The AGR Development Survey 2017

The AGR Development Survey 2017

2

The AGR Development Survey 2017

All information contained in this report is believed to be accurate at the time of publication, but the publisher does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from decisions made upon this information.

Association of Graduate Recruiters © 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

Association of Graduate RecruitersBath PlaceLondon EC1A 2JE

Findings for this report were collected between December 2016 and January 2017 and the report was published in March 2017.

Both the survey and report have been produced by Samuel Gordon, AGR Research Analyst.For any queries please email [email protected] or contact 020 7033 2465.

3

Contents

Contents

Foreword 4Executive summary 5Structure of report 8 Shifting challenges in 2017 9

1. Market Overview 11

2. Three transformative trends 15

Closing soft skills gaps faster 16

Supporting graduates post-

programme 21

Engaging managers 25

3. Resourcing and ROI 29

Cost per hire estimates 30

Team sizes 32

Team structures 34

Timeframes for planning 36

Measuring ROI 37

Improving ROI measurement 40

4. Programme design 41

Common activities 42

Rotations 44

Professional qualifications 45

Use of psychometric tests 47

4. Programme design (continued)

Soft/technical skills training 49

Diversity in development 51

Helping graduates enjoy it 53

5. Graduate performance 55

Assessing performance 56

Assessing future potential 57

Improving performance 58

6. Retention & Progression 60

Capturing reasons for attrition 61

Why graduates leave 62

Retention rates 63

Improving retention rates 65

Salary increases on programmes 66

Salary progression 67

Appendix 69 Methodology 70

Profile of respondents 71

Responding organisations 73

Foreword

4

programme design. More employers are streamlining training, measuring ROI, supporting graduates post-programme and training managers to improve graduate performance. Respondents also agree on what our industry needs to do in order to close skills gaps.

There is more than one way to make the most of this report. If time is short, browse the market overview or jump to the sections you find most relevant. To get a holistic view of how graduate development is changing though, we recommend you read the full report and circulate it within your organisation. We hope that these findings give your team and organisation plenty of ideas on how manage early talent hires more effectively.

We will also continue to develop and evolve this survey to maximise it’s value to development professionals. Your feedback is welcome.

Stephen IsherwoodChief Executive, AGR

Samuel GordonResearch Analyst, AGR

Stephen Isherwood

Samuel Gordon

Welcome to AGR’s second Development Survey: your comprehensive guide to making good decisions on graduate development. This year, as well as capturing industry-wide benchmarks, we have greater detail on costs, salaries and programmes. We have identified transformative trends, captured solutions to key challenges and analysed year-on-year changes. At the end of each section you will find questions to help you review your own business models.

Graduate employers invest significantly in graduate development. The 174 employers who responded to the survey represent more than 18 sectors, 18,227 graduates and 2.8 million UK staff. The industry as a whole invests more than £69 million on training programmes and at least £8 million on inductions.

To up-skill and develop their employees, our members invest in soft skills training, psychometric testing, manager training, rotations between business units, support for professional qualifications, regular performance management, graduate communities and in-house diversity networks. Reading this report will highlight the many ways you can create great opportunities for new hires, remain competitive in the marketplace and improve the performance of your organisation.

Employers are also becoming smarter at solving key challenges. The top two challenges in 2017 are seen as managing resourcing levels and improving

Foreword

is the most common length of development programmes

2 YEARS

Foreword

5

Overview of the marketEmployers typically hire graduates onto permanent contracts and two-year development programmes. These programmes usually sit centrally, are funded from a central budget, and have graduate headcount sitting within departments. Organisations spend a median of £375 per graduate on inductions and £3,015 per graduate to develop them overall. There are typically 50 graduates for every member of staff responsible for developing them.

Executive summary

Development programmes have more than one purpose and include many activities. 94% of employers run programmes to develop a pipeline of future leaders, while 68% run programmes to develop future specialists. 76% of employers run end-of-programme events and 81% train their managers. 63% of employers outsource at least some of their soft skills training.

In terms of retention rates, employers typically lose 16% of their graduates during a programme and another 4% in the year after the programme ends. Graduates who leave in their first three years do so for a variety of reasons, but 24% of leavers go primarily to change career and 18% go primarily for better pay. For those that stay, the median salary increase three years after joining is 25%.

At least

spent on development overall

£69MILLION

Foreword

6

Three transformative trendsGaps in soft skills exist but employers are proactively closing them. 49% of employers think that graduates don’t have the soft skills expected of them when hired. However, employers also offer an average of 10 days of soft skills training during a development programme and allocate 30% of their development budget to this type of training when it is included. For nine out of ten key employability skills, employers agree that the best time to learn them is outside of university. Most employers also think that most key employability skills can be learnt within a year. Skills gaps could be quick to close with targeted action.

