Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights - Heidrick & Struggles

Mapping
Global Talent
P A C I F I C
Equator
Essays and Insights
Tropic of Cancer
O C E A N
Gulf of
Alask a
Tropic of Capricorn
A R C T I C
O C E A N
Russia
Beaufor t
Sea
Ban
Bay
Mexico
United States
Guatemala
El Salvador
Hudson Bay
Canada
Gulf of Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Costa Rica
The Bahamas
Antarctic Circle
Greenland
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico
Jamaica
Belize
Haiti
Honduras
Ecuador
Peru
Caribbean Sea
Colombia
Chile
Venezuela
Bolivia
Nor wegian
Sea
Arctic Circle
A T L A N T I C
Argentina Uruguay
Norway
Iceland
United Kingdom
Guyana
Suriname
French Guiana
Paraguay
Brazil
Ireland
Azores Islands
Tropic of Cancer
Developed in co-operation with
France
Portugal
Equator
Spain
Algeria
Canary Islands
Tropic of Capricorn
Morocco
Western Sahara
Mauritania
Mali
Senegal
Cape Verde Islands
Gambia
Guinea Bissau
Guinea
Sierra Leone
Liberia Ivory
Coast
O C E A N
Puerto Rico
Venezuela
Guyana
Suriname
French Guyana
Brazil
United States
A T L A N T I C
Tropic of Cancer
Cape Verde Islands
Equator
Western Sahara
Senegal
Gambia
Guinea Bissau
Canary Islands
Canada
Hudson
Bay Ban
Bay
Mauritania
Iceland
Greenland
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Estonia
United Kingdom North
Sea
Latvia
Denmark
Baltic
Lithuania
Ireland
Sea
Neth.
Belarus
Germany Poland
Bel.
Ukraine
Czech Rep.
Slovakia
Caspian
Austria Mold.
France
Switz.
Hungary
Sea
Azores Islands
Slovenia
Romania
Georgia
Croatia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia
Black Sea
& Herz. Serbia
Portugal
Italy
Mont. Bulgaria
Spain
Albania Mac.
Turkey
Greece
Morocco
Mali
Guinea
Burkina Faso
Sierra Leone
Cote
D'Ivoire
Liberia
Ghana
Benin
Chukchi
Sea
Beaufort Sea
Arctic Circle
Algeria
Syria
Cyprus
Iraq
Lebanon
Kuwait
Arabian Sea
Mediterranean Sea
Israel
Tunisia
Jordan
Qatar
U. A. E. Oman
Nigeria
Niger
Togo
Central African Republic
Cameroon
Uganda Kenya
Equatorial Guinea
Sao Tome & Principe
Rwanda
O C E A N
Gabon Congo
Dem. Rep.
Burundi
Of Congo
Tanzania
Tropic of Capricorn
Greenland
Sea
A R C T I C
O C E A N
Libya
Angola
Chad
Egypt
Sudan
Zimbabwe
Namibia
Botswana
South Africa
Leptev
Sea
Kara
Sea
Barents Sea
Norwegian
Sea
Zambia
Red Sea
Sea of
Okhotsk
Russia
Eritrea
Mozambique
Ethiopia
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Aral Sea
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Iran
Yemen
Somalia
Afghanistan
Bay
Pakistan of
India
Bengal
Madagascar
Mongolia
China
Nepal
I N D I A N
O C E A N
Equator
Myanmar
Sri Lanka
Madagascar
Bhutan
Nepal
Bangladesh
South
Burma Laos
China
Philippines
India
Sea
Bay
of
Thailand
Vietnam
Bengal
Cambodia
Sri Lanka
I N D I A N
Malaysia
Sing.
Tropic of Capricorn
O C E A N
Mongolia
China
Brunei
Malaysia
I n d o n e s i a
Yellow
Sea
Russia
East China
Sea
East Timor
Sea of Japan
North Korea
South Korea
Japan
Antarctica
Australia
Great
Australian
Bight
Equator
Sea of
Okhotsk
Tropic of Cancer
Papua New Guinea
Antarctic Circle
Ross Sea
P A C I F I C
Solo
New Cal
Tasman Sea
N

P A C I F I C
Equator
Tropic of Cancer
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd and Heidrick & Struggles
International Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.
Trademarks and logos are copyrights of their respective owners.
Printed in the USA.
Printed on recycled paper made from 100% consumer waste.
O C E A N
Gulf of
Alask a
Mexico
United States
Guatemala
El Salvador
Canada
Gulf of Mexico
Belize
Costa Rica
Hudson Bay
Honduras
Cuba
Jamaica
Nicaragua
Panama
Ecuador
Ban
Bay
The Bahamas
Haiti
Colombia
Greenland
Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico
Caribbean Sea
Venezuela
Arctic C
A T L A N
Guyana
Su

contents
Executive summary, 2
Essays and Insights, 4
Leadership Consulting – How to attract, develop
and retain talent in a shifting global landscape, 4
Consumer – I shop therefore I am, 6
Professional services – Rising temperatures, 8
Technology – A future imperative, 10
Industrial – The tale of two worlds, 12
Life Sciences – A healthy future? 14
Financial Services – Accounting for talent, 16
Appendices, 18
Methodology, 19
Global Talent Index maps, 20
Global Talent Index weighting, 22
Overall GTI rankings, 23
Demographics, 24
Quality of compulsory education, 25
Quality of universities and business schools, 26
Quality of the environment to nurture talent, 27
Mobility and relative openness of the labor market, 28
Stock and flow of foreign direct investment, 29
Proclivity to attracting talent, 30
Further reading, 31
Economist Intelligence Unit, 32
Mapping Global Talent
Essays and Insights
Welcome to the Global Talent Index, a unique research study
designed to identify where talent is located in the world today
and where it will be located five years from now.
The wall map demonstrates talent’s distribution in 2012, while this booklet of
short essays examines the challenges and opportunities opening up in different
industries. The theme that recurs repeatedly is that the successful organizations
of the future will be those able not just to attract the brightest global talent, but
nurture, develop and retain it by offering a compelling work environment and
sophisticated succession strategies.
I believe it will be the provision of a learning environment that will determine
the iconic market leading companies in years to come. We already know that
Generation Y – those born between 1977 and 2005 – will have had an average of
fourteen jobs by the time they are 38. The next generation is more demanding,
fickle and sophisticated than any other. Sophisticated talent demands
sophisticated talent management.
I hope the Global Talent Index reveals a lot more about the future we face and
how we can best prepare for it. Ignorance is bliss? Not in the world of talent.
L Kevin Kelly
CEO, Heidrick & Struggles, September 2007

Executive summary
Talent is the new oil and just like
oil, demand far outstrips supply
In early 2007 Heidrick & Struggles, in partnership
with the Economist Intelligence Unit, undertook a
study to encapsulate the current state of global talent
and its future configuration around the planet. Which
countries have the strongest pipeline? Where will talent
thrive over the next five years? What will change? And
what impact should that have on how companies plan
strategically for the medium term?
The resulting research, incorporating the data analysis
of thirty countries, shows subtle shifts and changes
as it measures global talent in 2007 and anticipates
future realities in 2012. Using a unique and proprietary
algorithm, the Heidrick & Struggles Global Talent
Index (GTI) uses quantitative and qualitative data to
measure the economic indicators, cultural contexts,
trends in education, foreign direct investment (FDI),
mortality, health and market fluidity that will impact
the ability of talent to thrive within these countries.
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
This combination of objective data and local
knowledge proved particularly helpful in enabling the
Economist Intelligence Unit to assess the more data-
poor economies: allowing us to tell a talent story that
would otherwise have remained hidden.
Money talks
The findings confirm a basic suspicion – talent follows
where money leads. As a consequence, perhaps
unsurprisingly, talent is most likely to be found in
developed, wealthy economies, led by the US (which
tops the table in 2007 and 2012), followed by the UK
and Canada and the two smaller, but open economies of
Sweden and the Netherlands. The inclusion of Sweden
and the Netherlands, along with Australia, in the Top
10 talent rankings shows that this trend is consistent
even in countries where demographic factors are weak.
Specifically: it is not just the size of the potential talent
pool that matters, but how it is nurtured.
Political structure
influences talent growth
The results in the lower half of the rankings are more
ambiguous. Not all countries in the bottom ten
are equal: they range from Greece to Iran, through
Brazil and Saudi Arabia. In part this comes down to
the number of countries selected – analysis of thirty
economies cannot fully reflect the different levels of
development across the world. Nevertheless, certain
themes emerge, particularly from the bottom five.
A common trend is that several of the least promising
performers do not currently boast fully-functioning
democracies. This opens up an interesting avenue for
further research into the links between an open society
and the development of talent.

