2 Methodology and Sample Composition3 Key Findings & Implications6 Main Findings11 –Familiarity & favourability12 –Involvement and value of Investors in People 21 –Experience of Investors in People22 –What Investors in People is seen to deliver23 –Investors in People image perception25 –Investors in People’s strengths26 –Investors in People’s weaknesses 28 Background findings30 Appendices44 Contents
4 Methodology This presents findings of the 2005 study of Captains of Industry, part of MORI’s programme of regular multi-sponsored studies among key audiences Methodology details: –Number of respondents: 132 –The questionnaire was versioned, so every unfiltered question is asked of at least 100 Captains –100 Captains will have been asked Investors in People questions, where filters permit Respondents are board-level directors of FTSE 500 firms, Top 500 industrial firms by turnover and Top 100 financial companies by capital employed Fieldwork: 5 September - 28 November 2005 Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to computer rounding, multiple responses or the exclusion of don't know categories
5 Sample composition Change 2005’04-‘05 Employees %± Below 500 14 -6 500 - 4,999 43+1 5,000 - 24,999 30+5 25,000 + 10 -4 2005 Change ‘04-‘05 %± London 50 -7 Outside London 50+7 Change 2005’04-‘05 %± Financial/banking30 +3 Manufacturing20 +5 Services/retailing18 -10 Technology/media/telecoms12 +5 Construction12 +2 Transport/distribution8 +5 Mining/minerals/natural resources5 0 Other3 0 Change 2005’04-’05 %± Chief Executive37 -2 Chairman30 Finance Director 9 -5 Managing Director 8 President 2+1 CEO/Chair/MD/Pres77-3 Base: British Captains of Industry (132), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005
7 Key findings – familiarity & favourability Just over half of Captains are familiar with Investors in People, although only around a fifth of Captains feel they know IiP ‘very well’. A further third know it a ‘fair amount’ and a similar proportion know it ‘just a little’. Investors in People is regarded favourably by just under half of Captains. However, just one in eight are ‘very favourable’, with over a third ‘mainly favourable’. A further third are of no strong opinion towards IiP and one in ten are unfavourable. Of the business concepts measured, the ISO 9000 Quality Standard is the best known and best regarded. Three in five Captains are familiar with the ISO Standard, and just over half feel favourably towards it. By contrast, the EFQM Excellence Model is less well known, with fewer than a fifth of Captains aware of it and a similar proportion feeling positive towards it. Indeed, around half claim never to have heard of the EFQM Model. Overall, Investors in People achieves the highest mean favourability score compared with the ISO 9000 Standard and the EFQM Excellence Model. This position is largely influenced by one in ten Captains who are ‘very favourable’ towards IiP, a higher proportion than for the others measured.
8 Key findings – IiP recognition/deliverables Over half of Captains aware of IiP say that all or part of their companies are currently IiP recognised, with a fifth having recognition for the whole of their organisation. Although the remainder are not currently recognised, only a small minority are actively considering IiP. Somewhat worryingly, around one in seven aware of IiP do not know if their organisation has accreditation or not, and a minority have never considered it. Among IiP recognised companies, Investors in People is seen above all to deliver a framework and related systems for people development and to instil the discipline to focus on people development. This will be important to Captains, as skills shortage is one of the top problems they face today. In addition, it is seen to bring a recognised quality benchmark/standard and its recognised brand. The positive impact on employee morale is also cited in this context – an important factor for Captains, several of whom mention problems recruiting and retaining staff. Whilst similar views emerge among non-IiP recognised companies, perceptions of IiP’s positive deliverables are evenly divided between its framework/systems, the brand reputation and boosting employee morale. As might be expected, views of IiP among this group are less informed than among those with accreditation.