Employers agree on actions they could be taking. 65% of employers believe organisations should be doing outreach with universities to increase the skills supply, in line with 72% of firms already doing employability seminars or workshops. 51% of employers think that coordination is needed to identify common skills gaps, but only 25% use external research to help them design their skills training. 63% of employers think that organisations should be making skills training more effective, but only 34% measure the impact of their training courses. Despite 42% of respondents stating that universities should be doing more, there is clearly a lot that companies can be doing too.

The second transformative trend is that support for graduates post-development programmes is becoming more common and more important. A third of employers think that better post-programme tracking would help them to measure ROI. Only 52% of employers track the progression of their hires after five years, and the methods of doing this are changing. Those companies which do track progression report that, on average, 39% of their graduates are managers after five years of employment. Roll-off events and coaching are seen as the two most effective ways to help graduates transition off a formal programme.

Executive summary

The third transformative trend is to integrate manager engagement into development programmes. 81% of respondents now train their managers on how to manage graduates, with classroom learning being the most common method and 4.2 hours being the norm. On average, 53% of managers are trained at firms with optional sessions and 74% of managers are trained at firms with at least some compulsory sessions. 63% of employers rely on line manager opinions to assess graduate potential and 32% have an exit interview with managers to establish the reasons why graduates leave. Well-informed managers will be key to effective graduate development in future.

Streamlining programme designMaking the best use of resources and streamlining development programmes are the top two challenges for developers in 2017. In general, graduate development programmes are also becoming more strategic and more focused, so responses to these two challenges are linked. Organisations typically start planning their programmes 9-12 months in advance but only 40% of employers measure the programme ROI.

Some specific changes are worth highlighting. End-of-programme events are on the rise, manager training is on the rise, blending learning is on the rise, and skills training is increasingly done in-house and increasingly tailored. Use of psychometric tests in programmes is on the

of employers expect resourcing-related challenges

This year

41%

Foreword

7

decline and employers appear to be focussing on formal methods of assessing potential. 34% of employers measure the financial impact of their training courses, up from 28% last year. Support for diversity could become more important – only 6% of employers offer tailored development for women, for example – although it is still too early to establish a trend.

Employers make a dedicated effort to improve graduate performance. 89% of employers offer support for professional qualifications, 56% of employers use six-monthly performance reviews, and 40% offer a step increase in salary related to performance during the programme. Impactful training is seen as the most effective way to improve the performance of graduates. Firms typically offer a 6 day induction, 10 days of soft skills training and 22 days of technical training with half of the skills training offered in the first year on the job. However, only 20% of employers run development programmes to improve the productivity of their hires and only 41% measure the financial value of their individual graduates. There is more that could be done.

Firms also provide graduates with a breadth of experience. 68% of employers offer rotations in the same UK region, and an average of 70% of a graduate intake take part in these when they are offered. 49% of law firms offer international rotations, and an average of 38% of their trainees take part if these are offered. The most effective ways to help graduates to enjoy their graduate programme are seen as creating a sense of community and actively listening to and acting on their feedback.

Development programmes could also be better connected with long-term development. For example, an average of 24% of graduates leave for a career change, but only 24% of employers see career development workshops as an effective way to help hires transition off a programme and into the business. Reward packages are worth reviewing, with graduates receiving a median pay-rise of 15% by the end of a programme. Only Only 62% of firms rely on a wider HR strategy to identify the skills training that their organisation needs. Employers could be more holistic in their approach.

Overall, there are many ways in which graduate development is changing and many areas where best practice is still being established. Employers will increasingly need to look at external trends in order to make the most of their new hires.

of employers measure the ROI of their programme

40%

Executive summary

Foreword

8

This report is structured so that key information is available at the front for easy reference. We gathered the results of this survey in December 2016 and launched the findings in March 2017. The 174 employers who responded employ 2.8 million staff in the UK and hire 18,227 graduates onto their programmes.

Chapter 1: Market Overview. A snapshot of key trends and benchmarks for graduate development in 2017.

Chapter 2: Three transformative trends. This chapter highlights and explores three trends which are expected to shape graduate development over the next two to five years. These trends are closing soft skills gaps faster, supporting graduates post-programme, and engaging managers.

Chapter 3: Resourcing and ROI. This chapter provides resourcing benchmarks for graduate development. Metrics include cost per hire estimates for graduate development and the number of graduates per developer. Common team sizes, team structures and timeframes for planning are also included. How organisations measure return on investment (ROI) and employer suggestions for making this easier are also explored.

Chapter 4: Programme design. This chapter is an overview of the content of development programmes. Topics include common activities during programmes, the use of rotations, support for professional qualifications, changes in the use of psychometric tests, the duration and methods of soft skills and technical skills training, support for diversity and effective actions for helping graduates to enjoy their experience.