BRIC is IC
A key finding revealed by this research, and supported
by prior academic studies conducted by the Economist
Intelligence Unit, is that the often repeated, media
friendly ‘BRIC’ story – the inexorable rise of Brazil,
Russia, India and China – is more accurately expressed
as an ‘IC’ story.
India and China sit in the top ten (10th and 6th
respectively in 2012) whereas Russia occupies 18th
place both now and in 2012, and Brazil falls from 23rd
place now to 25th place in five years time. The fact that
Russia stays stable overall masks a gradual erosion in
the quality of its compulsory education system, which
has been steadily falling since the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991. In spite of the increased investment in
higher education, weaknesses in primary and secondary
education provision are likely to have an adverse impact
on the country’s ability to develop its talent resources
over the longer term – a waste of Russia’s undoubted
natural potential. China and India do benefit from their
large populations but China also performs relatively
well in terms of its educational infrastructure and its
ability to attract foreign investment. Meanwhile India
out-performs China on several measures related to
the labor force – widespread knowledge of English
throughout the general population being an
obvious example.
Foreign direct investment
remains a key catalyst for
the development of talent
Malaysia exemplifies the power of foreign direct
investment (FDI) and achieves its 12 th place position
(in both 2007 and 2012) largely because of the amount
of foreign investment flowing across its borders. FDI
is at a premium within the talent index since it is
normally accompanied by imports of technological
and managerial best practice. In addition, as foreign
companies become established they often seek to replace
expatriates with local employees, creating demand for
new jobs and new skills. Mexico is another example of
the potential power of FDI, rising two places (from 21st
place to 19th place) because of a strong rise in the stock
of FDI over the forecast period. Mexico’s proximity
to the US and its entry into the North American Free
Trade Organization (NAFTA) in 1994 has given it the
edge over other Latin American countries (for example
Brazil), boosting annual FDI inflows to
around US$20bn.
Black and white and shades of grey
The GTI concentrates on seven focus areas (see
Methodology on page 19). The Index is a subtle tool,
but in certain cases the brushstrokes are too broad,
making changes in the rankings appear more dramatic
than they are. Two slightly weakening performers would
seem to be Germany and Australia, but their fall in the
rankings by one place (from 6th to 7th for Germany,
and 7th to 8th for Australia) is more the result of
China’s advance rather than any intrinsic deterioration
of their talent pools – indeed, Germany’s overall score
actually improves by one point in the five year period
analyzed by this study. This note of caution should
be borne in mind when examining any index as small
changes in score can combine to result in significant
alterations in rank. A case in point is Argentina, which
falls by four places on the back of a score that falls by
only two points.
Today’s leading pools of talent may not be
under pressure just yet but companies who
want to flourish in the future must adopt a
global view of recruitment. China and India
are emerging as significant players and cannot
be ignored. All over the world employees are
behaving as consumers, able to pick and choose
the companies they wish to work for: employers
must to do everything they can to cultivate
a powerful, persuasive reputation for talent
management if they are to safeguard their
long-term talent resources.
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit

Leadership Consulting
How to attract,
develop and
retain talent in
a shifting global
landscape
Dr Elisabeth Marx
Leadership Consulting
emarx@heidrick.com
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
The implications of the Global Talent Index
(GTI) for identifying, developing and retaining
the best executive talent are four-fold:
• The search map – the area in which talent
can be found – has changed.
• New global leaders must have very
specific competencies.
• Development opportunities need to be
much more targeted.
• Retention should start on the first day
of employment.
The search map
Our research shows a significant expansion in the area
of the search map. Most searches for large companies
are now global, targeting executives in Asia, Europe and
the US for key positions in international companies
all over the world. This new class of global executive
has common features: they have an MBA from a top
business school; they have several years of international
experience and are typically fluent in several languages.
My own research revealed that in 1996, only 42% of
top CEOs in the United Kingdom had international
experience but by 2005, this figure had nearly
doubled with 79% of chief executives boasting
experience abroad.
Executives are also expected to have far more crosssector
experience than before with a track record of
making lateral moves during their careers. In response
to the ‘War for Talent’, search firms are now tracking
international high-fliers proactively and for the long
term. For example, Heidrick & Struggles’ China
initiative specifically tracks Chinese nationals with
international backgrounds who want to return home.
Search firms need to continue to work much more
strategically with companies; the ad-hoc filling of empty
posts as they arise needs to be replaced by a holistic,
focused and flexible approach which incorporates
the assessment, development and training of existing
executives alongside the recruitment of new talent.
The new global leaders
The complexity, pace and global platform of today’s
business environment demands a special set of
characteristics. Apart from heightened requirements
in terms of background and experience, the leadership
criteria have changed dramatically over the last 10
years: there is now no substitute for global leadership
experience. However, when looking at the GTI and
the concentration of talent across the globe, one key
question emerges: how can we better assess the global
leadership capabilities of the various talent pools?

From a search consultant’s point of view these are
the essential characteristics to look for in the new
global leader.
International literacy
• Operating in different geographic regions.
• Understanding the cultural differences of employees
and customers.
• Dealing with ambiguity – those executives who
demand an excessive amount of certainty and rigid
frameworks do not generally adapt well to the
complex cultural patterns of working in foreign
countries and with different sensibilities.
• Enjoying diversity in a psychological sense.
Managing paradoxes
• Taking a helicopter-view and think strategically
whilst keeping the focus on operational results.
• Switching easily between different modes: from
long-term thinking to short-term, and from cost-
saving to expansion and growth.
• The flexibility to handle these potential paradoxes is
the key characteristic of future top executives.
The ability to build successful teams
The emphasis on the CEO as the ‘hero’ is waning.
Business success at the top (and farther down the
organization) depends on the leader pulling effective
teams together. Our research shows that very few
companies have highly effective teams at the top and a
common complaint is that while there are individual
strengths, “the team is not working together”.
Companies are already beginning to address this issue,
and we are seeing much more active intervention at the
top level as CEOs engage external help in aligning the
team with business strategy.
The new development program
Large companies are increasingly creating their own
universities to train staff from around the world.
There has also been a rise in the provision of in-house
and bespoke programs from international business
schools. Samsung, for example, has created its own
talent pipeline by first recruiting people of different
nationalities from leading business schools and
universities around the world, and then putting them
through its in-house training and development center.
The coaching industry, a largely unregulated area,
is also exploding, answering a growing demand for
the development of ‘softer’ skills such as teaching,
“The answer is a better
analysis and understanding
of their motivational
make-up …”
negotiating and listening. In the future, to give
executives the support they require, we would expect
the provision of such skills to be provided by business
school programmes and follow-up coaching.
Retention and career
management of the best
The best are constantly offered jobs by your competitors
– how can you retain them over longer periods of
time? The answer is a better analysis and understanding
of their motivational make-up so that you can offer
productive career support and development.
Employer anxiety about top executives leaving can
prevent sensible career discussions from taking place.
Bosses often completely avoid the subject with their
employees, leaving the employee feeling under-valued
and unfulfilled, resulting in turnover at the most senior
level. Having an internal or external career development
function helps executives clarify what they want and
what they would like the next step of their career to be.
The company is then able to construct a scenario where
this can be achieved. The companies that will grow
in this new talent geography are those which coach,
motivate and develop their own talent in tandem with
an inclusive, global recruitment process.
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit

Consumer
I shop
therefore I am
Torrey Foster
Consumer practice
tfoster@heidrick.com
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
How do you cater to a fickle global
consumer who wants the latest and greatest
product for half the price? That is the
question troubling the consumer industry.
Higher levels of discretionary income
with the rise of the middle classes in India
and China, combined with ever more
sophisticated consumer tastes, have created
a world where the customer is king (but
always on the look out for a bigger, better
value crown!)
The growing spending power of the developing world
is startling. Today in China the middle class numbers
over 300 million people – that is the same figure as the
current population of the USA. Meanwhile, assuming
steady growth over two decades, India is poised to
overtake Germany as the world’s fifth-biggest consumer
market by 2025.
The developed world cannot match this aggressive
consumerism, but the next five years will see a rise in
tempo as key retail giants fight over a population that is
developing ever more precise ideas of what they want to
spend their money on. The pressures this consumerism
puts on product development, supply chain and price
has resulted in strong retail concentration
– for example, in the US, Home Depot and Sears
hold sway in the homeware arena, in the UK grocery
store Tesco is the leader, while Carrefour dominates in
France.
These giants expect the very latest in product
development, durability, design and price and
small scale suppliers – finding it hard to keep up
– are increasingly being incorporated into larger
conglomerates with only the Nestlés, the PepsiCos and
the Krafts able to square up to the big retail firms.
In talent terms this never-ending drive for innovation
will see an exponential increase in the value of R&D
expertise. The pipeline must be primed to produce a
constant stream of new products that will impress the
consumer. Throwing money at innovation isn’t the
solution – many large companies have been tripped up
by this in the past and have in turn been outsmarted
by smaller, more nimble competitors. Outsourcing will
become an important pressure valve, as some companies
are already finding to their advantage. At Procter &
Gamble, 35% of all its new products have elements that
originate from outside the company, up from about 15%
in 2000. They say this kind of collaboration has seen
R&D productivity increase by nearly 60%, while R&D
investment as a percentage of sales has fallen from 4.8%
in 2000 to 3.4% today.

