable.

Action: Make decisions about Access transparent and equitable

As with many DEIB efforts, simply bringing transparency to decisions can help improve equity around who gets Access to development opportunities. To make decisions more transparent, L&D functions can do the following:

• Establish and publicize standardized criteria for any nomination-based opportunities. Criteria can be based on, for example, employees’ current and needed skills, tenure / experience, and career desires. Leaders in this research noted that it’s important to review nominations to ensure they adhere to the criteria.
• Review and revise any underlying or foundational documentation—for example, skills or competency definitions—that might inform decisions about Access to development. This effort can ensure the inputs to decisions about Access are themselves as unbiased and inclusive as possible. It’s likely that some of this documentation lives outside the L&D function, so partnering with other functions is critical here.
• Consider removing human decisions altogether. It’s possible to implement tools or matching processes that can automatically give employees Access to content and opportunities. For example, some internship, apprenticeship, and rotational schemes simply assign people to teams or projects, rather than managers selecting people for their teams.

We particularly like the idea of removing human decisions where possible. In our experience, automatic matches (rather than manager selection) can add more diversity of thought to a team—since nobody is selected for “fit”—and are often more successful than managers or employees might expect.

Challenge 2: Legacy systems, processes, and assumptions can make Access inequitable

Most organizations have legacy systems and processes like HiPo nomination schemes or manager approvals for many opportunities that might limit Access for certain people.

In some cases, for example, managers are reluctant to approve employees’ requests to participate in development opportunities. Often this reluctance is driven by a belief that their teams won’t be able to meet targets if they spend work time learning—or, if the opportunity is a rotation or gig, a fear of losing the employee down the line. In other cases, employees aren’t given Access to courses because the courses aren’t deemed relevant to their work or their career path.

All these legacy systems create potential biases in Access that prevent certain employees from benefitting from some (often highly valuable) development opportunities.

Action: Track Access metrics and step in when something isn’t right

L&D functions can make some of these legacy systems more equitable and inclusive largely by shining a spotlight on who has Access to what, so that inequities become more obvious. To do this, L&D functions can track Access metrics, identify gaps, and step in when something doesn’t look right.

For example, one leader shared that for a HiPo program he ran, he noticed only 9% of nominees were women—when women made up 38% of the target audience for the program. He used this data to get buy-in to rewrite the nomination criteria for the program. The number of women nominees rose shortly thereafter.

Other leaders shared similar stories and emphasized that they couldn’t have intervened or made changes without data. They track access metrics such as:

• Nomination numbers for select programs / opportunities
• Amount spent per employee on development
• Number of employees with access to mentor or sponsorship programs
• Number of employees who have regular career conversations with their managers

These metrics can be sliced and analyzed by categories like frontline status, gender identity, age, seniority, job level, or race / ethnicity (in some countries). Which data cuts are most important will depend on which employee groups are underrepresented in your organization.

Challenge 3: Logistical and operational barriers can make Access inequitable

Logistical and operational factors like timing, language, tech, and cost can all be barriers to Access. For some employees, particularly those on the front line, it can be difficult to Access development opportunities while on the clock. For others, being in the “wrong” time zone or speaking the “wrong” language might prevent them from accessing development opportunities.

When it comes to online and remote learning, tech access is a big issue for some organizations. Some employees may not have the right device(s) or a strong enough internet connection. Some may not be able to afford better internet if they’re working from home, for example.

And affordability is an issue not only for employees but for companies: It can be expensive for organizations to open up access to more employees.

Action: Collaborate to identify and address common barriers to Access

L&D functions should identify and eliminate as many common barriers to Access as possible. In many cases, this means working with leadership, IT, HR, and other teams to make changes.

To address the time challenge, one approach is to try formats or methods that do not require employees to step away from their work for extended periods of time. Some leaders are experimenting with microlearning, for example, so that employees can access development in short snippets. To address some of the other challenges, L&D functions might:

• Provide devices to all employees
• Offer learning stipends and / or prepay for outside opportunities rather than providing reimbursement
• Offer learning methods that allow for flexible schedules
• Allow local teams to tailor or translate language
• Offer events at times that work globally, or multiple access times
• Open opportunities that have little or no marginal cost per employee to all employees, whether or not the opportunities are directly related to their role

These logistical and operational barriers were cited again and again in the course of this research—yet they may not be entirely within the L&D function’s control to fix. In these cases, having strong relationships with other functions can help pay for and provision some of the solutions suggested here.

Real-World Thread: Tracking Access metrics to improve learning equity

South Africa is 1 of a handful of countries with strict reporting requirements on companies’ training spend. Organizations are required to track and report how much they spend to train different groups of employees. These reports prompt companies to show that they have provided equal training opportunities to all employees.

At one major bank in South Africa, the head of learning solutions points out that this reporting isn’t just a check-the-box exercise. It’s the right thing to do, and it’s good for business because it helps increase the quality of all employees at the bank.

The bank tracks Access metrics like how much money is invested in training people from disadvantaged groups. Reports are broken down by job grade, race, gender, and disability status. The reporting requirements have been tightened in recent years to prevent companies from favoring training spend on certain job levels. These tighter requirements complicate the reporting, but ensure a fair distribution of investment across employees at all levels in the organization. Now, reporting targets are set by job grade and job band to drive equity in investment.

Each year, the company spends a percentage of payroll to develop a certain band of employees, with the goal of developing a strong, diverse pipeline of employees moving into job bands and job functions that currently have less representation.

Participation

Participation refers to which and how many employees actually take advantage of the development opportunities available to them. Our past research found that employees participate in employee development by doing 6 things:

• Planning their development and careers
• Discovering opportunities (as discussed above)
• Consuming learning content and experiences
• Experimenting with knowledge and skills
• Connecting with others for learning
• Performing better on the job, and learning while doing it

Participation in development opportunities encompasses all 6 of these behaviors, and there’s a wide variety of methods that employees can use to engage in them. The research we did on learning methods found 66 learning methods, and we’re sure there are more.

High-performing organizations enable more Participation in employee development (Figure 7). For this discussion of learning equity, we broke down our survey respondents’ answers by age, frontline status, gender identity, and race / ethnicity. Across all groups, more employees in high-performing organizations reported their organizations enable them to participate in these 6 employee development behaviors, compared to employees in other organizations. As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Still, we know that Participation in most organizations isn’t as equitable or inclusive as it could be: Most organizations have groups of employees who aren’t participating in development as much as they could or should. The challenge for L&D functions is to find those groups of people, figure out why they’re not participating, and fix what’s causing those inequities.

Making Participation more equitable and inclusive

We discovered 3 primary challenges associated with Participation, as well as targeted actions that L&D functions can take to address those challenges.

Challenge 1: L&D functions need better insights on Participation

To make Participation as diverse, equitable, and inclusive as possible, L&D functions must understand where the inequities in Participation in their organizations are and what’s driving those differences.

Data is critical to gaining that understanding with some level of detail and nuance. Without data, actions might be well-intentioned and seem reasonable, but potentially lead in the wrong direction.

Action: Analyze Participation data to identify and address inequities

Data about Participation tends to be more readily available than data about Discovery or Access. Most L&D functions track Participation rates: “butts in seats” is one of L&D’s most well-established metrics. If demographic data is available, L&D functions can use it to slice and dice their Participation data to see where there are differences, and to understand who’s taking advantage of which opportunities.

L&D functions can analyze available data to answer questions about Participation such as:

• How do Participation rates vary by gender, ethnicity, age, frontline status, or other demographics that matter to our organization?
• What differences in Participation show up if we look at various intersectional identities?
• Are different groups of employees participating in different types of opportunities—for example, required training vs. stretch or rotational assignments? Who and why?
• Are some groups of employees spending more time on development opportunities than others? Who and why?
• Do some groups of employees participate in a greater range of development opportunities than others? Who and why?
• Do some groups of employees have stronger connections to more senior or more influential people in the organization who can help them grow? Who and why?

Tania Tiippana, an OD consultant working with a multinational manufacturing company, emphasized the importance of gathering data from all employee groups:

I asked, “Do we have data about how things are working in South Korea? In Poland?” We didn’t. So we did a global needs analysis and tracked participation by gender, location, and so on to find the gaps.

Although the answers to the above questions won’t make Participation more diverse, equitable, and inclusive by themselves, they can help L&D functions prioritize and decide where to take action.

Challenge 2: Messaging about opportunities may exclude certain employee groups

The language and visuals used to market development opportunities matter a lot—they’re often what makes the first impression about an opportunity to an employee. If employees perceive that an opportunity is not inclusive of “people like me,” they may choose not to participate.

Many L&D functions are discovering the various ways their organization’s messaging about opportunities isn’t inclusive, from gendered language to images that only show people of particular ages or ethnicities.