Structure of reportChapter 5: Graduate performance. This chapter provides benchmarks for assessing and improving the performance of graduates. Topics include methods of assessing performance and potential plus a wide range of effective actions for improving the performance of graduates whilst they are on programmes.

Chapter 6: Retention & Progression. This chapter provides an overview of retention and progression rates for graduates. Topics include how companies capture the reasons for attrition, changes in retention rates, and employer tips for how to improve these rates. Methods of salary progression on programmes and rates of salary progression after programmes are also included.

Appendix. This chapter provides the survey methodology as well as details of the sectors, firm sizes and graduate intake sizes of the responding organisations.

graduate hires at responding employers

18,227

Foreword

9

The key challenges graduate developers face are changing over time. This year, for the first year, the AGR is able to share share year-on-year trends from the same group of employers. The top ten challenges are shown below for the ninety employers who also answered the AGR Development Survey 2016. Respondents were asked to specify their challenges in an open-ended question and these responses have been grouped by common themes.

Four key changes are worth flagging. Around twice as many employers expect challenges with resourcing and their external environment this year. Reasons for this include organisational change, the political landscape in the UK and the effect of the apprenticeship levy. The two challenges of programme design and managing graduate expectations are also seen as much more important, and part of this is a much stronger emphasis on effective skills training. The focus on

Shifting challenges in 2017these challenges appears to be leading to lower attention on long-standing issues like retention and post-programme development. Finally, a jump in the share of “other” issues reflects a broadening variety of challenges including diversity and location.

Employers provided specific insight on their resourcing challenges. “Budget constraints” were mentioned repeatedly. Comments on scaling up existing programmes included: “increasing size of cohort and managing resource to deliver an intensive programme” and “increased number of graduates on programme - how to continue the individual development support”. Other comments referred to structural changes like: “organisation restructure meaning grad team headcount has been reduced” and “budget allocation as a result of apprenticeship levy”. One employer mentioned “business awareness of importance of graduate development” highlighting the importance of engaging stakeholders to help with resourcing.

Figure 1: Top challenges for graduate development in the year ahead – 90 employers with 15,266 graduate hires. Note: only employers who also answered the AGR Development Survey 2016. Asked as an open-ended question with responses grouped by common themes.

Foreword

10

Key challenges with programme design centred on the experience and training. Offering a consistent experience for graduates was a key theme: “ensuring consistent experience for trainees via on the job learning”, “enabling consistency across programme management” and “tailoring to specific areas of the business” were all mentioned. Comments on skills training included “implementation of appropriate soft skills training”, “working learning into people’s lives and being agile enough to do it”, “learning transfer and measuring financial impact”, “identifying which course are worthwhile and which need to be cut” and “managing large groups for training”.

Employers are facing a range of other challenges too. These included “keeping it fresh and exciting for [graduates]”, “self awareness [of hires] when working overseas - intercultural fluency”, “We’ve noticed a significant change in terms of the “get up and go” in our graduates over the recent years. They need much more direction, information and support.” and “moving to digital to ensure best use of grads in different locations”. A challenging and potentially exciting year lies ahead for development professionals.

Shifting challenges in 2017

• Which of these

challenges represent

scenarios that you can map

out and plan for?

• What kind of partnerships

with other organisations

could help you to address

these challenges?

• How can you best engage

internal stakeholders to

support your work on these

challenges?

Questions to explore: ?

Chapter 1

12

Most graduates are employed on permanent contracts and take part in two-year development programmes. Key metrics for resourcing, retention and salary progression are listed below. These are explored in more detail in Chapters 3 and 6.

Market Overview

Sector Gradsper Induction Overall On Oneyearafter %increase developer programme programme

Overall 49.91 £3752 £3,0152 84% 80% 25%3

Banking or financial services 48.3 £232 £2,500 89% 79% 30%

Construction 49.5 £550 £2,473 81% 78% 25%

Energy, water or utilities 37.2 £141 £3,906 87% 78% 31%

Engineering or industrial 60.9 £714 £3,889 83% 83% 20%

FMCG 27.6 £526 £1,244 80% 74% 25%

IT & Telecommunications 35.1 £156 £1,429 89% 88% 35%

Law 37.0 £250 £1,598 85% 77% 65%

Public 56.5 £372 - 84% 82% 21%

Retail 50.5 - £1,000 82% - 25%

Median cost per graduate

Retention rates Salary progression

Note: based on sectors with available information. Gaps indicate not enough information to report a trend. 1: Refers to graduate employees currently on development programmes, excluding Accounting. 2. excludes Law. 3. Median increase after three years. Overall excludes Accountancy and Law. More information is in individual chapters and the appendix.