The case of Procter & Gamble highlights the fact that
survival in the consumer industry will come to rely
not just on investment of resources but also on good
management. Their R&D operation is working because
it is being well-directed with a clear strategy. This has
important implications for managerial talent in the
sector. Those individuals who will perform best in 2012
and beyond will be those who are able to manage the
R&D function in a global context. These managers will
be skilled at forecasting customer and supplier behavior
and trends, and they will have an extremely detailed
understanding of supply chain vagaries and imperatives.
They will also need to be media-savvy. The single biggest
challenge in the consumer sector over the next five years
will be the increasing difficulty of communicating to
consumers and potential employees. An astonishing
range of media channels compete for the consumer’s
attention, and the industry’s dilemma will be how to
ensure their brand message – be it about online stores,
green policies or the latest new products, is actually
seen by their customers (before they see what the
competition has on offer).
So where will this talent be found? The educational
ranking of the Global Talent Index indicates that
unsurprisingly, over the next five years the US, Canada
and Europe will be the predominant suppliers of top
quality graduates. What is surprising and perhaps the
consequence of heightened visa restrictions is that
the United States registers a low score for mobility of
labor and relative openness of its labor market. This
measure records the language skills of the population,
the number of international students studying in the
country and the number of nationals studying in
foreign universities. The USA scores 9th place in 2007,
and falls to 10th place in 2012, overtaken by India.
This is not the case in Canada, the UK or Germany,
which score 1st, 2nd and 3rd place respectively in this
particular ranking, both today and in 2012. This would
suggest that, if it is to realize its full educational and
demographic potential, the US must encourage greater
immigration and emigration, helping future American
managers gain the international experience which will
allow them to compete in (and fully understand) the
global consumer market.
American companies in the consumer sector have not
traditionally had a reputation for nurturing their own
talent, innovation being the key concern. However,
there is evidence that the giants in the industry are
realizing the value of managing and developing the
talent they have – Wal-Mart for example, has ongoing
initiatives to develop its own talent, including a
leadership-in-training program and a leader-to-leader
project for managers, aiming to push decision-making
power down the management ladder. They have
also introduced a new pilot program through which
employees can alert the company of their talents and
ambitions and, once assessed, managers recommend
ways for them to pursue their skills, through
secondments, evening classes, language lessons etc.
This idea of temporary foreign work placements recalls
that key talent trend – to be fully successful in the
world of tomorrow, international experience will
be indispensable.
“to realize its full educational
and demographic potential the
US must encourage greater
immigration and emigration,
helping future American
managers gain the international
experience which will allow
them to compete in (and
fully understand) the global
consumer market”
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit

Professional Services
Rising
temperatures
Krishnan Rajagopalan
Business & Professional Services practice
krajagopalan@heidrick.com
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
The professional services sector is
developing a split personality. On the one
hand, it is made up of internationally-
known US and European firms with
thousands of employees and years of
experience, ready to perform almost any
task for a corporate client. On the other, it
incorporates a myriad of young firms, from
call-centers in Croatia to large, fast-growing
Indian outfits, all of which are low-cost and,
in most cases, highly competitive in terms
of basic skills and business processes.
Historically, the two sides have co-existed fairly
peacefully: increasingly over the next five years, the
competition will start to heighten. With the outlook
for global economic growth slightly less buoyant, the
traditional professional services industry will find quick
wins harder to come by. Clients will increasingly pick
and choose services by price and value, as opposed to
reputation, depth of experience and international reach.
At the same time, the young offshoring companies
will continue to migrate into higher-end services,
encroaching on more of the core activities of their well-
established competitors.
As a result, offshoring – “hiring” another company’s
talent to cut costs – is expected to show compound
annual growth rates of more than 15%. By contrast the
traditional professional services sector, will grow at
around half that rate.
Given this, both sides of the sector will need to make
the procurement of talent a top priority in the next five
years. Both will depend on similar methods for finding
their new hires – vigorous recruiting at the university
level and strong networking skills for identifying
managers from other professions who might be
persuaded to change careers. Both sides of the business
will also need to develop strong internal recruiters who
know how to promote the firm and who are adept
at building networks of qualified candidates in the
communities where their companies operate.
The first stop will be universities. Both at home and
abroad, the reputation and quality of a country’s
universities will be a key measurement for recruiters.
The Global Talent Index’s ranking of the quality of
universities and business schools – which assesses the
number of universities ranked globally among the top
five-hundred, the number of business schools ranking
in the world’s top one-hundred and the spending per
student on higher education as a percentage of GDP
per capita – shows a number of important developments
in this regard.
In 2012, for example, the GTI score shows that the
top five countries measured by the quality of their

universities and business schools will be unchanged
from 2007 with the US, the UK, Sweden, South Korea
and Australia scoring 78, 44, 38, 37, and 36 in 2012
respectively (out of a possible 100 points). However,
there will be significant movement below these top-
ranked countries, with Germany, France, Russia, Japan
and Poland all moving up two places to 6th, 7th, 11th
12th and 16th respectively (out of the ranking of thirty
countries). Russia’s advance stands in stark contrast to
the lower quality of its compulsory education, where it
ranks 22nd in the 2012 ranking, down two places from
20th in 2007. The two measurements underline Russia’s
growing commitment to higher education, with junior
and high-school facilities receiving a lower priority.
Given the advances of both Germany and France,
Canada and Saudi Arabia will both drop two places
to 8th and 9th on the 2012 ranking of the quality of
universities and business schools. Lower down the
ranking, China will hold steady at 21st place with India
moving up one level to 25th; these figures are naturally
distorted due to the size of the population and the
method of assessment, which is spread per capita. While
both of these countries will continue to support high-
quality higher education over the next five years and
will have tremendous talent pools, the sheer number
of their populations pulls down their ranking in the
expenditure per student measurement.
As the developing world continues to pile into the
offshoring business, the range of industries “hiring”
capital will continue to grow over the next five years.
Even the most conservative, security-conscious sectors
will be seeking to reduce costs by moving their more
routine businesses to offshore facilities. In the legal
profession, for example, more highly skilled work
such as litigation research, traditionally carried out by
paralegals in-house, and intellectual property work
involving patent research, analysis, and drafting
of patent applications, is expected to move to
offshoring facilities.
Given the continued need for versatile, talented staff for
both sides of the professional services sector – offshore
and onshore – firms will need to do the following:
Think globally regarding talent
pools and talent competition
They will need to source globally for roles that they
have previously looked to fill locally and they will need
to keep in mind that the talent competition is leveling
out with the traditional competitor and the offshore
company looking for exactly the same talent but with a
different value proposition.
Think creatively on channels
for talent acquisition
One of the key resources in the years ahead will be
the industry’s own employees. In particular, employee
referral programs will become more popular. These
generally offer cash rewards and prizes to employees for
successfully referred candidates. For KPMG, nearly 39%
of the firm’s experienced hires came through employee
referrals. For smaller firms the percentage will be less
but just as valuable, particularly considering the low
cost of acquiring talent in this manner.
Innovate the HR function
With talent in short supply, organizations should elevate
HR to the highest levels, acknowledging that talent is
the only competitive advantage. Leading companies
need to customize their HR processes to align with
business objectives and create a results-oriented,
performance culture. Be ready – the global talent war in
professional services is just beginning to heat up.
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit

10
Technology
A future
imperative
Daniel Cheng
Technology practice
dcheng@heidrick.com
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
After years of hype, the technological future
is almost here. The networked home, the
truly portable office, easy-to-use video
conferencing and collaborative, online
project management all promise to become
realities over the next five years. This will
have one effect – the search for talent in
the IT and telecoms sectors will intensify as
corporate and consumer spending outpaces
global economic growth.
Even the most traditional non-technical companies
will need to upgrade to Web 2.0 online environments
and the latest hi-tech equipment in order to maintain
productivity and competitiveness. At the same time,
consumers will continue to demand the latest electronic
gadgets complete with internet access, such as designer
smartphones, portable gaming consoles, and networked
appliances for the home.
In the telecoms sector, sales of the ubiquitous mobile
phone will continue to grow, even as world penetration
levels rise to over 50%. In addition to buoyant sales
in emerging markets, demand will be sustained by
upgrades to web-enabled handsets, which will be used
to pay for purchases, to check e-mails, download music,
watch TV and make and receive texts and calls. Fixed-
line telecom companies will need to meet the challenge
of web-based telephony and converged networks,
providing their customers with much more than plain
vanilla voice services.
Given these trends, a flexible, collaborative, global
workforce will be a top priority for virtually all
multinationals in the IT and telecoms sectors. In order
to retain top-flight people around the world, companies
are already developing techniques for plugging their
people into closed system internal corporate recruiting
networks using the latest technology. For example,
IBM now manages its workforce globally using a
system called Professional Marketplace, which provides
rapid online access to the HR profiles of over 70,000
employees. These profiles are updated regularly in
order to reflect work experiences and skills. Using this
system, managers can quickly identify suitably-skilled
employees from around the world to meet the needs of
each project. Microsoft uses something similar, called
distributed engineering, where engineers around the
world can collaborate online.
With the best IT and telecom companies experiencing
turnover rates as high as 15%, retaining talent will
become an even greater concern in the years ahead.
As a result, non-compensation based benefits – such
as childcare and flexible working hours – will rise in
importance. SAS Institute, the world’s largest privately
held software and related services provider, has a 4%

employee turnover, which it attributes in part to its on-
site day care center. The company also has around five
employees who focus full-time on helping employees
deal with the needs of their ageing parents.
The Global Talent Index reveals that the tech sector
will continue to recruit primarily from the US over the
next several years as it retains its dominance in terms
of the quality of universities and business schools –
the key factor in developing new talent in these fields.
The US will be followed by the UK and Sweden in
Europe. Saudi Arabia will hold a similar position in
the Middle East.
The countries to watch in terms of an improving
overall quality for nurturing talent are Australia and
South Korea, as well as China, which will leap eight
places to rank 14th by 2012. A declining country in this
category is Russia, which is predicted to sink from 6th
place to 11th over the next five years primarily due to
the gradual erosion of its education system since the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This trend will not
be countered significantly by the rising investment the
Russian government is putting into higher education as
it will take more than five years for these improvements
to have a significant effect on the Russian ability to
nurture talent.
The ten countries with the greatest proclivity for
attracting talent (assessing the technical skills of the
work force, personal disposable income, employment
growth and GDP data) will remain largely unchanged
over the next five years, with North America and
Europe retaining their overall dominance. France
will take over the number two spot currently held by
Sweden, which will slip to 7th place. This leap can be
attributed in part to Nicolas Sarkozy’s new government
and his modernising of France’s traditional working
practice restrictions.
On demographics, China and India rank first and
second place respectively. We can predict that these
two countries will yield an increasing number of
talented graduates in the hi-tech sector given their
strong tradition of engineering and science at the
university level. This, plus the increased presence of
foreign multinationals in China, has helped boost the
country up the overall ranking from 8th place in 2007
to 6th place in 2012. India holds firm at 10th overall,
aided by its gradual improvement in the quality of its
environment to nurture talent, the mobility of its labor
and relative openness of its labor market.
“Even the most
traditional nontechnical
companies
will need to upgrade
to Web 2.0 online
environments
and the latest hitech
equipment in
order to maintain
productivity and
competitiveness.”
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 11

1
Industrial
The tale of
two worlds
Dale Visokey
Industry practice
dvisokey@heidrick.com
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
Top-flight graduates will be harder to lure
into the industrial manufacturing sector
over the next five years. Recruiters who
understand this fact will be at an advantage.
The reasons are simple – the global manufacturing
sector will grow at a relatively slow pace over the next
few years, led by strength in emerging markets. Global
passenger car sales, for example, will rise by an average
of only 3.5% per year until 2012 and the increase will
be driven by demand in China and India. Sales in the
developed world will remain disappointing; with the US
market set to stagnate and those in western Europe and
Japan expected to grow by a modest 2 to 4%.
The energy sector will exhibit similarly low-key
growth with global energy demand per head expected
to average 2.4% per year over the next few years.
Slower demand will be the result of high prices and
an increased move toward energy conservation in the
developed world. There will be a similar story in other
major industrial sectors.
Given this trend, traditional manufacturing industries
and energy companies will need to tackle their less
than sparkling growth profile head on and wring as
much talent as possible out of emerging markets. One
tactic will be the establishment of local training units
in the fast growing markets. In China, for example, the
logistics firm DHL has already set up its own
Logistics Management University, which teaches
new recruits everything from courier business to
supply chain management.
The downside, however, will be losing staff almost as
quickly as they are trained. “Multinational operations
in China must contend with a 20 to 30% annual
staff turnover rate and recruit 1,000 plus employees
annually,” says Indranil Sen, a Vice President for
strategic intelligence at DHL. “With two years’
experience in logistics, many employees will job-hop
and start work for another firm, the incentive being a
50% pay increase.”
In the developed world, manufacturing companies
can retain trained staff if they are willing to give
international opportunities to their top performers. And
this trend will be seen all the way up the management
structure. In a recent survey of US and European CEOs
by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 60% of respondents
said their senior management teams will become more
international over the next three years. Opportunities
for senior management in the emerging markets look
set to grow – Chinese automakers, for example, will be
keen to hire Western managers over the next five years
as they begin to expand into foreign markets.

“In a recent survey of US and European CEOs by the
Economist Intelligence Unit, 60% of respondents said
their senior management teams will become more
international over the next three years.”
In the US and European aerospace and defense
industries, the major talent challenge over the next five
years will be a greying workforce. According to the
Aerospace Industries Association, the average aerospace/
defense engineer in the US is currently nearly sixty
years old. By 2008, approximately 27% of employed
engineers will be eligible for retirement, and during the
next decade, the number of employees with science and
engineering degrees reaching traditional retirement
age will triple.
In the developing world, the exact opposite is true, with
science and engineering degrees becoming increasingly
popular as a means to move up the income ladder.
However, visa restrictions in the US and Europe,
limiting the immigration of foreign professionals, will
remain tough. As a result, the growing ranks of Asian
graduates will be increasingly absorbed on their home
ground by native firms and the US and European
companies locating new manufacturing facilities in
these faster growing emerging economies.
Given this imbalance, the aerospace and engineering
industries will need to make a big effort to attract
and retain new graduates, through the establishment
of programs that support research, pre-graduation
internships, and mentoring activities once a new recruit
signs on. Retention will be a major problem; in the
aerospace industry, the attrition rate in the one to six
year range will be approximately two times greater than
in the overall new graduate population.
The manufacturing sector also demands blue-collar
talent – those steady workers who contribute to the
success of a business through a commitment to quality
and productivity. Several fast growing developing
markets – China in particular – will be an increasingly
attractive source of these skills. The Global Talent
Index’s ‘flow of foreign direct investment’ (FDI)
measurement reveals that some other countries are likely
to become more important in this regard. South Africa
will rise seven places to rank fifth on the FDI ranking
by 2012, a movement that reflects the country’s growing
role as a supplier of goods and services to the rest of the
African continent as well as overseas. Other countries
which will rise up the FDI ranking include Mexico (up
five places to 11th) Egypt, Ukraine, and France.
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 1

1
Life Sciences
A healthy
future?
Jeff W Dodson
Life Sciences practice
jdodson@heidrick.com
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
The life sciences sector, in many ways, is
a victim of its own success. The medical
and public health advances of the last
several decades have translated into
healthier people, longer lifespans, reduced
infant mortality and an expanding global
population. It seems demand for healthcare
services and products can only continue to
increase globally.
The prevalence of ‘lifestyle’ diseases – such as obesity
and alcoholism – are already causing increased alarm
in the developed world, leading to a greater focus on
disease prevention and education in those economies.
Meanwhile concern over infectious diseases, particularly
Avian Flu and HIV/AIDS, will facilitate greater
government cooperation with industry in both the
emerging markets and the developed world, increasing
the demand for multi-lingual healthcare policy experts
with a global perspective in both the public and
private sector.
The global pharmaceutical business will see continued
growth, but at a slower rate, as more low-cost generics
become available, government pricing pressures
continue, and truly innovative drugs come to market
at a slower pace. This steady growth will be sustained
by increasing knowledge about DNA and molecular
science, which promise more personalized drugs able
to target niche markets with greater efficacy. This
should deliver greater pricing power to the industry
but may require the sale of larger numbers of lower
revenue drugs rather than reliance upon the traditional
blockbuster model of selling a few key drugs to large
segments of the global population.
Whether due to costs, restructuring, mergers, a
reluctance to hire from outside the industry, the rapid
growth of emerging markets or a combination of all
five, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries
have historically failed to invest sufficient resources in
building their internal teams. The biotech companies
have tended to rely on a pretty hand-to-mouth existence
while the more established firms in pharma have often
operated as exclusive US/European clubs, increasingly
leaning on staffing organizations to fill their talent
gaps in the short term, rather than applying long-term
succession planning. As the influence of China and
India continue to rise over the next five years this trend
cannot continue; already there is growing evidence of
the gradual move to outsourcing selected functions, an
option the industry had previously been slow to accept.
When assessing a move to outsourcing, biotech
companies will need to ensure they are able to access
similar talent pools and resources to those they have
in their current locations. Existing biotech clusters

