Benchmarks for International HR - Kienbaum
Benchmarks for International HR - Kienbaum
Benchmarks for International HR - Kienbaum
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Systematic evaluation of training effectiveness by country (in %)<br />
Philippines<br />
Czech Republic<br />
United Kingdom<br />
Greece<br />
Australia<br />
Germany<br />
Cyprus<br />
Slovakia<br />
Taiwan<br />
South Africa<br />
France<br />
Turkish Cypriot Community<br />
Switzerland<br />
Slovenia<br />
Estonia<br />
Belgium<br />
Austria<br />
Bulgaria<br />
Hungary<br />
Russia<br />
Denmark<br />
USA<br />
Serbia<br />
Sweden<br />
Lithuania<br />
Israel<br />
Finland<br />
Norway<br />
Iceland<br />
Japan<br />
72<br />
70<br />
69<br />
66<br />
62<br />
60<br />
60<br />
60<br />
59<br />
57<br />
55<br />
55<br />
53<br />
52<br />
49<br />
47<br />
43<br />
42<br />
42<br />
41<br />
38<br />
36<br />
35<br />
31<br />
30<br />
29<br />
25<br />
22<br />
17<br />
78<br />
Few countries seem to invest ef<strong>for</strong>ts into a systematic evaluation<br />
of their training activities: At 78 %, the Philippines show the most<br />
intensive evaluation of such training. They are followed by the<br />
Czech Republic (72 %), the UK (70 %), and Greece, where 69 %<br />
of respondents report training evaluations. By contrast, only<br />
limited evaluations seem to take place in Norway (25 %), Iceland<br />
(22 %) and, above all, in Japan. In this region, only 17 % of the<br />
respondents report of a systematic evaluation of the effectiveness<br />
of their training.<br />
25
Change language