Table 1: Market Overview

Figure 3: Typeofcontactsofferedtograduates– 157 employers with 16,079 graduate hires.Note: 81% are offered permanent contracts if law firms are excluded.

Figure 2: Length of graduate development programmes – 151 employers with 16,190 graduate hires.

Chapter 1

13

Employers run development programmes for more than one reason. These are indicated below and explored in more detail in Chapter 2.

Figure 6: Purposes of graduate development programmes – 174 employers with 18,227 graduate hires.

Figure 4: Where the graduate development programme sits – 154 employers with 15,999 graduate hires.

Figure 5: Source of funding for core graduate development programmes – 156 employers with 16,008 graduate hires.

of employers run programmes to build a pipeline of future

specialists

68%

>>

Chapter 1

14

89% of employers know at least some of the reasons why their graduates leave. Key reasons are outlined below and explored in more detail in Chapter 6.

A wide range of activities are included in development programmes and some of these are outsourced. These activities are explored in more detail in Chapters 2 and 4.>>

of employers outsource some of their soft skills training

63%Figure 7: Activities and outsourcing in graduate development programmes – 174 employers with 18,227 graduate hires.

Figure 8: Shareofgraduateswholeaveforvariousreasonsinthefirstthreeyears–69 employers with 5,959 graduate hires.

16

This chapter highlights and explores three trends which are expected to shape graduate development over the next two to five years. These trends are: closing soft skills gaps faster, supporting graduates post-programme, and engaging managers.

Three transformative trends

1. Closing soft skills gaps fasterGaps in soft skills are an issue for employers. Half (49%) of employers state that graduates generally do not have the skills expected of them at the point of hiring. On average, 25% of graduates in an intake do not. As one employer explained “They have a skills base, which we will build on, but [by] no means will they have all the soft skills we expect”. However, employers are taking ownership of this challenge and typically offer 10 days of soft skills training. The first potentially transformative trend for development is to close soft skills gaps faster, via more outreach and coordination and a focus on productivity.

Previous AGR research has identified nine key employability skills which employers value. As shown below, there are gaps in specific skills: for example, a low share of graduates can manage up, communicate in a business context or think commercially. There are also gaps in employer skills training: for example, only 66% of employers train graduates on business communication and only 50% provide training on how to manage up. These findings suggest that employers could be more effective at allocating their resources.

Chapter 2

Figure 9: Graduate skills gaps – 177 employers with 17,527 graduates in 2015. Source: AGR Development Survey 2016.

of employers say that graduates do not have the soft skills

expected of them

49%

17

Chapter 2

Employers currently agree that they should be doing more to close skills gaps. 65% of employers believe that they should be doing outreach with universities to increase the supply of skills. 51% believe that they should be coordinating with other organisations to identify common skills needs. Support for other measures is common as well. There appears to be a strong consensus about the need for employer action.

The good news is that gaps in soft skills are potentially quick to close. As shown below, most employers believe that most key soft skills can be learnt within a year. Some skills are faster to learn than others: 76% of employers estimate that teamwork can be learnt in under six months, while 56% of employers estimate that “managing up” takes twelve months or longer. While these estimates are subjective, they indicate that the skills challenge could be solved quickly if organisations coordinated skills training or if the training itself was made more effective.

>>

Figure 10: Employer views on actions that employers should be taking to close skills gaps – 144 employers with 15,581 graduate hires.

Figure 11: Estimatedtimeforgraduatestolearnspecificsoftskills–136 employers with 14,284 graduate hires. Note: employers were asked to estimate this based on their work and experience.

18

Chapter 2

There is scope to make skills training more effective too. Blended learning is on the rise, with 53% of employers now combining face-to-face learning with online learning compared to 42% last year. Only 25% of employers use external research to help them identify their skills needs and only 34% assess the impact of their training courses. Measuring the impact of training on efficiency is also more common than measuring the impact on productivity, as shown below. Trialling new methods of skills training could play a key role in solving skills gaps.

In terms of timing, employers generally do not see university as the best place for graduates to learn soft skills. This is the case for nine out of ten key employability skills. Secondary school is commonly perceived as the best place to learn self-awareness, problem-solving, interpersonal skills and teamwork. Workplaces are commonly perceived as the best place to learn managing up, dealing with conflict, negotiating/influencing, and commercial awareness. There is value in coordinating skills training across a range of stakeholders rather than expecting universities to take all responsibility for preparing graduates.

Some of these perceptions are also worth challenging. 32% of employers believe that commercial awareness is best learnt at university, despite this being the ability to understand and work effectively in a commercial environment. Only 8% of employers believe that self-awareness is best learnt on the job, despite the fact that two-thirds of graduates do not have this skill when starting work. These perceptions are subjective and should be used to drive a conversation with all stakeholders about how to upskill graduates more effectively.