Action: Ensure messaging is DEIB

L&D functions appreciate that messaging should be inclusive and applicable to a broad base of employees. We heard of many efforts in L&D functions to broaden the language they used to describe opportunities, particularly ensuring that the language and visuals represented their organization’s employee population. Specifically, L&D functions were:

• Including broad representation of different genders, ages, races / ethnicities, and worker types (manufacturing, office, retail, etc.) in visuals and language, aligned with the demographics of their workforce
• Ensuring language does not exclude certain groups of employees—for example, using highly competitive language or analogies that only certain people understand (such as sports metaphors)
• Implementing processes to regularly review all messaging through a DEIB lens

A number of leaders recommended partnering with the DEIB team to assess how inclusive the messaging for development opportunities is. Many DEIB teams offer fairness audits. They can review messaging and outreach strategies, and make recommendations for improvements.

Challenge 3: Some opportunities aren’t designed inclusively

Sometimes an opportunity might be inequitable or exclusive because it’s not well-designed for certain groups of people. Participant demographics can also be a source of exclusion. If there are no members of underrepresented groups participating in the opportunity—or in the roles an employee might attain through a particular development path—employees considering the opportunity might be less likely to start down that path.

Action: Incorporate diverse perspectives when developing opportunities

One of our favorite insights from this research is that no matter how much we think through something, it's likely to be biased if only a few people are doing the thinking.

Leaders advised doing one simple thing to reduce this bias: Bring more people into the process. There are 2 main ways to do this:

1. Add perspectives to the L&D function itself. There are lots of ways to bring in new perspectives: permanent hires, special projects, rotations, gigs, internships, apprenticeships, and more. One leader advocated for recruiting people from underrepresented groups to L&D early in their careers, so that there’s a pipeline of more diverse L&D thinkers and leaders into the future.
2. Ask for feedback. Many, many leaders talked about how they solicit feedback from lots of people in their organizations. They ask for input from ERG leaders, the DEIB team, and focus groups / interviews of employees who are representative of the organization’s employee population.

Based on these diverse perspectives, L&D functions can make changes to things like the format of an opportunity, who participates, or even what opportunities are offered.

Action: Get intentional about demographics

Demographics matter for Participation. But they matter in different ways for different opportunities. Sometimes it makes sense to intentionally build diversity into the participant pool of an opportunity, so that no matter who looks at the opportunity they see someone participating who looks like them. Other times there’s a need to craft development opportunities solely for members of specific underrepresented groups.

The common thread is intentionality. Leaving demographics to chance is where bias and inequity can creep in. This intentionality can also help ensure there is a pipeline of employees from underrepresented groups ready to move into more senior / more visible positions, so that employees coming after can picture themselves on similar paths.

Real-World Thread: Building diverse cohorts

A multinational aerospace corporation has an L&D function that is strongly committed to ensuring diversity within the cohorts that participate in their leadership development programs. There are 3 levels of programs for aspiring, new, and current leaders.

The L&D function believes that if everyone in a cohort looks and thinks the same way, they’re going to get less value from the program. So they scrutinize the demographics of each cohort and ensure each one has diverse representation.

Kevin B., a former DEIB leader at this company and participant in the new leader program, believes that the value he got from the program derived largely from his interactions with other participants. He reflected:

If you have a homogeneous, cookie cutter class, you’re not going to learn a lot. In my cohort, I made tremendous friends with a couple of guys from the UK. I even had someone from the Saudi royal family in my class, which was amazing.

Kevin noted that in some cases it can be helpful to do the opposite—to bring together members from 1 underrepresented group. But in general and for most topics, he believes diverse cohorts learn better from one another.

Wrapping Up

We’ve come away from this research convinced that improving learning equity is one of the best ways L&D functions can contribute to the DEIB efforts in their organizations. Figure 8 summarizes the challenges associated with the 3 elements of learning equity (Discovery, Access, and Participation) and some actions L&D functions can take to address each challenge.

Looking forward, we expect L&D functions will continue to make strides to improve DEIB in their organizations—and we think those strides should be focused on learning equity. We hope the ideas in this paper have given L&D functions some concrete ideas about the steps they can take to move their organizations toward employee development that is more diverse, equitable, and inclusive for all.

Note: for Appendices, including study demographics, research methodology, and contributors please download the PDF report.

Summary of findings

1. Employee engagement and experience vendors continue to dominate the PAT market. A full 42% of vendors in this year’s people analytics technology (PAT) study are in the employee engagement and experience category. In 2020, this percentage was 34%—but even then, it was still the dominant category.
2. The PAT market size and level of are at their highest levels to date. The market grew at an unprecedented rate, with a 53% growth rate between 2020 and 2021, and an 80% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) for the past 5 years. We estimate the overall market value at just over $3 billion. Almost half (47%) of vendors reported receiving investment in 2021, while 30% were acquired, bought another company, or experienced an ownership change.
3. Vendors differentiate themselves as new challenges arise. Vendors helped customers meet their data challenges in 2021 by focusing on data engineering, collection, and integration capabilities. This contrasts with 2020, when most vendors differentiated themselves on the methodology, expertise, and science they brought to the table.
4. Use cases are shifting, but vendors are likely not responding fast enough. In 2021, vendors continued to focus on serving people analytics practitioners (PAPs). However, our analysis reveals that, as customers’ level of data sophistication increases, the value of PAT is often in the scaling of insights outside the people analytics team. Vendors need to provide capabilities for non-PA practitioners or risk losing the ability to expand their offerings. Today, only 56% of vendors report people managers as current end users, 51% report business and C-suite leaders, and only 23% say the same for employees.
5. Customers are less satisfied than before, but that might change in the future. The average Net Promoter Score® score (based on customer responses) dropped to 58 in 2021, as compared with 67 in 2020. The good news is that vendors are actively responding to customers’ needs in 2022. Fifty-seven percent of vendors said that they built new solutions or products for customers, or adjusted their product roadmap. More than 30% of vendors now offer greater technical and administrative support and resources to meet customer needs.

Introduction

2021 brought its own set of challenges beyond the continuation of COVID-19: a rise in job resignations, the beginning of high inflation (which is still perniciously present), and the start-stop pattern of planning for hybrid work. Now that we are fully in 2022, we continue to manage those challenges, which are exacerbated by the persistence of COVID and its variants, the war in Ukraine with its far- reaching impacts, and a rise in commodity prices. Leading a business is never easy, but the past few years have been especially volatile.

To address this volatility, leaders have turned to people analytics like never before. When workers were’t physically present, people analytics provided insights into their needs. When organizations needed to pivot to meet changing customer needs, people analytics helped leaders identify staff with the skills and capabilities to lead those efforts. And when leaders needed to understand why employees were leaving in droves, people analytics provided insights and helped stem the tide. In short, people analytics has been a beacon of rationality and calm in a world that had little of either during the past few years.

For these reasons, understanding the people analytics technology (PAT) market is more important than ever. These tools are helping millions of leaders make better decisions about their people in a time when uncertainty and confusion can cloud decision-making capabilities. Therefore, understanding what’s happening in this market—and what needs to come next—isn’t just interesting, but critical to leaders’ ability to manage the next phase of volatility and uncertainty.

This executive summary contains some of our main findings from this year’s study. We share more details in our People Analytics Technology Report that RedThread members can access on our website. We also plan to launch an updated PAT tool on our website with much content available for both members and nonmembers.

We hope the findings in this executive summary provide you with better clarity about the evolving market, its areas of focus, and how your organization can solve your people-related challenges.

Thank you to all the vendors and customers who participated in this year’s study. Your support is critical to us being able to do this work. Thank you, also, to our research members; without your support, our work would not be possible.

Employee engagement & experience continue to dominate the solution market

This year’s study is composed of 58 solution vendors, although we know there are more than 125 vendors in this market. Within our study, the largest vendor category (42%) serves the employee engagement, experience, and voice space. This was also the dominant category in 2020 as well, although it then had just 34% of vendors (see Figure 1).

The dominance of this category wasn’t surprising for a few reasons:

• Employee engagement and experience was a critical area of concern for companies during the pandemic, giving vendors an even greater impetus to focus on it.
• The employee engagement and experience software market has traditionally been a crowded space and many vendors (primarily survey providers) have quickly added analytics capabilities recently, thus moving into the people analytics space.

The percentage breakdown for the remaining categories was similar to what we saw in 2020, suggesting that vendors continued to focus on their areas of expertise and, as our data shows later in this report, doubled down on differentiating themselves within their submarkets.

2021: Biggest market size yet

The PAT market grew at an unprecedented rate in 2021.* We calculated market size at just over $3 billion for 2021 (see Figure 2). Overall, the market grew at the following rates:

• 53% growth rate for 2020-2021
• 80% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) for the past 5 years

Vendors indicated that growth was driven by both new and established customers which had expanded their user base beyond people analytics practitioners (PAPs).

These growth sources align with other research that found organizations requested talent metrics to a greater extent than before the pandemic and planned to increase the size of their people analytics teams in 2021.