9 Key findings – strengths & weaknesses Overall, Investors in People’s key strengths are thought to be its reputation (this is influenced by a combination of its brand recognition and PR/marketing), its focus on people development, its framework, structure and processes, its standard/benchmark and a positive level of feedback/recommendations from those already involved. Whilst few weaknesses emerge spontaneously, these are dominated by perceptions of bureaucracy/time & money wasting. Other negatives include feelings of a ‘box-ticking’ exercise, with some companies paying lip service to the standard, its perceived inflexibility/irrelevance and lack of global focus. Others feel are unable to comment on weaknesses, possibly through a lack of knowledge. On a positive note, three in five Captains are most likely to agree that Investors in People brings a challenge for continuous improvement and in identifying the impact of improving employee skills on organisational performance. Over half associate IiP with improved productivity and a positive impact on their image in attracting customers. Attracting new business is one of the top ten problems facing Captains’ companies today. Fewer actively agree that IiP helps manage change in their organisations. In most cases a significant proportion are of no strong opinion.
13 Familiarity with Investors in People Know very well Know just a little Know a fair amount Heard of/know nothing Base: British Captains of Industry (132), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005; IiP recognised (51) QHow well do you feel you know Investors in People? Never heard of Don’t know/not stated (1%) Know very well/a fair amount 2005IiP recognised % ISO 9000 Quality Standard 6059 Investors in People 5275 EFQM’s Excellence Model 1727
14 Favourability towards Investors in People Very favourable Mainly favourable Mainly unfavourable Neither Base: British Captains of Industry (132), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 ; IiP recognised (51) QHow favourable or unfavourable is your overall opinion or impression of Investors in People? Very unfavourable (2%) No opinion/ not stated Very/mainly favourable 2005IiP recognised % ISO 9000 Quality Standard 5463 Investors in People 4771 EFQM’s Excellence Model 1543
15 Know very well/a fair amount Investors in People Familiarity towards Investors in People in context Base: British Captains of Industry (132), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 ISO 9000 Quality Standard EFQM’s Excellence Model QHow well do you feel you know Investors in People?
16 UnfavourableFavourable Investors in People Favourability towards Investors in People in context Base: British Captains of Industry (132), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 QHow favourable or unfavourable is your overall opinion or impression of …? ISO 9000 Quality Standard EFQM’s Excellence Model
17 An explanation of the familiarity and favourability scatterchart Familiarity does not breed contempt - MORI’s corporate image research consistently demonstrates a positive relationship (all other things being equal) between awareness and favourability Scattercharts can be used to illustrate the correlation for a range of organisations among a particular audience, or an individual organisation’s position among different audiences Familiarity and favourability are each measured on a five-point scale. Each point of the scale is assigned a a value, which are used to create mean scores for the client The line of best fit indicates the degree of correlation between familiarity and favourability: –distance from the line is an effective measure of positive or negative profile –favourability levels falling on 'line of best fit', are what we would expect given familiarity –organisations above the line are held in relatively high regard for their familiarity; those below are less well regarded
18 Mean Favourability Mean Familiarity Not well known, yet well regarded Well known and well regarded Neither well known nor well regarded Well known, but poorly regarded An explanation of the familiarity and favourability scatterchart
19 Familiarity and favourability Mean Favourability Mean Familiarity Investors in People Base: British Captains of Industry (132), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 EFQM’s Excellence Model ISO 9000 Quality Standard
21 Experience of Investors in People Base: All British Captains of Industry who have at least heard of Investors in People (91), those favourable to IiP (45) interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 QWhich of these statements apply to your experience of Investors in People (IiP)? My whole company is IiP recognised Parts of my company are IiP recognised No part of my company is currently IiP recognised, but we at least part used to be No part of my company is currently IiP recognised and haven’t considered it in the past year No part of my company is currently IiP recognised and haven’t considered it within the last 3 years No part of my company is currently IiP recognised and we have never considered it Don’t know No part of my company is currently IiP recognised, but we are currently considering it 55% 30% Those Favourable to IiP 44% 33% 9% 4% 0% 4%