>>

Figure 12: Methodsofassessingthefinancialimpact of training courses – 80 employers with 5,700 graduate hires. Note: only employers who also answered the AGR Development Survey 2016.

32% of employers believe that commercial

awareness is best learnt at university, despite being this

being the ability to understand and work effectively in a commercial environment.

of employers assess the financial impact of graduate training

courses

34%

19

Chapter 2

Figure 13: Employer views on the best timing for graduates to learn each skill – 139 employers with 14,438 graduate hires.

When asked about actions that other organisation should be taking, 49% of employers focused on universities and schools. Specific comments include “universities/ academic departments still have a duty of care for this”, “less paper based work/assessment and more interactive, one pager, presentation work”, “universities having a better understanding of what jobs entail” and “STEM Degree backgrounds promoted and supported more at school level to start interest”. Academic institutions still have an active role to play in solving this challenge too and engagement is important.

Figure 14: Employer views on actions that other organisations should be taking – 53 employers with 8,487 graduate hires. Note: Asked as an open-ended question with responses grouped by common themes. of employers think that

commercial awareness is best learnt at university

32%

20

Collaboration between organisations is also seen as key. Specific examples included “intercompany exchange programme[s] to help close skills gaps where opportunity doesn’t exist in our company”, “training that is shared amongst employers”, “discussing best practice / effective training methods on key skills” and “cross functional working groups (industry & university) to agree minimum skill requirement.” There are many ways for different organisations to start working together in future.

Other actions include support from other stakeholders. Employers stated a need for “clear one voice to all, on skills we lack - I find these are the same across industries”, “graduates should be self-aware and using training themselves”, and “suppliers should be looking at how they can cost effectively support employers with this”. There is value in providing more education on closing skills gaps as well as more coordination.

Overall, there is a lot of scope to close skills gaps faster. Knowledge on the specific gaps that exist, specific actions that can be taken and the specific stakeholders that need to be engaged is expected to lead to more focussed initiatives from employers in future. This could potentially resolve soft skills challenges within the next five years.

>>

• What can employers and

graduates do to speed up the

rate at which these skills can

be learnt?

• Whatarethemosteffective

waystoweaveskillstraining

intouniversitycurriculums?

• Howoftenmightdifferent

stakeholders need to

coordinate in order to close

skills gaps?

Questions to explore:

?

Chapter 2

21

Chapter 2

2. Supporting graduates post-programmePost-programme support is becoming more important. 76% of employers now run end-of-programme events, up from 56% of employers last year. Ensuring the long-term success of graduates is a key purpose of running development programmes (Figure 6). What’s more, five-year retention rates appear to be dropping for the second year in a row. As one respondent put it “post-programme support is something we really need to focus on”. The second transformative trend is to ensure that graduate development leads to better long-term outcomes.

A key part of doing this well will be better tracking. While 94% of employers run graduate programmes to build a pipeline of future leaders, only 52% track the progression of their hires after five years. Existing tracking is also ad-hoc: .some firms which analysed progression rates in 2015 did not repeat the exercise in 2016, which is part of the reason for the apparent drop in tracking shown in Figure 16. As two employers stated “we have the ability to track the progression of our graduates after five years at the firm but only do this at certain points not on a consistent basis” and “We did this as a one off activity in 2016. We’d love to do it every year but it’s difficult to track the data and I just don’t have the resource to do it”.

>>

Figure 15: Retention rates for graduates over time– varying numbers of employers.Source of previous data: AGR Annual/Summer Surveys. Data not captured in 2010/11

Figure 16: Methodsoftrackingprogressionafterfiveyears–95 employers with 9,816 graduate hires. Note: only those employers who also answered the AGR Development Survey 2016. Share of managers who are previous graduates was not an option in 2016.

22

Chapter 2

Specific challenges get in the way of tracking and employers expressed an appetite to tackle these. Hurdles included “current HR IT system is not necessarily allowing this information to be captured accurately” and “flat organisation, formal promotions are not structured and are rare”. However, respondents are also being proactive: “we have an intention to track, but we are not at the end of the scheme yet”, “Business data is not up to par in this area. It is something we are pushing for improvements in going forwards.” and “looking to introduce this - currently just look at how cohorts have progressed, not how this compares to other staff”. Tracking progression is expected to become more common in future.

Methods of tracking are changing too. 33% of employers track the average number of years for graduates to be promoted. However, tracking the share of graduates who become managers is becoming much more common, as well as tracking average salary increases. Other metrics being used include the share of graduates who achieve chartered status or the share of graduates promoted within a certain time frame. Some employers rely on more than one metric e.g. “check on the promotion level and also the performance scoring”. Employers will need to review what works best for their organisation. This is the first year that AGR has been able to report these benchmarks.