For those who read our 2020 research, you may notice that we’ve updated the revenue numbers for 2017-2020. This is because we have several new participants in our study and a number of older participants provided us with updated figures for previous years.

2021: A busy year with significant investment

Market growth was at least partially driven by significant investments in the space. As Figure 4 shows, almost half of the vendors that participated in our study received funding in 2021. About one-third of the vendors reported undergoing a merger, an acquisition, or some type of ownership change. Our findings align with the trends in the overall HR tech market, which saw a surge in investments during 2021.

In addition, vendors expect to see continued growth in this area well into the future. Specifically, for 2022 (see Figure 5):

• All vendors expect growth of at least 6% or more
• More than half of vendors expect growth greater than 31%

Our briefings revealed that vendors expect this growth to be driven by a few factors. Specifically, customers are:

• Using people analytics to implement and manage hybrid work
• Exhibiting a growing emphasis on using data and metrics for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB)
• Preparing for more SEC reporting requirements around human capital metrics

A crowded marketplace

We continue to use our matrix approach to classifying the PAT market, for which we compare 2 aspects of solutions’ capabilities: usage frequency and data sources (see Appendix 1 for more details; note that a firm’s placement up and to the right in the matrix is not necessarily better).

The number of logos on our matrix (see Figure 6) has almost doubled since our first PAT study in 2019. A few things caught our attention this year:

• The majority of new vendor participants have surveying capabilities. We’ve particularly seen a crowding of vendors in the 2 quadrants to the right of the Y axis, indicating a greater focus on more continuous analysis driven by employee listening.
• More vendors are integrating data than before. We’ve observed the addition of vendors above the X axis, meaning a larger number of vendors are:
  • Pulling disparate internal organizational data (e.g., sales, CRM, learning data, etc.) as well as external data (e.g., labor market data)
  • Combining active data collected directly from employees with passive data, such as metadata or data from collaboration tools (Slack, Teams, etc.)

2021 necessitated different approaches

Similar to 2020, vendors were quick to respond to customer needs last year. The pandemic, growing resignation rates, and a shift from remote to hybrid work meant that leaders needed insights based on real-time data from multiple sources to make informed decisions.

Our data reveal that vendors responded to these needs. Compared to previous years, in 2021, vendors had a much clearer understanding of their strengths and what set them apart from other vendors.

As we see in Figure 7, in 2020 vendors focused on differentiating themselves based on their domain expertise and methodology. In 2021, they differentiated themselves based on their data integration, collection, and engineering capabilities, while keeping the solutions flexible and easy to use.

However, while these capabilities met a critical need of the primary users of the solution, they fell short of meeting the needs of other users, as our data show on the next few pages.

Use cases are shifting over time

Over the course of our conversations, it became clear that there is a change in how organizations are using people analytics technologies, depending on the organization’s PA sophistication and the type of user. Figure 8 is a simplified depiction of how many organizations are using these technologies:

• Phase 1: PAPs use vendor tools for understanding a specific HR area (e.g., engagement), integrating data from other HR data sources (e.g., HRIS), and presenting it in dashboards; senior leaders begin to leverage dashboards.
• Phase 2: PAPs use vendor tools to integrate a broader set of people-related data and some operational data, and provide a continuous stream of data; other leaders increasingly use these more robust dashboards and insights.
• Phase 3: PAPs use vendor tools to export the integrated data, and add it to a data lake or to run additional analysis on the tools of their choice, such as Tableau and Power BI; leaders broadly adopt the dashboards and other capabilities to answer business questions.

As shown in Figure 8, once PAPs move to Phase 3, the level of usage of the tool declines for them. Importantly, though, this is when the tools can achieve broader scalability via adoption by business, HR, and people leaders—if the tools target those non-PAP audiences. Unfortunately, most do not.

Vendors may not be responding quickly enough to changes with end users

The vast majority of vendors (93%) continue to focus on PAPs as their primary end user (see Figure 9). Additionally, when compared with previous years, there’s a decline in usage frequency by all other groups except people managers.

This growing gap is indicative of what we heard during our vendor briefings and found in our surveys. Vendors now understand the value propositions their solutions can provide for different users—but they’re not doing enough to attract greater usage from non-PAP users.

We heard from numerous vendors about their efforts to design user experiences around a specific set of users and provide them with targeted capabilities. However, given the significant gap in usage between PAPs and all other users, clearly vendors need to do more. For example, vendors should consider:

• Surfacing relevant insights for HR and HRBP users that tie in directly with business priorities, benchmarking those against other business units and making it easy to share them more broadly
• Giving tool access to employees so they can see insights based on data collected about them and compare their own historical performance with that of other teams

For years vendors have said they would expand their end-user focus: We’re still waiting

In our first study in January 2019, we asked vendors the extent to which different users were current users and the extent to which those users would use the solution in 3 years’ time.

Well, it’s nearly 3 years later. When we compare vendors’ predictions from 2019 about usage rates at the end of 2021 with the actual rates from the end of 2021, it’s a bit dismal (Figure 10):

• Business & C-suite leaders: The estimate from 3 years ago was 72%; actual usage is 51%.
• People managers: The estimate from 3 years ago was 81%; actual usage is 56%.
• Employees: The estimate from 3 years ago was 54%; actual usage is 23%.

Here’s the really depressing part: All of those actual usage percentages for 2021 are lower than the actual usage numbers given in 2019.

With the near stagnant levels of usage by non-PA leaders and the shifting use cases we discussed earlier, vendors could face a real challenge if they don’t start providing value to non- PA leaders and thereby increase their usage.

Customers are not as happy as before

We saw a dip in customer satisfaction levels for 2021 when compared with 2020. Specifically, we saw a decline in NPS from 67 in 2020 to 58 for 2021 (see Figure 11). This NPS is based on the 21 vendors with 5 or more customer responses.

A few potential reasons for the decline in NPS include:

• Some vendors may not be doing enough to cater to the needs of non-PA leaders, resulting in a poor experience for them

“The concept and idea is good, the analytics is good—but the content and features are not attractive for users.”
—Large technology company for an employee solution experience / engagement solution

• The pandemic made everything urgent, which means customers needed solutions to deliver on their promises and provide updates in a much shorter This may have been challenging for many vendors

“Flexibility is good for what you can build / do in the application, but for Strategic Workforce Planning it needs to be more robust and aligned to the overall WFP process if it wants to be a successful player in this competitive market.”
—Midsize transportation company for a workforce planning solution

• With an increasingly crowded market space and rapid growth, there’s growing competition, along with customers’ high expectations of vendors to provide unique and differentiating capabilities

“They do not deliver the roadmap and are way behind what the competition can offer.”
—Large technology company for an employee solution experience / engagement solution

Vendors made business changes for 2022

Even though customer satisfaction levels were lower in 2021, we expect to see improvement in the future as vendors make investments to better meet customers’ needs in 2022.

Specifically, our findings reveal that in 2022 vendors (Figure 12):

• Adjusted their products, roadmap, and / or marketing strategy to meet the needs of the changing 2022 environment
• Offered greater technical and admin support as well as resources to customers as part of their subscription
• Changed their sales and pricing models

This is good news. Vendors are applying a multipronged approach to making business changes. Our briefings also revealed that vendors are actively engaging with the wider customer community to understand emerging issues, and are working creatively to help customers solve them through better data capabilities, partnerships, and expansion into other talent areas. As customers face more nuanced challenges while navigating the complexities of hybrid work, we expect to see more vendors make such in-house business changes.

Conclusion

Events of the past 2 years have made people analytics vital for organizations. Leaders relied on people analytics for various efforts, including:

• Improving employee safety, health, and experience as they worked remotely during the pandemic
• Planning current and future workforce, and understanding attrition from large numbers of resignations
• Planning for hybrid work

This is reflected in how this market is thriving, with its impressive growth rate and the high number of investments made in vendors during 2021.

That’s not to say the market doesn’t face challenges. The crowded landscape means vendors will find it increasingly difficult to set themselves apart from the competition in the future. Additionally, as we saw, customers are less satisfied when compared with our 2020 findings.

As we move ahead, vendors will have to become much more distinct in their value propositions, especially for non-PA end users. If they don’t, then vendors may be unable to grow at the rates they (and their investors) are hoping for. The challenge for 2022 is to bring the right insights at the right time to the right audience. We look forward to seeing how vendors fare during the next year.

Appendix 1: Methodology

This study is a culmination of 5 months of qualitative and quantitative research. We kicked off our People Analytics Technology study early in 2022 by launching our Vendor and Market surveys. In order to

participate in our study, vendors had to complete both surveys. They were also asked to share case studies, representative screen shots of their technology, and logos, and complete a 60-minute briefing and demo with us. The vendors had the option of providing prerecorded briefing videos if they preferred. The briefings took place from January to April 2022. A total of 43 vendors completed our surveys. In addition, publicly available data for 15 vendors were included in the dataset, bringing the total n to 58.