22 What Investors in People is seen to deliver: IIP recognised companies Base: All answering whose company is Investors in People recognised (50), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 QWhat do you think Investors in People delivers for large organisations? (SPONTANEOUS)
23 Base: All answering whose company is not Investors in People recognised (27), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 QWhat do you think Investors in People can deliver for large organisations? (SPONTANEOUS) What Investors in People is seen to deliver: non-IIP recognised companies
24 Image perceptions of Investors in People % Tend to agree % Strongly agree % Strongly disagree Leads to increased productivity Continuously challenges organisations to improve Helps manage change Helps with image with regards to attracting customers QHow strongly you agree or disagree that the following apply to Investors in People? % Tend to disagree Helps me identify how increasing employee skills can improve performance Base: All British Captains of Industry who know at least a little about Investors in People (81), IiP recognised (51), Non IiP recognised (25) interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 % Agree IiP recog- nised Non IiP recog- nised 76%44% 53%32% 65%40% 65%28% 75%44% All 62% 60% 53% 52% 42%
25 Investors in People’s strengths Base: All British Captains of Industry who know at least a little about Investors in People (81), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 QWhat would you say are Investors in People’s major strengths? TOP MENTIONS (SPONTANEOUS)
26 Comments on Investors in People’s strengths “Well recognised programme: it tends to give pride in the organisation. It has been well thought out. I have come across several organisations where they have entered it and it seems to have a good effect on staff morale and sometimes staff capability” “They have a very thorough form of adjudication and they give you a good feedback on things you need to work harder at” “Provide a good methodology for encouraging businesses to train and develop their people to maximise their potential. It is a high standard. If you have comply with their best practice your business performance will increase. Committed, good PR, they have had a significant impact on the overall performance of the UK”
27 Investors in People’s weaknesses QWhat would you say are Investors in People’s major weaknesses? TOP MENTIONS (SPONTANEOUS) Base: All British Captains of Industry who know at least a little about Investors in People (81), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005
28 “It is a bit inflexible. It is sometimes difficult to make it work for different types of businesses and it is very UK orientated: for businesses which are multinational it only fulfils part of the agenda” “A tendency to a bureaucratic approach which reduces the motivation to qualify” “It is a badge to have on a notice board and there is a possibility that people are going through the motions to do what they need to do to get accredited. The underlying reality may not be quite as rosy as it appears on the surface” Comments on Investors in People’s weaknesses
30 Problems facing companies Base: British Captains of Industry (132), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 QWhat are the most important problems facing your company today? TOP MENTIONS
31 Base: British Captains of Industry (95), interviewed Sep-Nov 2005 QThinking about companies in general, what are the most important factors you take into account when making your judgement about companies? Making judgments about companies TOP MENTIONS
33 Statistical reliability Only a sample of the ‘population’ has been interviewed so we cannot be certain that the figures obtained are exactly those we would have found, had everybody been interviewed (the ‘true’ values). For any percentage given, however, we can estimate ‘confidence intervals’ within which the true values are likely to fall. For example, if 20% of Captains say Lord Browne of BP is the most impressive business person in Britain at the moment we can be 95% sure that the ‘true’ value for the population would be between 12% and 28%, i.e. a margin of 8 percentage points on each side. Similar margins for other percentages and sub-groups of the respondents are given in the following table. It should be remembered that, in any case, the ‘true’ finding is much more likely to be towards the centre of the possible range of responses than towards the margins. For similar reasons, apparent differences in results relating to sub groups may, if small, not necessarily reflect genuine attitudinal differences. We can be 95% sure that differences exceeding those in the second table are genuine, or ‘significant’ differences.
34 Statistical reliability 95% Confidence Intervals Sample size10% or 90%20% or 80%30% or 70%40% or 60%50% ±±±±± c.100 (all Captains)6891010 c.80 (example subgroup)79101111 c.50 (example subgroup)811131414
35 Statistical reliability Margins (%) which are just significant (at 95%) - approximate percentage to which margin relates Sample sizes being compared (sub-groups or trends)10% or 90%20% or 80%30% or 70%40% or 60%50% ±±±±± 100 v 105 (all 2005 v811121314 all 2004) 50 v 50 (example 1216181920 subgroups)