Graduates progress differently in different sectors. On average, 39% of graduates are managers after five years. Getting to manager level is most common in the banking sector and least common in law, based on sectors with available information.

>>

Figure 17: Average share of graduates who are managers afterfiveyears– 68 employers with 6,688 graduate hires. Note: only employers tracking this information.

of employers say that post-programme tracking will help

them measure ROI.

33%33% of employers track the

average number of years for graduates to be promoted.

However, tracking the share of graduates who become

managers is becoming much more common, as well as tracking average salary

increases.

23

Chapter 2

These benchmarks are a guide only and as such, they should be used with care. Some firms have graduates start their development programmes at manager level, and the 39% average does not account for graduates who have left their first employer and are now managers somewhere else. The term itself can have more than one meaning; as one employer put it “A ‘manager’ is defined in many different terms ... - a manager of people, service, projects etc. These are all those who have ‘manager’ in their title - however, have varying levels of responsibility”. Another employer explained that “progression does not necessarily mean becoming a manager, we rate the value of technical expertise & leadership just as highly”. However, these figures can be used to start conversations with stakeholders about what post-programme progression means, what level of progression is seen as acceptable, and how post-programme support can help to achieve this.

Employers take a range of actions to support graduates with their post-programme development. Roll-off meetings or events are seen as the most successful, with 45% of employers listing these as an effective action. 20% of employers mentioned career development workshops to help graduates build skills in this area and to help them to explore their options.

Roll-off meetings or events can take a variety of forms. These include “running a rolling off the scheme training session”, “run the ‘Celebration Event’ which covers development post programme and celebration on the agenda”, “bought in a new transition development centre a month before the end”, and “induction for newly qualified lawyers”. It can also include delayed and ongoing support, such as “introduced a 12 month programme that starts 12 months after programme completion” and “HR Director follows up with Graduates 4 months, 12 months and 2 years after qualifying”.

Engaging the business early is also seen as key. Options include “early engagement with managers and graduates before they leave the programme”, “streaming - trial periods in substantive posts”, “introducing them to their local talent pipeline” and “workshops with people in the organisation further up”. Some employers referred to this in the context of programme design: “they are in the business from day 1 so there should not be a “hard” transition” and “graduates work within the business and on live projects, therefore minimal change when transitioning”.

Employers can take a wide variety of other actions too. Several employers referred to the importance of giving graduates choice when the programme finishes. Specific comments included “the graduate having a say in what they do and where they go”, “open posting policy for vacancies which has replaced talent planning - more control given to grads”, and “get them to complete a talent profile and put them in touch with an internal resourcer”. Formal processes were also mentioned, such as “assessment centres at end of programme to align to appropriate role code” and “regular comms from scheme sponsors”.

Overall, there are many reasons to enhance post-programme support and many ways to go about it. Better tracking of the effects could also inform the design of development programmes themselves. Making this type of support more effective and more focussed could transform graduate performance in future.

>>

Figure 18: Effectiveactionstotransitiongraduatesintothebusinesspost-programme– 66 employers with 6,186 graduate hires. Note: Asked as an open-ended question with responses grouped by common themes.

24

Chapter 2

• In your organisation, what is

an “ideal” share of graduates

whoaremanagersafterfive

years?

• How can all stakeholders

work together to manage

graduate expectations about

their rate of progression?

• In your organisation, are

there any quick wins that

could make post-programme

transitions easier?


?

25

Chapter 2

>> 3. Engaging managersManagers are already a part of development programmes in many ways. For example, 63% of employers rely on line manager opinions to assess graduate potential, 53% use a survey of managers to help to identify soft skills training needs, and 48% have regular meetings between managers and HR. 29% of employers say that manager training is one of the most effective ways to improve graduate performance and 32% have exit interviews with managers to establish why graduates leave. The third potentially transformative trend is to integrate managers into development programmes and improve the quality of this engagement.

46% of employers see formal training as the most successful way to help managers to engage with graduates. Not surprisingly, training for managers is also becoming more common. 81% of respondents state that they train their managers specifically on how to manage graduates, up from 54% of respondents last year. Classroom sessions are the most common method and 8% of companies bring managers and graduates together in the same room. Methods of training are expected to keep evolving.

The content of training varies by firm. Some focus on millennials e.g. “all line managers have separate training which covers generational differences” and “generational Awareness Sessions for managers”. Some cover expectations e.g. “We are currently putting a training programme together for all graduate rotation module owners so they are clear of the expectations of the business, the graduate and what the module needs to deliver”. Some include specific managerial techniques e.g. “content includes techniques for motivation, feedback and difficult conversations”. There are many ways for employers to approach this.