On the practitioner side, we launched a short People Analytics Technology Customer Poll in January 2022. Customers were asked to share the challenges they’re using the solution to solve, give feedback on the vendor’s strengths and areas of improvement, and provide a Net Promoter Score and any other feedback. Each vendor was required to receive a minimum of 5 customer reviews to have customer information be included in our study; there was no limit on how many reviews they could receive. We received 5 or more customer reviews for 21 vendors as of the end of March 2022.

2×2 matrix

Once our qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis were complete, we revisited the 2×2 matrix that we introduced in our 2019 report. Our matrix compares 2 aspects of vendors’ capabilities: usage frequency and data sources. This approach allows us to identify some points of differentiation and categorize vendors in different, meaningful segments.

Understanding the X-axis

Starting with the X-axis, (see Figure 13), we range from solutions that users tend to use / access on a frequent basis (e.g., quarterly, monthly, or bimonthly) on the left side of the matrix to solutions that are used on a continuous / always-on basis (e.g., weekly, biweekly, or daily) on the right. Please note: We’re specifically thinking about how frequently users tend to utilize the solution, not the frequency with which it’s updated or can give insights. We focused on user frequency because it allows us to understand, from a practitioner’s perspective, how frequently a solution tends to be used—which can help us understand how and by whom it’s used.

For example, the solutions on the left side of the model tend to be used to consistently check in on specific areas of interest. These are leveraged by HR, people analytics, and other business leaders looking to make strategic talent decisions.

As we move to the right, we see solutions that are trying to both provide analysis for strategic, organizational decision-making, and inform users about themselves or their team. Many of these solutions’ typical primary users are people analytics or HR, but the vendors have expanded or are in the process of expanding their users to senior leaders, managers, and employees.

On the far-right side of the graphic are solutions that tend to be used more continuously, which lend themselves to more operational (nonstrategic) adjustments, and alert individuals about their own or their team’s behavior. Obviously, when this type of data is pulled together and analyzed longitudinally, it could inform strategic decision-making as well. These vendors tend to focus more on providing greater accessibility to data and sharing insights directly with employees in the form of nudges, individual reports and dashboards, and notifications.

Understanding the Y-axis

On the Y-axis, we classify solutions as follows—from whether vendors collect (via any method) and “create” the data themselves, as shown at the bottom of the graphic, to whether they integrate the data from other sources (e.g., government data, other third-party solutions, or other internal technologies), shown at the top of the graphic. Note that almost every vendor in our study pulls data from the HR information system (HRIS) for basic demographics, hierarchy, location, and other facts, so we don’t “count” integration with HRIS as one of the integrations on this axis.

Figure 14 indicates how the scale changes. At the bottom of the model, we have solutions that “create” data primarily by collecting it directly from employees (i.e., engagement, onboarding, or exit surveys, etc.). Moving up the axis, we add in solutions that collect data as well as integrate other data they capture on employees, such as wellbeing or performance management data, via their own tools. Moving up further (closer to the X-axis), we have solutions that still capture data but also integrate a wide range of data sources (e.g., 360-feedback data, financial / business outcome data, work productivity data like email or Slack / Microsoft Teams, and customer experience data).

Finally, toward the top third of the Y-axis, we have solutions that primarily integrate data from others. Unlike those on the bottom, the majority of these solutions don’t offer the capability to collect data. A number of them work in tandem with those lower down on the matrix as part of the bigger people analytics technology ecosystem.

When we put all of this together, we end up with 4 different quadrants with distinct characteristics.

• Accumulated Vendors in this quadrant rank high in their ability to provide users with a longitudinal view of data, with insights that enable strategic talent decisions. Data tend to be aggregated and integrated from several sources, including external data. The insights from these vendors can be used by teams on a frequent basis to track specific areas of interest.

• Snapshot Vendors in this quadrant are data collectors and provide insights that are reviewed for strategic talent decisions on an event-driven basis. These vendors are primarily focused on active data collection, though they may also have some newly introduced data integration capabilities.
• Targeted This quadrant includes vendors that focus on a specific talent area (e.g., engagement /experience, performance management, wellness). They collect data directly from employees, which enables both quicker deployment and adoption, and access to insights and analysis by multiple teams on a very frequent or continuous basis. Several of them push insights directly to employees to promote faster action.
• Guiding analytics. This quadrant includes vendors that integrate data from several different sources and are used very frequently to continuously. The combination of elements means that users can frequently access deep and broad information which can guide strategic organizational decisions, operational decisions, and individuals’ decisions about themselves or their Our mental model for solutions in this section is like a guided missile—they can give insights that can change the trajectory quickly.

It’s important to note that none of these quadrants is superior to the others. In fact, there’s likely a place for all of them in an organization’s people analytics technology ecosystem. However, by putting technologies into these boxes, we can start to think about what that ecosystem might look like and how organizations might begin to build them.

Appendix 2: Vendor demographics

This year, a total of 43 solutions participated in our study. We included publicly available information for an additional 15 vendors, bringing the total to 58. The demographic breakdown of survey participants by year founded, number of employees, and HQ location is shown in Figures 16-18.

 

 

Appendix 3: Customer demographics

We received a total of 128 customer responses. Figures 19-21 show the demographic breakdown for customer respondents by industry, roles, and number of employees.

 

 

At our recent roundtable called Learning Methods: Which Ones Work, we brought together Learning and Development (L&D) leaders from various industries to talk about learning methods. Specifically, we wanted to understand the learning methods L&D functions are implementing and how they might have changed since the pandemic.

Before we began, we reminded everyone of the research RedThread did last year. We identified 66 learning methods employees are using and how those methods fit into the 6 behaviors in our employee development framework (see our final report Learning Methods: What to use, how to choose, and when to cut them loose). This framework illustrates how different learning methods enable different behaviors.

We focused on 4 of the 6 behaviors:

• Plan: includes methods that enable employees to plan their development
• Experiment: includes methods that enable employees to experiment with new knowledge and skills
• Connect: includes methods that enable employees to learn from each other
• Perform: includes methods that enable employees to learn while on the job

We chose these methods to push the conversation to those behaviors that L&D may find challenging or areas they are just starting to consider.

Key Takeaways

This roundtable generated several insights we thought were important. This readout shares our top 4 key takeaways.

Skills are an essential driver for helping employees plan their development

Learning leaders are actively thinking about skills—and with that, how to encourage and enable employees to build skills the organization needs. To do this, they're focusing on learning methods such as:

• Skills assessments. L&D is leveraging assessments to better understand the skills employees have and help them figure out how to fill them. As one L&D leader said,

“We’ve started to use skills assessments to fill skills gaps as we begin to think about what the future skills are."

• Individual development plans (IDPs). As organizations focus on individuals and personalization, IDPs appear to be getting new life. One leader said his organization had rebranded the IDP as a Growth Portfolio – a way to plan and record individuals' learning and development that can also show desired career path and competence. 
• Career Coaching. L&D sees career coaching as a learning method to help employees build the skills they need. However, it can be a heavy lift for organizations to manage. For this reason, many roundtable participants confirm that their organizations do not rely heavily on career coaching when planning development (our data says 19% of employees).

Experiment methods are slowly gaining traction.

Roundtable participants noted that learning methods geared toward helping employees experiment with new knowledge and skills (job rotations, job shadowing, informational interviews, etc.) were becoming more common within their organizations. 

“We’re trying to do more job rotations. We’re thinking about the skills of the future and how we bridge those gaps. Especially for new employees and HIPOs – how do we get them into those rotations?”

As L&D works to utilize these methods, many are facing 2 challenges:

• Systemic issues. L&D leaders find ”experiment“ methods challenging to manage and track. But they’re still making it work. One leader said her organization is trying to leverage its talent marketplace to enable employees to experiment with new knowledge and skills (e.g., scheduling informational interviews).
• Structural issues. Many participants also noted that the L&D function isn't the sole owner of many experiment methods. Because it is a shared responsibility in many cases, it’s sometimes unclear who's in charge and who is driving the initiatives, or it takes too much coordination. Others mentioned that their organizations don't yet have the structure to encourage experiments on a larger scale. 

The pandemic left many employees feeling bereft of support and connection.

Before the pandemic, there was a big focus on self-service learning. After the pandemic, one of the themes appears to be connection in learning. Roundtable participants mentioned that they see connection in the following ways:

• Both internal and external connections. Organizations are looking for ways to help employees connect internally with other employees for learning but are also looking to connect them with experts on the outside. A participant noted that the top 2 most relied upon Connect methods, from RedThread Research’s learning survey data, focus on building networks outside of the organization (prof networks = 39% and social networks = 28%). 
• Employees feel responsible for helping their peers learn. L&D leaders are observing that employees have a desire to learn from each other. For one L&D leader, a recent survey in their org found that 68% of employees felt accountable for contributing to the learning of others. They continued by saying,

"This was 20 percentage points above benchmark. This data influenced our strategy—how can we facilitate that natural strength of our learning culture?"