have the competitive advantage of being located close
to many highly respected universities – for example
the cluster in Northern California which has twelve
major research universities and laboratories in the
region helping to drive innovation. The proliferation
of collaborative working and knowledge sharing tools
and technologies should help break down geographic
barriers over the next five years, allowing for an
increasing level of outsourcing to countries in Asia and
Eastern Europe.
In cases where medicines need to be developed for
large regional markets, it will make sense for companies
to locate their facilities closer to the population in
question, where the demand is higher and where these
companies can access the local skilled talent pool.
Multinationals in this sector will invest in global regions
where there is a high supply of technical and scientific
professionals, such as China, India and Brazil, which
rank 1st, 2nd and 5th, respectively, in the demographics
category of the Global Talent Index both in 2007 and
2012. To build the scale of talent needed in markets
like China and India to better serve large local markets,
pharmaceutical multinationals will need to play an
active role in recruiting and developing people at junior,
middle and senior levels in their organizations.
Globally, the life sciences sector will need to keep
working hard to attract the most skilled and committed
scientists and researchers, in addition to top-quality
senior general management executives capable of
leading and driving change across complex global
organizations. This will necessitate a global talent
search; for graduate level personnel this search will
be centered mainly on the top universities. For more
experienced individuals the hunt will be among the
world’s fast-growing biotech firms and university labs.
As with other high-growth sectors, not just the
recruitment but the retention of talent will be a major
headache for the life sciences sector over the next
five years. To address this problem, pharmaceutical
companies will need to start looking at recruiting
outside of their traditional hiring range. For example,
companies will need to be more involved at high
school and college level to generate interest and educate
students on the skills needed for the industry. In
addition, these companies will need to begin targeting
the 60+ market, which is looking increasingly likely to
seek supplemental income after retirement age and may
continue to work in the field through reduced work
programs.
The Global Talent Index’s measurement of the quality
of the environment to nurture talent – which puts
a strong weighting on the percentage of university
students in the sciences, numbers of R&D researchers
and meritocratic remuneration – reflects one of the
biggest changes ahead for talent trends in the life science
sector over the next five years. China, which advances
two places on the overall Global Talent Index for 2012,
jumps eight places to 14th in this category between
2007 and 2012, its biggest advance among all seven
measurements used to make up the GTI. The increase
reflects the Chinese government’s determination to
improve the quality of life for its population and
develop the life sciences sector into one of its global
competencies.
Another strong performer in this category is South
Korea, which advances four places to 10th place in the
rank in its ability to nurture talent. Unsurprisingly, the
US ranks top in this category, given its long history
of innovation in the sector, followed closely by the
Netherlands, Canada, Japan and Australia.
Developing an awareness of these emerging trends and
making the recruitment, development and retention of
top talent a strategic imperative is critically important
for every life sciences company competing in the
global market. Equally important is the establishment
of strong partnerships with world class agencies
capable of recruiting the best talent in key functions
in all established and emerging regions. The most
proactive industry players have already made significant
investments in talent, and these are the companies that
are best positioned for the future.
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 1

1
Financial Services
Accounting
for talent
Valerie Germain
Financial Services practice
vgermain@heidrick.com
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
Over the past two decades young graduates
have been attracted to the challenge and
wealth creation opportunities that have
resulted from an evolving global financial
services sector. The US has been a dominant
source of talent, but several factors have
resulted in an increasing demand for fresh
skill sets and talent from different countries.
These factors include the continued growth
of European markets, a rise in opportunities
across Asia and other emerging markets,
and the growth of a new group of top
financial service firms not domiciled in
the US.
In the future, a number of market risks will rebalance
the opportunities that have existed in this sector. Slower
global economic growth and rising interest rates, credit
defaults and issues stemming from a lack of market
liquidity – following the sub-prime mortgage collapse
– will, in the short-term lead firms to reevaluate their
portfolios, product mix and pace of expansion. A
slowdown in the global property market, particularly
in developed economies, will put financial pressure
on banks that have enjoyed strong returns from real
estate lending. As the economy slows and the debt
markets become less attractive, M&A activities, led
in part by private equity funds, will lessen, causing
investment banks to rethink their ongoing growth plans
in investment banking and capital markets. The sharp
rise in debt associated with leveraged buyouts by private
equity firms will increasingly become a source of risk
to lenders.
To combat this, many banks will continue to diversify
their businesses, strengthen reserves and improve the
quality of loan recipients. A high premium will be
placed on new product development, emerging markets,
and increasingly sophisticated risk management and
transfer techniques. The appetite will be for multi-
lingual candidates with international experience who
possess a strong combination of technical experience
and education.
The Global Talent Index (GTI) shows that the historic
dominance of US talent will continue but also reveals
the rise of several European countries as European
financial services firms emerge as dominant global
players. Over the next five years, it is predicted that
France will leap three places to rank 2 nd behind the
US in the proclivity to attracting talent measurement
– this vital indicator assesses the technical skills of the
workforce, personal disposable income, employment
growth and GDP data. Canada, Germany, Australia and
the UK follow in 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th , and 6 th places, respectively.
Japan will also gain competitive advantage, jumping
from 14 th to 11 th place in its proclivity to attract talent
over the next five years.

There will also be significant demand for talent
originating in the high growth areas of Asia and the
other emerging markets. The demand for this talent
may outpace the supply. Despite the vast numbers of
graduates entering the workforce every year in these
countries, a relatively low proportion will have the skills
required by global financial service firms. Those that do
will be highly sought after and firms will need to offer
top compensation and career growth opportunities to
attract and secure their loyalty.
Interestingly, India, which earns its overall 10 th place
ranking in the GTI primarily because of the talent pool
created by its huge population, will jump four places,
from 17 th to 13 th , in its proclivity to attract talent in
2012. This is the country’s single biggest improvement
among all seven indices, reflecting a continued emphasis
on technical training at the secondary and tertiary levels
of education as well as a rapidly expanding middle-class.
The orientation of graduates is far more sophisticated
today because of their access to information from the
internet. ‘Generation Y’, those born between 1977 and
2005, have grown up with computers, show no fear of
technology, take risks and are media-savvy and brand
conscious. They are an online generation whose new
social spheres are networking sites such as MySpace and
FaceBook. Within a few years, job podcasts by even the
most conservative of companies will become a reality.
The firms that understand this and position themselves
accordingly will reap the benefits.
One of the ongoing challenges in financial services
has been the thoughtfulness with which firms have
approached succession planning. This has been true
in some parts of the sector more than others but, as
the sources of talent change it will be increasingly
incumbent on all firms to mature the processes around
the development and retention of their next generation
of leadership talent.
‘Generation Y’, those born between 1977 and 2005, have grown
up with computers, show no fear of technology, take risks and are
media-savvy and brand conscious. They are an online generation
whose new social spheres are networking sites such as MySpace
and FaceBook. Within a few years, job podcasts by even the most
conservative of companies will become a reality.
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 1

N T I C
Verde Islands
1
Appendices
Barents Sea
Norwegian
Sea
Iceland
Sweden
Finland
Appendix A Methodology, 19
Appendix B Global Talent Index maps, 20 Ireland
Appendix F Quality of compulsory education, 25
Appendix G Azores Islands
France
Quality of universities and business schools, 26
Appendix I
Portugal
Mobility and relative openness of the labor market, 28
Spain
Appendix J Stock and flow of foreign direct investment, 29
Western Sahara
Senegal
Gambia
Guinea Bissau
Canary Islands
Guinea
Mauritania
Morocco
Mali
Sierra Leone
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
Cote
Liberia
D'Ivoire
Ghana
Greenland
United Kingdom
Appendix C Global Talent Index weighting, 22
Appendix D Overall GTI ranking, 23
Appendix E Demographics, 24
Burkina Faso
Benin
Arctic Circle
Appendix H Quality of the environment to nurture talent, 27
Appendix K Proclivity to attracting talent, 30
Equator
Algeria
North
Sea
Denmark
Neth.
Bel.
Nigeria
Greenland
Sea
Switz.
Tunisia
Niger
Norway
Germany
Italy
Baltic
Sea
Poland
Czech Rep. Slovakia
Austria Hungary
Libya
Chad
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Croatia
Bosnia
& Herz. Serbia
Mont.
Albania
Belarus
Romania
Mac.
Greece
Bulgaria
Mediterranean Sea
Ukraine
Mold.
Kara
Sea
Black Sea
Turkey
Cyprus
Lebanon
Egypt
Israel
Sudan
Syria
Jordan
Red Sea
Georgia
Russia
Eritrea
Caspian
Sea
Azerbaijan
Iraq
Ethiopia
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Aral Sea
Turkmenistan
Iran
Yemen
Somalia
U. A. E.
Kyrgyzstan
Oman
Tajikistan
Afghanistan
Mongolia
Pakistan
Chin
Uzbekistan N
Qatar
Arabian Sea
I N D I A
O C E A
Equat