Figure 19: Share of employers training managers on how to manage graduates – 144 employers with 15,266 graduates (2017), 174 employers with 16,968 graduate hires (2016).

of employers train their managers specifically on how

to manage graduates

81%

Whether training is compulsory or optional also varies by firm. Only 25% of employers have compulsory classroom training for their managers. An average of 74% of managers were trained in the organisations with at least some compulsory training, compared to 53% in organisations with only optional training. Involving senior staff can improve engagement e.g. “[have] trainee partner running training session - higher attendance and engagement”.

Trained managers typically receive 4.2 hours of training, which is the same amount as in 2016. Law firms and IT firms train the highest share of their managers while the construction and public sectors train the lowest. Several reasons for these differences included “managers of our graduates work for other organisations so it is down to them to train the managers”, “hours of average training for managers varies as it is run regionally by different providers who have a local variation”, and “previously no training, so piloted with half manager population and will roll out to 100% going forwards”.

Figure 20: Share of employers training managers on how to manage graduates – 144 employers with 15,266 graduate hires.

Based on sectors with available information and only those employers who trained at least some of their managers. Based on 83 employers with 10,934 graduate hires (share of managers trained), and 69 employers with 7,266 graduate hires (hours of training).

Table 2: Benchmarks for training managers of graduates.

Sector Average share of managers Average hours trainedineachfirm oftraining

Overall 67% 4.2

Bankingorfinancialservices 89% 5.6

Construction 43% 3.0

Energy,waterorutilities 64% 2.0

Engineeringorindustrial 61% 5.0

IT&Telecommunications 81% 3.6

Law 79% 2.8

26

Chapter 2

>>

The timing of this training also varies. 43% of employers train their managers around the time that graduates join: 32% train managers in the month before the start date, and 19% train them during orientations/inductions. However, the most popular timing of manager training is to run multiple training sessions across a programme. Regular training of managers is seen as key.

Best practice for engaging managers also means a multi-faceted approach. When asked, employers highlighted training, HR support and regular updates/feedback as the most successful methods of doing this. 16% highlighted the use of a guide or handbook and 17% spoke of improvements to performance management. A wide range of other actions and methods are also seen as effective.

Figure 21: When employers train managers on how to manage graduates – 107 employers with 12,681 graduate hires. Note: only those employers who train their managers specifically how to manage graduates.

Figure 22: Successful actions to engage managers with graduates – 82 employers with 9,750 graduate hires. Note: Asked as an open-ended question with responses grouped by common themes.

of employers train their managers around the time

that graduates join

43%27

Chapter 2

>>

For example, 29% of employers think that regular engagement is effective. Specific forms of this engagement include “business updates - they need to understand the business in which the graduates work”, “regular comms with managers before and after each training intervention” and “keeping them up to date on any changes”. There is also a role for engaging with managers before and after development programmes, including “engage with supervisors throughout recruitment process” and “delivered retention figures to them”. Employers should consider a holistic approach.

Specific support from HR can also make a difference. Effective actions include creating a manager community e.g. “develop a community of LM’s with quarterly emails and updates on programme events” and “create networks of managers to share learnings”. A central point of contact is seen as key. Examples include “regular calls with managers and touch-points to hear about how things are going and offer any advice”, “created an intranet site to support them with programme information”, and “create a central point for managers to access trainee scheme information.” There is scope to make existing support for managers more effective.

Other approaches varied widely. These included “being a supervisor to a graduate is now part of our internal appraisal program”, “all [line managers] in room together at calibration to help benchmark grad performance”, “introduced a Graduate Manager of the year competition to help them get the recognition they deserve” and “Pre-selection criteria of managers to become Graduate Managers. This includes past experience or being recognised as talent”. Some of the more innovative suggestions included “reverse mentoring”, “train HR managers on this to be able to help their managers”, and “providing similar training to both managers and trainees”.

Overall, employers are expected to keep trialling new approaches and making existing approaches more joined up. Once more data becomes available on the impact of these measures, it will be easier to establish best practice within sectors and across the industry. The feedback from this process could potentially transform the way that managers engage and the resourcing to support this.

• In your organisation, what

is the best way to integrate

manager training into

developmentprogrammes?

• How many ways can you

measure whether this

engagementiseffective?

• Which methods of training

do managers respond well to?


?

28

Chapter 2

>>

30

This chapter provides resourcing benchmarks for graduate development. Metrics include cost per hire estimates for graduate development and the number of graduates per development professional. Common team sizes, team structures and timeframes for planning are also included. How organisations measure return on investment (ROI) and employer suggestions for making this easier are also explored.