L&D leaders are trying to figure out how to support the shifts in connection. As one participant said,

“Do we want to support colleagues in creating external and internal connections or leverage collective knowledge in the organization by supporting connections among colleagues?” 

Choices in how methods are implemented can affect how equitable learning opportunities are

The idea of learning equity or development equity resonated with roundtable participants. We weren't surprised to hear this, as more L&D functions are taking on responsibilities having to do with Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging.

Participants drew a connection between more personalized planning and offering more learning methods and a more equitable experience. One leader said,

“Everyone has an opportunity to grow. We’re making it easier for individuals to capture the strengths / skills they have and what they want to develop more of. So, let’s allow people to tell us what they’re good at and tailor the learning to that.”

Additionally, participants mentioned the need to tweak systems and processes related to access to learning methods. For example, online courses are often reserved for those with specific titles or in certain areas of the company. Instead, L&D functions should work to provide as much access as possible to as many as possible, cost permitting. 

Thank you to all who participated and shared their experiences. We welcome your suggestions, thoughts, and feedback at [email protected].

What does the current people analytics tech market look like? How has it changed over the past year? What are the different capabilities offered by the vendors, and what challenges are they able to address? In this session, Stacia Garr and Priyanka Mehrotra answer these questions and many more.

This session explores:

• An overview of the people analytics tech market
• The changes in the market over the past year
• People analytics vendor capabilities and strengths
• Challenges addressed by vendors.

Learning outcomes:

• A clear understanding of the people analytics tech landscape
• Knowledge about the different vendors in the market and their capabilities and strengths
• Learn how you can leverage people analytics tech to address your organizational challenges

In April 2022, we convened a roundtable for leaders to discuss how L&D functions can make employee development more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. This session was part of our research into what we're calling L&D's DEIB Opportunity. We aim to identify the most effective things that L&D functions can do to support diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) efforts in their organizations.

This readout shares some of the highlights from the session. Thank you to all who participated, shared their experiences, and learned from one another.

L&D's DEIB commitments are growing

To frame the conversation, we shared data from LinkedIn Learning’s 2021 and 2022 Workplace Learning Reports (Figure 1). L&D functions are not only planning more DEIB programs, but they’re taking on more ownership of DEIB efforts.

When we asked roundtable participants if they were seeing or experiencing this trend themselves, they agreed. They wrote in the chat things like:

• “Definitely”
• “Absolutely”
• “Without a doubt”

How can L&D functions meet these growing responsibilities?

To answer this question, we focused on how L&D functions can make the systems of employee development in their organizations more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. We discussed 4 aspects of employee development:

• Discovery. How do employees find out about development opportunities? How can L&D functions enable different groups to more equitably discover those opportunities?
• Access. Which employees could take advantage of development opportunities if they chose? Who has permission / is nominated to attend? Who has the right tech? How can L&D functions enable different groups to more equitably access development opportunities?
• Participation. Which employees participate in development opportunities? How does participation differ across groups, and why? How can L&D functions enable more equitable participation across groups?
• L&D itself. How might L&D’s systems and processes be biased or inequitable? How might L&D functions address those inequities?

Key takeaways

The roundtable generated a number of insights we thought worth highlighting. Here are our top 5 takeaways. 

To make learning more DEIB, focus on how decisions are made

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ways decisions are made have a huge effect on whether employee development is equitable, inclusive, and accessible across the various groups in an organization. Decisions about who can access certain development opportunities are particularly impactful. One participant shared the following anecdote:

I used to work for a large corporation. Pre-pandemic, we would fly people in for exclusive leadership development programs. The lack of diversity was astounding. The programs are great, but they're often reserved for people who are already privileged. I had to ask myself: Who's approving these attendees? Who's got the budget?

Leaders shared 2 ideas for reducing such biases.

1. Make decisions transparent. One organization implemented decision-making frameworks to help managers and leaders understand the different factors that weighed into their decisions. These frameworks also help leaders explicitly focus on the criteria that align with their values and the organization's values.
2. Make matches, not decisions. Another organization is using skills to remove some decisions entirely. By ensuring every employee has a skills profile (or skills signature), the organization can match employees with specific skills needs and gaps with appropriate development opportunities. The system makes the match, not a leader.

We thought these 2 ideas for reducing bias in decision-making were practical approaches that might apply in many organizations.

Marketing and messaging can include or exclude

A second insight from the group is just how important marketing and messaging are. They influence who learns about what development opportunities and—arguably more important—who decides to take advantage of those opportunities.

A portion of the conversation focused on whether outreach and marketing activities reach the people L&D functions intend them to. As one leader put it:

It's inequitable if L&D sends an email about a development opportunity and 30% of your workforce doesn't use email.

Leaders suggested marketing development opportunities in multiple channels—overcommunicating—and ensuring opportunities are marketed where employees are. For example, a paper flyer in a break room or stand-up meeting might be most effective for reaching front-line employees who do not regularly check email.

In addition, leaders noted that the language, visuals, and tone used in marketing communications about development opportunities can affect whether an employee thinks an opportunity will be relevant and helpful to them. They should be able to see themselves in the opportunity, or they may not choose to participate even if they have access.

Analytics and data can reveal systemic inequities

Leaders in this roundtable emphasized the need to check assumptions about whether development opportunities are as DEIB as L&D functions might hope. Ideally, they said, the demographics of the people who participate in development opportunities should roughly mirror the demographics of the organization's employee population.

Leaders shared that some reasons for differences in participation rates between groups might be:

• Lack of technical access to training (e.g., cannot access learning on mobile phone, do not have a company-provided device, do not have good enough internet access). The ability to pay for tech to access development opportunities is also a potential source of inequity.
• Messaging / marketing doesn’t speak to certain groups
• Certain employees aren't afforded the time to access learning within their work day and cannot / do not want to participate on their own time

Tracking participation in development opportunities over time to see if attendees do, in fact, mirror the population can help reveal possible gaps in marketing / messaging, access, etc. The importance of tracking data over time was articulated by one leader who noted:

We can make plans that we think allow for universal access, but until we check to see whether in fact the result is representative participation, we don’t know whether our approaches are in fact creating equal access.

One leader shared that in her organization, they do A/B testing like marketers. They look to see who's registering for opportunities, who shows up, who consumes content online, etc. They analyze this data by all demographic / diversity statistics that are available.

L&D functions should rely on DEIB resources across the organization

Leaders in this roundtable agreed that as L&D functions take on more of a role in DEIB efforts, they cannot and should not do it alone. There are many resources across an organization that can help L&D functions identify and address inequities in employee development.

For example, the leader whose organization does A/B testing recommended reaching out to the IT team. They can help L&D functions access data about who's clicking where, which employees have company-supported devices, and—in many organizations—aggregated data on how many employees have downloaded accessibility software (screen readers, etc.).

Other leaders noted all that DEIB teams can offer. A number of leaders said the DEIB teams in their organizations do "fairness audits" for business functions to help identify gaps. They can do this for the L&D team, for example by auditing the fairness of L&D's messaging, communications, and learning platforms.

A third resource leaders noted were Employee Resource Groups (ERGs). They recommended involving ERGs in marketing / messaging for development opportunities, assessment of how different opportunities appeal to / impact different groups, and the creation of new opportunities.

Virtual work made some learning more equitable

Leaders noted that when the pandemic forced them to put many in-person, cohort-based development opportunities online, they saw a marked increase in participation rates in these programs. And not only did participation increase, but it often increased in terms of diversity: more diverse employees attended. Leaders attributed this change to a few factors:

• Virtual is easier to attend. Trainings were shorter and didn't require travel or overnights away from home. This meant it was easier for caregivers (who are disproportionately women and members of underrepresented groups) to attend.
• Diversity begets diversity. Leaders reported that in their organizations, as more people saw people like themselves participating in or leading learning, they felt more comfortable participating themselves. As such, they saw an increase in participation from people who'd never attended trainings.

One leader offered a counterpoint to this general trend. After the pandemic started and her organization shifted to remote work, she saw a marked decrease in participation rates. When she asked employees why, they told her that before the pandemic, they only requested to attend training because it got them out of the office. Their experience in-office was toxic; they felt they couldn't express themselves. Working from home, they didn't feel the same need to escape.

 We were grateful for the open and vulnerable discussion during this roundtable. We welcome your suggestions, thoughts, and feedback at [email protected].

In December of 2021, ByteDance, which owns the better-known TikTok, dissolved its learning & development function. According to CNBC, the entire department was let go over the holiday break in a virtual meeting.