Appendix A
Methodology
The Global Talent Index is the result of a
collaboration between Heidrick & Struggles
and the Economist Intelligence Unit; the
vision of the former was matched by the
research expertise of the latter. The Index
measures not only a country’s natural
potential for producing talent in socio-
demographic terms, but also the conditions
necessary to realize this potential. A country
may exhibit heady population growth but
without a supporting infrastructure and the
right cultural contexts, the talent margin
will not be able to fully develop.
To reflect this multi-layered analysis seven major
areas were determined to be of importance:
• demographics
• quality of compulsory education systems
• quality of universities and business schools
• quality of the environment to nurture talent
• mobility and relative openness of the labour market
• trends in foreign direct investment
• proclivity to attracting talent
Applying their respective areas of expertise in talent
assessment and data gathering, the project team from
both organizations drew up a list of variables with
which to measure the seven areas of interest. These
variables combine quantitative measures drawn from
a variety of local and international data sources,
with qualitative assessments from the Economist
Intelligence Unit’s network of country analysts and local
contributors. Forecasts were based on the Economist
Intelligence Unit’s macroeconomic model and country
analysts’ projections for qualitative variables. Some
variables, particularly for education, had to be assumed
to remain equal in five years, owing to the lack of
time on which to base projections. The data was then
normalized in order to obtain scores from 1 to 100
(where higher scores meant better performances on the
talent measures).
Finally, the project team set the weights of the different
variables in the overall Index by assigning scores from
1 to 5 for each variable (where 1 = less important and
5 = of critical importance).
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 1

0
Appendix B
Global Talent Index maps
the world at 2012
The map uses color to represent thirty countries’ overall talent
ranking at 2012, indicating at a glance how countries score at
nurturing talent, from red-hot beds to blue cooler climates.
Global Talent Index scores in 2012 – numbers represent how countries score at nurturing talent
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
P A C I F I C
Equator
Tropic of Cancer
O C E A N
Gulf of
Alask a
Tropic of Capricorn
Mexico
Russia
Beaufor t
Sea
United States
Guatemala
El Salvador
Canada
Gulf of Mexico
Global Talent Index
ranking in 2012
Belize
Costa Rica
A R C T I C
O C E A N
Hudson Bay
Honduras
Cuba
Jamaica
Nicaragua
Panama
Ecuador
The Bahamas
Peru
Haiti
Colombia
Antarctic Circle
Ban
Bay
Greenland
Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico
Caribbean Sea
Chile
Venezuela
Bolivia
Argentina
Nor wegian
Sea
Paraguay
Arctic Circle
Iceland
A T L A N T I C
Brazil
Norway
Guyana
Suriname
French Guiana
Uruguay
01
rank country
United Kingdom
Ireland
Azores Islands
Tropic of Cancer
France
Portugal
Equator
Spain
Tropic of Capricorn
Morocco
Canary Islands
Western Sahara
Senegal
Algeria
Mauritania
Cape Verde Islands
Gambia
Guinea Bissau
Guinea
Sierra Leone
rank
change
O C E A N
GTI
01
Liberia
Mali
Ivory
Coast
GTI
00
1 United States 0 52
United Kingdom + 46
Canada - 1 47
Netherlands - 1 46
Sweden 0 45
China + 42

Puerto Rico
Venezuela
Guyana
Suriname
French Guyana
Brazil
United States
A T L A N T I C
Tropic of Cancer
01
rank country
Cape Verde Islands
Equator
Western Sahara
Senegal
Gambia
Guinea Bissau
Canada
Hudson
Bay Ban
Bay
Azores Islands
Canary Islands
Sierra Leone
Guinea
Mauritania
Liberia
O C E A N
Portugal
Cote
D'Ivoire
rank
change
Iceland
Greenland
Ireland
Morocco
United Kingdom
Mali
Ghana
Spain
Burkina Faso
Benin
Togo
Arctic Circle
Algeria
North
Sea
Denmark
Neth.
Bel.
Nigeria
Equatorial Guinea
Sao Tome & Principe
Tunisia
Niger
Tropic of Capricorn
GTI
01
Beaufort Sea
Greenland
Sea
Norwegian
Sea
Norway
Germany
Cameroon
Gabon
Chukchi
Sea
A R C T I C
O C E A N
Sweden
Baltic
Sea
Congo
Poland
Czech Rep. Slovakia
Libya
Angola
Namibia
Chad
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Belarus
Central African Republic
Dem. Rep.
Of Congo
Botswana
South Africa
Ukraine
France
Switz. Austria Mold.
Hungary
Slovenia
Romania
Croatia
Bosnia
& Herz. Serbia
Black Sea
Italy
Mont. Bulgaria
Albania Mac.
Greece
Turkey
GTI
00
Germany - 1 43
Australia - 1 43
France 0 41
10 India 0 1 39
11 Spain 0 37
1 Malaysia 0 37
Barents Sea
Mediterranean Sea
Leptev
Sea
Kara
Sea
Syria
Cyprus
Lebanon
Egypt
Zambia
Sudan
Rwanda
Burundi
Zimbabwe
Israel
Jordan
Uganda
01
rank country
Tanzania
Russia
Caspian
Sea
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Red Sea
Eritrea
Kenya
Iraq
Mozambique
Sea of
Okhotsk
Ethiopia
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Aral Sea
Turkmenistan
Iran
Yemen
Uzbekistan
Somalia
Madagascar
Kyrgyzstan
Qatar
U. A. E. Oman
Tajikistan
Afghanistan
Mongolia
rank
change
China
Nepal
Pakistan India
Arabian Sea
I N D I A N
O C E A N
Equator
GTI
01
Myanmar
Bay
of
Bengal
Sri Lanka
GTI
00
1 South Korea + 34
1 Japan + 34
1 Poland - 35
1 Italy - 34
1 Ukraine + 33
1 Russia 0 33
Madagascar
India
Sri Lanka
Nepal
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Bay
of
Bengal
Burma
Laos
Thailand
Malaysia
Cambodia
Sing.
China
Vietnam
Mongolia
Brunei
Malaysia
Philippines
Russia
Sea of Japan
North Korea
South Korea
Japan
I n d o n e s i a
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
I N D I A N East Timor
O C E A N
01
rank country
Tropic of Capricorn
O C E A N
South
China
Sea
rank
change
GTI
01
Yellow
Sea
East China
Sea
Great
Australian
Bight
Antarctica
GTI
00
1 Mexico + 31
0 Greece 0 32
1 Argentina - 34
Thailand 0 0 31
South Africa + 1 0 29
Egypt + 1 29
Australia
Equator
Sea of
Okhotsk
Tropic of Cancer
Antarctic Circle
01
rank
Ross Sea
P A C I F I C
Tasman Sea
New Caledonia
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 1
New Zealand
country
Vanuatu
Fiji
Tropic of Capricorn
rank
change
GTI
01
GTI
00
Brazil - 30
Turkey 0 27
Saudi Arabia + 1 23
Nigeria - 1 25
Indonesia 0 23
0 Iran 0 1 21