Their reason for this drastic move? ByteDance felt that “many learning events, such as online talks of mediocre quality…that could easily be found on the internet didn’t make good use of their employees’ time.” In an internal memo, ByteDance also mentioned that initiatives were more feel-good activities with limited and questionable value.

In short, L&D wasn’t cutting it.

L&D’s Oh Sh!t Moment

The ByteDance story—and other stories we've heard—indicate that L&D functions may be having an "Oh, sh!t!" moment. L&D functions are facing bigger, more complicated challenges than they have before. These challenges are causing L&D functions—and senior leadership—to reevaluate what they do, how they do it, and the skills they need to do it well.

Yet this moment comes at a time when L&D functions have never been more visible. The past 2 years have created renewed awareness of the importance of employee development. Indeed, L&D functions are being called upon to solve some big problems.

Many senior leaders are looking to L&D functions to guide skills, skills data, upskilling, reskilling, and mobility, in an effort to meet the needs of their ever-changing environments. Our data indicate that L&D is being involved in larger strategic discussions and workforce planning in about 50% of high-performing organizations. A percentage that high would have been unheard of a decade ago.

Additionally, according to Glint's 2021 Employee Well-Being Report, “Opportunities to learn and grow” is the most important driver for a great work culture, a stewardship owned by the L&D function. Employees expect more than page-turner courses or day-long events. And if we connect the dots, opportunities to learn and grow affect culture, productivity, engagement, and retention.

The problems L&D is tackling—upskilling, agile workforces, mobility, work culture—aren’t small. They’re big and important and relevant, which is both a blessing and a curse. L&D has been seeking a “seat at the table” for years. They finally, undeniably, have one. The question now is, do they have the skills they need to do something at that table?

Learning and Development Skills

We want to start by acknowledging that some good work has been done to identify skills L&D pros need. Of note are LPI, ATD, and Training Industry, all of which have capability models outlining L&D skills.

Our intent with this research was not to create another capability model. Instead, we are interested in the skills that L&D pros in high-performing organizations think they will need to focus on developing to meet near-future needs.

All the Skills

To avoid bias (and to make our lives harder), we asked 300 L&D pros the following open-ended question:

What are the top 3 skills you feel L&D functions will need for the future?

We coded their answers, combining those that were similar, and grouped them into larger skills groups.

In all, L&D pros identified 39 skills. These skills were then categorized into 7 skill groups. The graphic below shows the relational focus of these skills and groups. The larger the bubble, the more L&D pros mentioned the skill. The percentages represent the percentage of the total number of skills mentioned that fall into each category.

Click graphic to enlarge, or see our infographic for this study.

The skills identified by L&D pros were varied and nuanced. They give some insight into the kinds of challenges L&D pros and functions may be facing.

In fact, in looking at the names of the larger skills groups, we see many indications that L&D’s influence is expanding, as its responsibility:

• Leadership: skills to lead inside and outside the L&D function
• Data & Decision-making: skills to use data for making better decisions
• L&D Core: skills to build the capabilities of the workforce
• Business Core: skills to understand and align with business strategy
• Managing Relationships: skills to build and maintain relationships, internal and external to the L&D function
• Readiness: skills to help individuals and functions readily adapt to changing environments
• Tech: skills to leverage tech to upskill the workforce

This data—the skills identified by L&D pros—tells us that L&D pros need to be more than just instructional designers. They need to know much more than just adult learning theory. In this day and age, and particularly at this very strange moment in history, they need to be entrenched in the organization.

At the same time, we know that focusing on building all the skills will lead to focusing on none of them. Understanding the 39 skills L&D pros think they need is only the first step.

Understanding the ones they actually need is the next.

Skills in High-performing Organizations

Determining which skills L&D people need is an inexact art. The existing literature bases skills recommendations on expert opinion, asking L&D pros and thought leaders what challenges – and skills – L&D professionals will need next.

We took a slightly different tack. Instead of asking experts, we looked at the data L&D pros provided about the skills they thought they needed for the future. We then asked them how their organizations were performing, using these 4 measures:

1. Met or exceeded its business goals for the last three years
2. Responds quickly to marketplace changes
3. Innovates faster than its competitors do
4. Customers are more satisfied than its competitors’ customers

We then combined these 4 measures into one score and assigned that score to each L&D pro that gave us data on skills. Finally, we identified those L&D pros with scores in the top 25% to determine which were associated with high-performing organizations.

Finally, we compared the skills that L&D pros in high-performing organizations were focusing on with the ones L&D pros in other organizations named. The results, shown in Figure 3, revealed some interesting differences.

The results got even more interesting when we combined our observations from this data with the insights we gathered from interviews and our roundtable.

Four differences stood out to us. L&D pros in high-performing organizations likely:

Are already focusing on leadership skills

We know that L&D pros in high-performing organizations participate in workforce and strategy discussions significantly more than their counterparts in other organizations.

So while it may look like L&D pros in other organizations are more focused on Leadership skills than those in high-performing organizations, it's likely because they perceive those skills as a need. L&D pros in high-performing organizations have likely already acquired them.

Have already built data into their decision-making process

Anecdotally, higher-performing organizations are more attuned to Data and do more information-gathering, and it is more ingrained in the way they currently operate. Other L&D pros may not have developed these competencies or the systems to support them in their work, resulting in a higher recognition of the need to meet future (or current) needs.

See connecting their work to the business strategy as key

L&D pros in high-performing organizations focus significantly more on Business Core skills. Both the quantitative data and the data collected from our interviews and roundtables indicate that L&D pros in high-performing organizations tend to draw more explicit connections between what they do and the goals and strategy of the organization. They also tend to have a deeper understanding of the business goals, and they tend to make decisions based on those goals.

Focus on relationships more than their counterparts do

Finally, as we'll see throughout this report, L&D pros in high-performing organizations tend to focus more on relationships.

High-performing organizations tend to have L&D pros who understand their place in the larger ecosystem and value their relationships with other functions.

These 4 broad differences can give us high-level insight into where L&D pros may want to focus. However, the devil, as they say, is often in the details.

We also saw differences among the 39 individual skills between L&D pros in high-performing organizations and their counterparts in other organizations.

The Skills Groups

In the following sections, we’ll provide more information about each of the 7 skills groups, including the individual skills within each. Our goal is to explore why each group and their respective skills may be important at this point in history.

We’re also interested in the blind spots—the places where L&D functions may be over- or under-emphasizing certain skills. To determine what those blind spots may be, we compare the skills that L&D pros are focusing on in high-performing organizations with other L&D pros may be focusing on.

Leadership

L&D pros view their own leadership skills as the most important group of skills for the future. Twenty-one percent of all skills mentioned fell within this category.

That 21%, validated by our interviews, are indicators of the breadth of leadership responsibilities L&D pros currently have. Kirsten Jackson, a Director of Leadership Development, told us:

We’ve really done a lot of work in the last couple of years to make sure L&D has a seat at every table—tables at the business function level to understand development needs, but also tables at the enterprise level to understand leadership expectations, goals, and how L&D can support them.

But it isn’t just these significant initiatives that L&D pros find themselves leading. In our research, we found that a lot of L&D functions are becoming much more strategic and intentional about employee development. They offer more learning methods and integrate more development opportunities into the workplace than in the past.

These changes from reactive to proactive, from just-in-case to just-in-time, and from learn-in-a-classroom to learn everywhere, require L&D functions to change the hearts and minds of business leaders and employees alike. Leadership skills like consulting, coaching, and motivation and engagement ensure that L&D professionals will be able to make these adjustments.

Leadership: Blind Spots

These findings don’t constitute hard and fast recommendations. Each L&D function should consider all of the variables – internal and external, that may affect the skills they need. That But we did identify some areas that may be getting either too much focus or not enough from the L&D professional population as a whole.

Focus more on Coaching, Motivation & Engagement, and DEIB

L&D pros in high-performing organizations focus almost twice as much on Coaching and Motivation & Engagement as their counterparts in other organizations.

We have observed that organizations, particularly those adopting hybrid and remote practices, are continuing to look for ways to connect and engage with employees. A stronger focus on Coaching and Motivation & Engagement can help organizations build those connections into their development practices.

Gina Montefusco, Associate Director of L&D, at United Healthcare Group, sees Coaching as a crucial skill for internal L&D leadership as well as external consulting:

Coaching is super important. You can use it to understand your business better and be more comfortable asking questions. I do think that my coaching experience has made me a better consultant overall, because now I ask questions differently.

In our 2022 yearly trends report, we mention that the human is becoming more critical. The fact that L&D pros in high-performing organizations are focusing on skills that further that mission is not lost on us.

We would also be remiss if we didn’t mention the abysmal showing for DEIB skills. While we are happy that this skill showed up at all, the percentage of L&D pros that mentioned it is pretty low. And it's even lower among L&D pros in high-performing organizations.

LinkedIn Learning’s 2022 Workplace Learning Report says that 55% of L&D functions own or share responsibility for DEIB initiatives. L&D pros should be building these skills and looking for opportunities to align their work with DEIB initiatives.

Focus on a broader set of Leadership skills

L&D pros in high-performing organizations tend to focus more evenly across key leadership skills while L&D pros in other organizations tend to focus quite heavily on just some of them.

This uneven focus may mean that L&D pros are putting too much focus on some while ignoring others. For example, L&D pros in other organizations focus more on Consulting (6 percentage points more) and Influencing (7 percentage points more) than those in high-performing organizations.

This focus on specific skills may be key to being effective in their particular organizations, but L&D pros should at least consider how they’re spending their development time and money, and what those skills can get them.

Data & Decision-making

Within Data & Decision-making, the top skill mentioned by L&D pros was Data Analysis. In general, we think that a focus on data skills is good, and it has been missing from most L&D functions for years.

We grouped Data Analysis with other skills used to make better decisions, as Data Analysis is a tool rather than an end unto itself. To be useful, Data Analysis must necessarily be tied to questions, which are ultimately tied to decisions. Other skills in this group are highlighted in Figure 6 below.

As L&D pros take active roles in bigger, more strategic conversations, the need for skill in Data Analysis grows. One L&D leader mentioned that data was a language that businesses speak. Data Analysis is crucial for L&D pros as they try to identify the skills organizations and individuals need and then identify experiences that will help them grow those skills.

Many leaders mentioned that they’re looking more deeply at LMS, LXP, and other learning data to understand what their users need. Some have also started to analyze data outside of L&D. Another L&D leader, for example, looks at engagement data:

We look at data from many sources. So, for example, we look at employee engagement scores—questions like, “Do you feel supported by your manager?” This data helps us understand what our leaders will need in the future.

It’s great that L&D is focused on data. Where it gets tricky is how “data” is defined and what other sources L&D pros should be considering, which brings us to a blind spot for Data & Decision-making.

Data & Decision-making: Blind Spots

While L&D pros have started to focus on leveraging data for decision-making, they may be failing to develop other skills that could help them make sounder decisions. And by the way, this is true for all L&D pros. In this case, there was no significant difference for those in high-performing organizations.

Focus more on different data-gathering skills

Data-gathering skills include External Environment Analysis, Data Literacy, and Research. These activities may not always result in hard numbers, but many of the insights they yield can be key to better decisions. Not all data is quantifiable. Trust us. We're researchers.

Focus more on decision-making skills

Problem-solving and Strategic Thinking fall within this subcategory. Frankly, we’re a little surprised we didn’t hear more about them. As L&D pros exercise these skills, they’ll likely see more possibilities and solutions.

So, to sum up: L&D pros recognize the need for better decision-making. And they recognize that Data Analysis skills are a big part of that. But they shouldn’t develop these skills at the expense of other underdeveloped skills.

L&D Core

Not surprisingly, L&D Core is important to L&D pros. Several pros pointed out the importance of these skills to their job and, if they were a leader, their employees’ jobs.

And rightly so: L&D pros bring an essential and unique skill set—one that no other group has—to help organizations solve the development challenges they face.

Learning Experience Design and Training Delivery top the list of skills L&D pros feel they need in the L&D core skills group.

Training Delivery and Learning Experience Design top the list of essential skills in L&D Core. This is not surprising, given that many L&D pros get degrees and certifications in these skills, and have based their careers on their application.

However, what was surprising was the number of other skills that popped up in this skills group. Human-Centered Design, for example, or the Ability to Upskill, have been recognized only relatively recently as skills that L&D pros need.

Another unsurprising but still growing skill was Content Curation. Its relative prominence hints that L&D pros understand that their responsibilities go much further than creating a course. It may have more to do with assembling the right information and creating the right context and experience.

When we talked to L&D pros about the skills they need specific to L&D, we heard traditional answers, but with a twist. For example, where Training Delivery used to be all about facilitating classroom initiatives, L&D pros mentioned new methods used to “deliver” learning, including coaching, stretch assignments, and external content.

L&D leaders are also looking for broader skill sets when it comes to L&D Core. Ryan Cozens, Learning & Development Lead, Well Health, said:

I think instructional design is an important skill, but it can’t be the only skill. There have to be mindsets and behaviors tied to that. I’m not just looking for someone with the ability to design really incredible self-directed asynchronous learning; I’m looking for someone who understands and can see the bigger picture.

Indeed, L&D Core skills are changing. L&D pros are looking at traditional skills differently, and they're introducing new ones for the future.

L&D Core: Blind Spots

L&D Core skills were the 3rd most important group of skills identified by the L&D pros we surveyed. But, as we saw above, when we look at the focus of L&D pros in high-performing organizations versus those in other organizations, we see they rated L&D Core skills at the same level as Business Core.

That Business Core and L&D Core are considered equally important is telling. It indicates that L&D in high-performing organizations are likely more aligned to and focused on business challenges than more traditional L&D functions.

There are also some key differences between the particular focuses of L&D pros from high-performing organizations focus and those in other organizations. Two caught our eye.

Focus more on Experience Design and Upskilling the Workforce

First, L&D pros in high-performing organizations focus more on Learning Experience Design (7 percentage points more) and Upskilling the Workforce (8 percentage points more) than their counterparts in other organizations.

These differences might indicate that L&D pros in high-performing organizations are more attuned to the entire experience of learning and ensuring that the workforce has the right skills. This, in concert with the other skills they find essential, may indicate a more holistic, intentional approach to learning in general.

Focus less on Training Delivery and Learning Science

This brings us to the second big difference. L&D pros in high-performing organizations focused significantly less on Training Delivery (12 percentage points less). While Training Delivery was the most important skill in L&D Core for L&D pros in other organizations, it was 5th out of 8 skills for those in high-performing organizations.

Likewise, while L&D pros mentioned Learning Science as a skill they thought they needed for the future, not one L&D professional in a high-performing organization mentioned it. Does this mean Learning Science is not necessary? Absolutely not. But it does mean that L&D functions that focus too heavily on traditional learning science, without considering the new context (technology, mindsets, motivations, etc.), may not be using their L&D development time or dollars in the best way.

Business Core

Increasingly, L&D pros consider themselves a part of the business rather than an entity that serves the business. This idea came through loud and clear in the research: L&D pros identified skills that are necessary for collaborating with other business functions.

Business Acumen and Marketing top the list for important Business Core skills, according to L&D pros.

Figure 10: Business Core skills group – % of focus on each skill, n=87 | RedThread Research, 2022

Among the skills mentioned in the research, Business Acumen topped the list. Leaders mentioned 3 aspects of Business Acumen.

Understanding organizational goals and strategy. L&D pros are more proactively evaluating their business direction and determining the best ways to build a skilled workforce than in previous years. Brandon Wolfram, HR Manager for Learning and Performance Solutions at SaskTel, put it this way:

We used to get more operational requests—things like, “Hey, we need some training on this topic,” or “Can you put something together on this.” Now, we get requests like, “Can you partner with us to solve this complex business challenge.

Understanding business basics. L&D functions are professionalizing. Many see themselves not as a traditional cost center but as a contributing member to business growth. As such, project management, change management, and their creativity and innovation muscles are increasingly important.

Speaking the same language. For years, L&D functions have embraced adult learning theory and the research surrounding it. While that is all good, leaders we spoke with understand the need to ditch wonky L&D terms in favor of vocabulary used more broadly.

Focusing on Business Core skills draws them into the business itself, erasing any invisible lines that may have kept them separate. These skills also make it easier to participate in larger strategic discussions.

Business Core: Blind Spots

The blind spots that L&D pros may have around this skills group come down to 2 individual skills.

Focus more on Creativity & Innovation

First, L&D pros in high-performing organizations focus significantly more (19 percentage points more) on Creativity and Innovation than their counterparts in other organizations.

The importance of this focus in high-performing organizations aligns with what we heard from learning leaders in our interviews and roundtables. Drew Goodrich, the Director of Learning Enablement at Intuit, spoke about the importance of Creativity & Innovation for his team:

Let's get inspired by anything that’s working and done well and takes hold and gets people to do things. That's a lot more creative than just standing up PowerPoint slides or doing a breakout session—let’s get creative.

L&D pros in high-performing organizations are less likely to worship the status quo. They tend to focus on finding creative solutions to business challenges and taking more risks.

Focus less on Marketing (courses)

L&D professionals in high-performing organizations and their peers in other organizations also focus differently on Marketing.

Marketing, in this case, refers to using marketing techniques to encourage employees to participate in learning interventions. While L&D professionals in general seem to see this as a critical skill, L&D professionals in high-performing organizations were not as interested (9 percentage points less).

While it's beneficial for L&D, focusing too heavily on Marketing may indicate a fairly traditional approach to learning: “If you create an awesome course and market it the right way, they will come.”