Appendix C
Global Talent
Index weighting
Seven major areas were determined to be of importance
in researching and analysing the factors that determine
a country’s potential for producing talent. These are
listed here in the tables on the right. As the final step
in the data analysis, the project team from Heidrick &
Struggles and The Economist Intelligence Unit applied
their judgement to set the weights of the different
variables in the overall ranking by assigning scores from
1 to 5 for each variable (where 1 = unimportant and 5
= critical importance). For example, in assessing the
quality of compulsory education, the starting age of a
country’s compulsory education was judged to be much
less significant than its adult literacy rate which were
weighted 1 and 5 respectively. This process ensures that
the final scores include a degree of insight from the
project team based on its specialist knowledge of
the subject.
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
indicator weight: 1 to 5
Demographics
Population aged 20-59 nnnnn
CAGR Population aged 20-59 (%) 0
Quality of compulsory education sectors
Duration of compulsory education nnnn
Starting age of compulsory education 1 n
Current education spending (% of GDP) nn
Current education spending per pupil
as a % of GDP per capita
Primary school enrollment ratio (%) nn
nnnn
Secondary school enrollment ratio (%) nnnn
Mean years of schooling nnnn
Adult literacy rate (% of pop over 15) nnnnn
Pupil/Teacher ratio, primary nn
Pupil/Teacher ratio, lower secondary nn
Pupil/Teacher ratio, upper secondary nn
Quality of universities and business schools
Gross enrollment ratio ISCED 5 & 6 Total nnnn
Number of business schools
ranked in world’s top 100
Number of universities ranked
in world’s top 500
Expenditure per student for higher
education (as % of GDP per capita)
Quality of the environment to nurture talent
Share of the population aged 25-64
with tertiary level education
Percentage of higher education graduates
in the Social Sciences, Business and Law
Percentage of tertiary graduates
in the Sciences
nn
nnn
nnn
nnn
nn
nnnn
Researchers in R&D (per m pop) nnnn
Technicians in R&D (per m pop) 1 n
indicator weight: 1 to 5
R&D as % of GDP nnnnn
Cost of living nnn
Degree of restrictiveness of labor laws nnnn
Wage regulation 1 n
Quality of workforce nnnn
Local managers nnnn
Protection of intellectual property rights 1 n
Protection of private property nnn
Meritocratic remuneration nnnn
Mobility and relative openness of the labor market
Number of students studying overseas nn
Number of overseas students studying in
country as a % of tertiary enrollment
nnnn
Language skills of the labor force nnnnn
Hiring of foreign nationals nnnn
Openness of trade (exports + imports
% of GDP)
Stock and flow of foreign direct investment
Average flow of FDI in previous five years
(% of GDP)
Average stock of FDI in previous five years
(% of GDP)
Proclivity to attracting talent
0
nnn
nn
Technical skills of the workforce nnnn
Personal disposable income per capita
(US$ bn)
nnnn
Employment growth nnn
GDP per capita 0
GDP per capita (PPP) nnnn
Nominal USD GDP nnn
PPP GDP nnn
Real GDP growth (%) nnn

Appendix D
Overall GTI
rankings
The two tables on the right show the ranking that each
of the thirty countries achieved in the study in 2007 and
the projection forward five years to 2012. The arrows
between the columns show movement in rank over the
five-year period. Red arrows show warming talent, blue
shows where talent is cooling and green indicates where
no change has occurred.
2007
rank country GTI score
1 US
Canada
Netherlands
UK
Sweden
Germany
Australia
China
10 India
11 Spain
France 1
1 Malaysia
1 Poland
1 Italy
1 South Korea
1 Japan
1 Argentina
1 Russia
1 Ukraine
0 Greece
1 Mexico 1
Thailand 1
Brazil 0
South Africa
Egypt
Turkey
Nigeria
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
0 Iran 21
2012
rank country GTI score
1 US
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit
UK
Canada
Netherlands
Sweden
China
Germany
Australia
France
10 India 1
11 Spain
1 Malaysia
1 South Korea
1 Japan
1 Poland
1 Italy
1 Ukraine
1 Russia
1 Mexico
0 Greece
1 Argentina
Thailand 0
South Africa 0
Egypt
Brazil
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
Nigeria
Indonesia
0 Iran 1

Appendix E
Demographics
In assessing the demographic factors that affect
talent, the team analysed how many people of
working age, 20-59 years old, there were in each
of the thirty countries.
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
2007
rank country score
1 China 100
India
US 1
Indonesia 1
Brazil 1
Russia 10
Japan
Nigeria
Mexico
10 Germany
11 Turkey
1 Iran
1 Egypt
1 Thailand
1 UK
1 France
1 Italy
1 South Korea
1 Ukraine
0 Spain
1 Poland
South Africa
Argentina
Canada
Malaysia 1
Saudi Arabia 1
Australia 1
Netherlands 1
Greece 0
0 Sweden 0
2012
rank country score
1 China 100
India
US 0
Indonesia 1
Brazil 1
Russia 10
Nigeria
Japan
Mexico
10 Germany
11 Turkey
1 Iran
1 Egypt
1 Thailand
1 UK
1 France
1 Italy
1 South Korea
1 Ukraine
0 Spain
1 Poland
Argentina
South Africa
Canada
Malaysia 1
Saudi Arabia 1
Australia 1
Netherlands 1
Greece 0
0 Sweden 0

Appendix F
Quality of
compulsory
education
In assessing the quality of compulsory education,
the team looked at eleven variables which impact the
effectiveness of schooling as follows:
• duration of compulsory education
• starting age of compulsory education
• current education spending (% of GDP)
• current education spending per pupil as
a % of GDP per capita
• primary school enrolment ratio (%)
• secondary school enrolment ratio (%)
• mean years of schooling
• adult literacy rate (% of pop over 15)
• pupil/teacher ratio, primary
• pupil/teacher ratio, lower secondary
• pupil/teacher ratio, upper secondary
2007
rank country score
1 UK
Canada
Germany
Sweden 1
France 0
Netherlands 0
Australia 0
US 0
Spain
10 Japan
11 South Korea
1 Italy
1 Poland
1 Ukraine
1 Argentina
1 South Africa
1 Malaysia
1 Mexico
1 Thailand
0 Russia
1 Greece
Turkey 1
Brazil 0
India
Iran
China 1
Egypt
Indonesia
Nigeria
0 Saudi Arabia
2012
rank country score
1 UK
France
Netherlands 1
Canada 1
Germany 1
US
Sweden
Australia
Japan
0
10 South Korea
11 Spain
1 Ukraine
1 Italy
1 Poland
1 Argentina 0
1 Mexico
1 Thailand
1 South Africa
1 Greece
0 Malaysia
1 Turkey
Russia
Brazil
China
India
Iran
Egypt
Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
0
0 Nigeria 0
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit

Appendix G
Quality of
universities and
business schools
The following variables were used as a measure of
both the reputation and resources of the business
schools and universities in each country as well as
their enrolment records:
• gross enrollment ratio ISCED 5 & 6 total
• number of business schools ranked in
world’s top 100
• number of universities ranked in world’s top 500
• expenditure per student for higher education
(as % of GDP per capita)
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
2007
rank country score
1 US
UK
Sweden
South Korea
Australia
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Germany
France
10 Netherlands 0
11 Greece 0
1 Spain
1 Russia
1 Japan
1 Egypt
1 Ukraine
1 Italy
1 Poland
1 Malaysia
0 Argentina 1
1 China 1
Thailand 1
Turkey 1
Mexico 1
Brazil 1
India
South Africa
Iran
Nigeria
11
0 Indonesia
2012
rank country score
1 US
UK
Sweden
South Korea
Australia
Germany
France
Canada
Saudi Arabia
10 Greece 0
11 Russia 0
1 Japan 0
1 Spain 0
1 Egypt
1 Ukraine
1 Poland
1 Italy
1 Netherlands
1 Malaysia
0 Argentina
1 China 0
Thailand 1
Mexico 1
Turkey 1
India 1
Brazil 10
South Africa
Iran
Nigeria
10
0 Indonesia

Appendix H
Quality of the
environment to
nurture talent
Assessing the quality of the environment involved
analysis of the following factors:
• share of the population aged 25-84 with
higher education
• percentage of higher education graduates in
the Social Sciences, Business and Law
• percentage of tertiary graduates in the Sciences
• researchers in R&D (per m pop)
• technicians in R&D (per m pop)
• R&D as % of GDP
• cost of living
• degree of restrictiveness of labor laws
• wage regulation
• quality of work force
• local managers
• protection of intellectual property rights
• protection of private property
• meritocratic remuneration
2007
rank country score
1 US
Netherlands
Canada
Japan
Sweden
Russia
Australia
Germany
France
0
10 UK
11 India
1 Spain
1 Ukraine
1 South Korea
1 Malaysia
1 Argentina
1 Mexico
1 Brazil
1 Italy
0 Poland 1
1 Thailand 1
China 1
Greece
South Africa
Iran
Nigeria
Egypt
Indonesia
Turkey
1
0 Saudi Arabia
2012
rank country score
1 US
Netherlands
Canada
Japan
Australia
Sweden
Germany
UK
France
0
10 South Korea 1
11 Russia 0
1 Spain
1 India
1 China
1 Mexico
1 Malaysia
1 Ukraine
1 Poland
1 Brazil 1
0 Greece 1
1 Italy
South Africa
Argentina
Thailand
Iran
Egypt
Turkey
Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
1
0 Nigeria
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit

Appendix I
Mobility and
relative openness
of the labor
market
The variables used to measure the mobility and relative
openness of the labor market focus not only on the
number of people studying outside of their home
country and their language skills, but also on a country’s
tendency to hire foreign nationals to add diversity to its
workforce. These characteristics along with openness to
other cultures are crucial to creating and maintaining
talent flow:
• number of students studying overseas
• number of overseas students studying in country as a
% of enrollment in higher education
• language skills of the labor force
• hiring of foreign nationals
• openness of trade (exports + imports % of GDP)
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
2007
rank country score
1 Canada
UK
Germany
Netherlands
Australia
Sweden
Malaysia
France
US
1
10 India
11 China
1 South Africa
1 Thailand 1
1 Greece 1
1 Poland 1
1 Nigeria 0
1 Turkey 0
1 Italy
1 Spain
0 Argentina
1 Mexico
Ukraine
Brazil
Egypt
Russia
South Korea
Indonesia 0
Japan
Saudi Arabia
0
0 Iran 0
2012
rank country score
1 Canada
UK
Germany 1
Netherlands
Australia
Sweden
Malaysia
France
India
0
10 US 1
11 China
1 South Africa
1 Poland
1 Greece
1 Ukraine
1 Mexico 1
1 Italy 1
1 Turkey 0
1 South Korea 0
0 Spain 0
1 Russia
Argentina
Brazil
Egypt
Nigeria
Thailand
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
0
0 Iran 0

Appendix J
Stock and flow
of foreign direct
investment
To determine the scores for this pillar of the research,
the project team looked at the average stock and at the
average flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) for
each country in the previous five years as a percentage
of GDP. However, it only used the figures for each
country’s average stock of FDI when calculating
this index.
2007
rank country score
1 Netherlands 100
Malaysia
Sweden
UK 0
Nigeria
Spain
Argentina
Australia
Canada 1
10 Thailand 0
11 Egypt
1 South Africa
1 Poland
1 France
1 China
1 Mexico
1 Germany 0
1 Brazil
1 Ukraine
0 US 1
1 Italy 1
Turkey 1
Saudi Arabia 1
South Korea 1
Greece 10
Russia 10
India
Indonesia
Iran 0
0 Japan 0
2012
rank country GTI score
1 Netherlands 100
Sweden 1
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit
UK
Malaysia
South Africa
Canada
Egypt
10 Spain
11 Mexico
1 Poland
France 1
Australia 0
1 Thailand 1
1 Nigeria 0
1 Argentina 0
1 Ukraine
1 Germany
1 Brazil
1 China
0 Turkey
1 US 1
Italy 1
Russia 1
Indonesia
South Korea
India
Greece
Saudi Arabia
Japan 0
0 Iran 0

0
Appendix K
Proclivity to
attracting talent
Perhaps the most difficult area to define because of
its cultural nuance, is a country’s proclivity to attract
talent. In other words, why would anyone want to work
there? In assessing this final pillar of the research, the
project team looked at the following variables:
• technical skills of the workforce
• personal disposable income per capita (US$ bn)
• employment growth
• GDP per capita (PPP)
• nominal USD GDP
• PPP GDP
• real GDP growth (%)
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
2007
rank country score
1 US
Sweden
Canada
Germany
France
Australia
UK
Spain 1
Netherlands 1
10 Italy 0
11 Poland
1 Greece
1 Argentina
1 Japan
1 South Korea
1 Malaysia
1 India
1 Egypt
1 Russia 0
0 Mexico 0
1 Brazil 1
Iran 1
Saudi Arabia 1
Turkey 1
Nigeria 1
China 1
Ukraine 1
Indonesia 1
Thailand 1
0 South Africa 11
2012
rank country score
1 US
France
Canada
Germany
Australia
UK
Sweden
1
Spain 1
Italy 0
10 Netherlands
11 Japan
1 Malaysia
1 India
1 South Korea
1 Greece
1 Poland
1 Argentina
1 Mexico
1 Russia
0 Saudi Arabia
1 Turkey
Egypt
Ukraine 1
Brazil 0
Thailand 1
China 1
Iran 1
Nigeria 1
Indonesia 1
0 South Africa 11

Further reading
available on www.heidrick.com
‘The Leadership Team: Complementary Strengths or Conflicting Agendas’, Stephen A Miles and Michael D
Watkins, Harvard Business Review, April 2007
‘Roller Coaster Leadership’, Kevin Kelly, Business Strategy Review, Spring 2007
Getting Results in China: How China’s Tech Executives are Molding a New Generation of Leaders, (A joint research
project between Heidrick & Struggles and The Stanford Project on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship)
Route to the Top, Dr Elisabeth Marx, Heidrick & Struggles, 2006
Executive Leadership in China, (A joint study between Heidrick & Struggles and the Economist Intelligence Unit)
Benchmarking Corporate Governance in China, (A joint research project carried out by Heidrick & Struggles and the
School of Management, Fudan University)
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 1

The Economist Intelligence Unit is the
world’s foremost provider of country,
industry and management analysis.
Founded in 1946 when a director of
intelligence was appointed to serve The
Economist, the Economist Intelligence Unit
is now a leading research and advisory firm
with more than forty offices worldwide.
For nearly sixty years, the Economist Intelligence Unit
has delivered vital business intelligence to influential
decision-makers around the world. Its extensive
international reach and unfettered independence
makes it the most trusted and valuable resource
for international companies, financial institutions,
universities and government agencies.
Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights
The mission of the Economist Intelligence Unit is
to provide executives with authoritative analysis and
forecasts to make informed global decisions. It offers
three kinds of business intelligence: country analysis
on more than 200 markets, industry trends in eight
key sectors and latest management strategies and
best practices.
The nature of the operation and client base of the
Economist Intelligence Unit demands a global presence.
The head office is in London with major regional
centres in Hong Kong, Vienna and New York.
www.eiu.com

Nepal
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Bay
of
Bengal
Burma
Thailand
Malaysia
Laos
Cambodia
Sing.
Tropic of Capricorn
China
Vietnam
Brunei
Malaysia
South
China
Sea
Philippines
I n d o n e s i a
Yellow
Sea
East China
Sea
East Timor
Great
Australian
Bight
Australia
Japan
Equator
Tropic of Cancer
Papua New Guinea
P A C I F I C
Solomon Islands
New Caledonia
Vanuatu
Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit
Fiji
O C
Tropic of Cap

Heidrick & Struggles
our global capability
Connecting leaders around the globe is
what Heidrick & Struggles does best.
For over fifty years we have been building
deep relationships with the world’s
most talented individuals on behalf of
the world’s most successful companies.
Through the strategic acquisition,
development and retention of talent
we help our clients – from the most
established market giants to the
newest market disruptors – build
winning leadership teams.
www.heidrick.com
For general enquiries about the Heidrick & Struggles
Global Talent Index or to order more copies of the wall map
and booklet please email talentmap@heidrick.com
For press inquiries please contact Narda Shirley at
narda@gongcommunications.com
Amsterdam +31 (0)20 462 77 77
Atlanta +1 404 577 2410
Auckland +64 (0)9 3066630
Barcelona +34 (0)93 225 7300
Beijing +86 (0)10 65988288
Boston +1 617 737 6300
Brussels +32 (0)2 5420750
Buenos Aires +54 (0)11 43209950
Chicago +1 312 496 1000
Chongqing +86 (0)23 63001588
Cleveland +1 216 241 7410
Copenhagen +45 33 377 600
Dallas +1 214 706 7700
Denver +1 720 932 3839
Dusseldorf +49 (0)211 82820
El Segundo +1 310 321 3220
Encino +1 818 905 6010
Frankfurt +49 (0)69 697 0020
Hamburg +49 (0)40 3405770
Helsinki +358 9 2511250
Hong Kong +852 21039300
Houston +1 713 237 9000
Istanbul +90 (0)212 3510904
Johannesburg +27 (0)11 6856910
Lisbon +351 21 3514530
London +44 (0)20 7075 4000
Los Angeles +1 213 625 8811
Madrid +34 (0)91 391 5256
Melbourne +61 (0)3 90123000
Menlo Park +1 650 234 1500
Mexico City +52 (01)55 91380370
Miami +1 305 262 2606
Milan +39 02 762521
Minneapolis +1 612 215 6913
Moscow +7 495 225 9367
Mumbai +91 (0)22 66663021
Munich: Keplerstrasse +49 (0)89 998110
Munich: Sophienstrasse +49 (0)89 255477
New Delhi +91 (0)11 26451010
New York, Park Avenue +1 212 867 9876
New York, Wall Street +1 212 699 3000
Paris +33 (0)1 4434 1700
Philadelphia +1 215 988 1000
Rome +39 06 8537 5801
San Francisco +1 415 981 2854
Santiago +56 (0)2 2033660
Sao Paulo +55 11 550 44000
Seoul +82 (0)2 34306000
Shanghai +86 (0)21 61361988
Singapore +65 63325001
Stamford +1 203 252 2900
Stockholm +46 (0)8 4067100
Sydney +61 (0)2 8205 2000
Taipei +886 (0)2 27576123
Tokyo +81 (0)3 55106800
Toronto +1 416 361 4700
Tysons Corner +1 703 848 2500
Vienna +43 (0)1 53310070
Warsaw +48 (0)22 5849898
Washington DC +1 202 331 4900
Zurich +41 (0)44 4881313