That L&D pros in high-performing organizations are focusing so much more on Creativity & Innovation indicates that they may also be broadening their views of learning, including methods that may not be as easily “marketed” in the traditional sense.

This means that L&D pros should likely broaden “marketing” to include strategies that make all learning opportunities “discoverable.”

Managing Relationships

Several skills mentioned by L&D pros had to do with building and managing relationships. We grouped these skills into the larger skills group, Managing Relationships.

L&D pros who spoke with us in the roundtable and in interviews identified 3 areas where they found managing relationships crucial.

First, L&D pros found it necessary to manage the organization's relationship with L&D. Learning is an entirely voluntary activity—you can force someone to complete an e-learning course, but you can’t force them to learn the content.

L&D pros spoke of developing trust with the organization —communicating the benefits of consistent development and empathizing with employees when creating and delivering initiatives. One leader emphasized the importance of listening as a part of communication:

I think the hardest part is hearing. Not just hearing enough to fall in love with the problem, but hearing enough to solve the problem. And then creating.

Second, L&D pros increasingly see their networks and relationships with others in the organization as the key to their success. Some mentioned these relationships in the context of understanding key aspects of the business in order to meet their development needs. Others mentioned these relationships as crucial to getting things done. Relationships were crucial for tasks from understanding who to speak to in procurement to identifying the strongest SME for a specific project. Another leader said:

I’m a big believer in networking: getting to know lots of different people, and not getting too deeply dug into one particular discipline. Because if you do, you forget how all of these things are connected.

Finally, L&D pros also mentioned the need for Relationship-building and Networking as key to increasing their own knowledge and understanding. They also mentioned the need to identify the best ways to build those skills in the employee population at large.

Managing Relationships: Blind Spots

Consistent with our finding about Networking, we found that L&D pros across organizations place value on skills around Managing Relationships.

Focus more on Collaboration & Teamwork

When we look at the focus on specific skills, however, there is a different story. Collaboration & Teamwork received significantly more attention (14 percentage points more) by L&D pros in high-performing organizations.

This focus indicates that L&D pros in these organizations realize that learning cannot just be the responsibility of the L&D function. It has to involve everyone in the organization. Drew Goodrich at Intuit says they leverage collaboration to help with strategy:

It's good there’s a lot of teamwork and collaboration and co-creation and co-planning. Getting everyone involved and getting everybody’s hands on it means you’ll actually stick to your strategy.

In essence, part of L&D's job is to deputize the organization – get everyone on the same page and build cross-functional systems that support a learning culture. That can only be done through carefully managing relationships.

Readiness

When asked, 10% of L&D pros identified Readiness skills as necessary for the future. Readiness skills are those universal skills that allow L&D functions to do their jobs in ever-changing, often chaotic circumstances. L&D pros recognized 4 skills within that category.

The past couple of years have required significant change for most organizations. That need has also trickled down to L&D functions. They have had to adapt many traditional training methods to serve hybrid and remote employees. They are also being tasked with leading initiatives such as DEIB or Return to Office (likely more than once).

These changes are forcing L&D pros to be more adaptable, agile, resilient, and efficient.

The Readiness skill group the majority of them spoke of them as capabilities needed by the L&D function, not necessarily the individual. Many talked about changing mindsets, systems, and processes to make the function itself more adaptable and agile.

For example, L&D leaders mentioned they were doing things like:

• Moving away from traditional waterfall development processes and toward agile approaches, because waterfall slowed them down too much
• Recognizing the perishable nature of learning and encouraging L&D pros not to fall in love with any one solution. Thinking instead of the lifecycle of the solution and put into place evaluation triggers and plans for sunsetting or replacing them
• Adapting to immediate needs versus making sure that something is 100% perfect before launching
• Experimenting and taking risks, gathering data, and adjusting as they go instead of only measuring at the end

One leader summed up all of these ideas as she described how her L&D function was becoming more nimble:

We need to be OK with putting something out there that isn’t 100% polished, because we need to move fast. Then we see what happens. Then we need to gather feedback and adjust.

The funny thing is, we’ve been paying lip service to these skills for years. But recently, probably prompted by external events, L&D pros are doing more than just talking about them.

Readiness: Blind Spots

L&D pros from all organizations put the greatest focus on Agility in this category. They also agree that Adaptability & Flexibility are important skills. But then we see some differences.

Focus more on Resilience

L&D pros in high-performing organizations focus on Resilience more than their peers in other organizations (7 percentage points more). The 2011 journal article “What Is Resilience?” describes Resilience as positive adaption, or the ability to maintain or regain mental health.

From our interviews and roundtable discussions, we learned that L&D leaders are looking at Resilience in 2 ways.

First, L&D leaders recognize the changes their own functions have encountered recently and understand that Resilience is key to quick adaptation.

Second, L&D pro are considering how Resilience can be taught, encouraged, and systematized within their organization so that their workforce can handle future changes and disruptions.

Focus less on Efficiency & Productivity

Interestingly, L&D pros in high-performing organizations tend to focus significantly less on Efficiency and Productivity (9 percentage points less). We’re fans of efficiency, and we think all L&D functions should strive to be more efficient and productive. But we also know that change is often messy, requiring inefficiencies and experimentation to find new and better ways of doing things.

The combination of these 2 things—greater focus on resilience and less on efficiency—likely lead to more experimental and risk-friendly environments.

L&D functions may want to consider how much respective focus they put on Resilience and learning from mistakes versus institutionalization and standardization.

Tech

Finally, Tech. Nine percent of L&D pros mentioned Tech skills when determining which skills will be needed for the Tech plays a pretty important role in the work of L&D pros, and that role appears to have been magnified as organizations were forced to adopt remote and hybrid work models.

Even before the pandemic, however, L&D pros saw tech as a way to engage, scale, personalize, evaluate, and quantify learning. Organizations had also started to move toward a digital mindset. As organizations have begun to adopt skills a skills mindset, tech has only become more critical.

L&D pros identified tech skills in basically 2 flavors, as shown in Figure 16.

L&D pros overwhelmingly identified skills related to using tech more effectively in their roles. In fact, Tech Use was the second most mentioned skill overall—second only to Data Analysis. However, we want to note some nuances in the interviews that we feel are important.

First, L&D pros mentioned that as their organizations have fully embraced hybrid and remote work, many employees lack the skills necessary to work in these environments effectively. Karen Dowdall-Sanford, Senior Director of L&D at Flyhomes put it like this:

Once again, there’s a skill set specific to virtual collaboration and how you use Teams or Slack effectively. There’s the technical skill set of just understanding the tool, but then there are also norms and practices and behaviors that run into how to do it effectively.

L&D pros appear to understand that they need skills to help others develop skills in virtual collaboration—something we think we’ll see more of.

Second, some L&D pros mentioned 2 skill sets that fall under tech use. First, a skill set needed to use the tech effectively. Second, a skill set associated with creating the right environment around that tech. Tech that doesn’t integrate with the organization doesn’t work. Mitchel McNair, Global Learning & Career Consultant at Dow, said it like this:

We’re doing some things in technology, but the huge technology piece is probably the easiest piece. The bigger challenge is the culture and processes and L&D work design.

The other piece of the Tech skills group is Tech Strategy. Tech Strategy focuses less on the skills needed to use individual technologies and more on how the technologies work together to create the experience.

Tech Strategy often involves tech outside of the L&D function, such as tech that is leveraged from other business functions. (Teams and Slack are good examples).

A strong tech strategy also identifies places of intersection with other business tech and ensures that the learning tech roadmap aligns with the vision of the larger organization.

Tech: Blind Spots

Focus more on Tech Strategy

None of our research indicated much difference between the focus of L&D pros in high-performing organizations versus those in other organizations. All L&D pros focused heavily on Tech Use.

Frankly, we wish we had an explanation for this, as we expected to find the opposite. However, it looks like high-performing organizations are still, as are most talented L&D pros, thinking about what the tech can do and less about how it fits together.

Therefore, the blind spot associated with technology is common to all L&D pros, regardless of their organization’s performance. All L&D pros should focus more time and effort on creating the experience, including determining how technology pieces fit together, the overall technology strategy, and how it aligns with the organization’s tech strategy.

Wrap Up: Upskill, L&D

Undoubtedly, organizations are focusing on upskilling their workforces. And, undoubtedly, L&D pros have a big role to play in that effort. Exciting times are ahead, but L&D pros need to be prepared.

To use a well-known metaphor, L&D pros are sitting in an airplane experiencing some turbulence. The oxygen masks have dropped, and L&D needs to take the time to put theirs on first before ensuring that employees get theirs on as well.

So upskill, L&D. We learned a lot in this study about where L&D pros should focus their efforts. Knowing is half the battle. The other half – making the time and actually doing the development – is the harder part, but we think crucial to the continued efficacy of L&D functions everywhere.

Note: for Appendices, including skills definitions, study demographics, research methodology, and contributors please download the PDF report.