Resourcing and ROI

Cost per hire estimatesGraduate employers spend a median of £3,015 to develop each graduate during a graduate development programme and a median of £375 per graduate specifically on inductions. This estimate is based on overall budgets in the current financial year divided by the number of graduate hires, and includes in-house training and outsourced spend but excludes money spent on professional qualifications, team salaries and graduate salaries. The overall cost to recruit and develop a graduate is estimated at £6,398 and a breakdown by sector is shown below.

Chapter 3

Figure 23: Cost per hire estimates for graduates – 110 employers with 15,792 graduate hires (recruitment costs), 81 employers with 7,748 graduate hires (development costs).Source of recruitment costs is the AGR Annual Survey 2016. Note: recruitment costs are averages while development costs are medians. No overall development cost per hire estimate available for the public sector and no induction cost per hire estimate available for the Retail sector.

median spend to develop a graduate

£3,015

31

Chapter 3

There are some caveats with these numbers and they should be used with care. Development costs are reported as medians, due to high levels of variation between employers, while recruitment costs are reported as averages. While this year’s development cost per hire estimate is higher than the 2016 estimate of £2,500, it is not yet possible to state a year-on-year trend due to differences in the phrasing of the survey questions. However, these figures can be used as a guide for decision-making around setting budgets and to drive debate.

It is also possible to estimate the overall spend on graduate development across the industry. A lower bound can be calculated by multiplying the median cost per hire by the overall number of graduate hires mentioned in the AGR Annual Survey 2016. In that year, 208 responding employers hired 22,960 graduates. This gives a total spend of £8 million for inductions and £69 million for development overall.

Cost per hire varies by size of intake. The average cost per hire for recruiting graduates decreases in larger intakes. The trend for development costs is much less clear, potentially because of the smaller sample of employers able to provide this information. Overall costs for most intake sizes are around £7,000 per hire.

>>

Figure 24: Overall cost per hire estimates for graduates – 110 employers with 15,792 graduate hires (recruitment costs), 81 employers with 7,748 graduate hires (development costs). Note: recruitment costs are averages while development costs are medians. Source of recruitment costs is AGR Annual Survey 2016.

At least

£8 MILLION

Cost per hire varies by size of intake.

The average cost per hire for recruiting graduates decreases in larger intakes. The trend for development costs is much less clear, potentially because of the

smaller sample of employers able to provide this information.

Overall costs for most intake sizes are around

£7,000 per hire.

spent on inductions across the industry

32

Chapter 3

>> Employers who include both soft skills and technical skills training in their development budget spent over half of their funds, on average, on these activities. Budgets for soft skills training are typically 30% of the overall budget while budgets for technical training are typically 37%. There are caveats with this figure – it is based on a small sample of employers rather than the industry as a whole – but it does provide a guide for making decisions about resourcing.

Team sizesOn average, there are 9 members of full-time staff responsible for developing graduates. Larger intakes have larger teams. This number includes employees with partial responsibility, and some teams have a mixture of full-time and part-time staff. For example “there is only 1 full time member of staff responsible for development with a number of people in the business with approx. 10% of their time spent on development.”

Figure 25: Components of graduate development programme budgets – 33 employers with 1,974 graduate hires. Note: only those employers with all of the above elements in their budget.

• How does the outsourcing

ofskillstrainingaffect

developmentbudgets?


are the pros and cons

ofhavingbudgetsheld

centrally?

• How can existing budgets be

usedmoreeffectively?


?

Figure 26: Development team size – 121 employers with 14,335 graduate hires. Note: Refers to full-time equivalent staff and only for employers with teams smaller than their intake size.

graduates on development programmes per development

professional

50

33

Chapter 3

Conversely, there are typically 50 graduates on development programmes for every one development professional. Relatively speaking, the FMCG and Legal sectors have the highest level of resourcing and the Engineering or industrial sector the lowest. These resourcing levels are very similar to those for graduate recruitment teams, which average 19 graduate hires per recruiter according to AGR’s 2016 Annual Survey.

Employers also draw in internal resources in the form of buddies and mentors. The number of peer coaches/graduate buddies averages 79% of the number of graduates currently on development programmes. There are different ways of arranging these connections; for example “all older graduate cohorts are buddies to the younger cohort coming in”, “each graduate is assigned an individual sponsor and graduate buddy from the business” or “so many of our staff get involved in graduate training and development it’s almost impossible to put a number on it.” Involving the wider business is a key aspect of resourcing for development.

Some employers also shared actions taken to increase their resourcing. A central theme was people resource: “made better use of the people involved in training and development”, “extending the team to enable skills to be utilised”, and “dedicated L&D Advisor who manages graduate development”.

Other comments reflected processes: “restructured and re-allocated tasks within the management of trainee solicitors”, “introduced a new digital platform for online development and learning”, “automated some of the reporting on Grads/Junior Talent” and “analytics of spend” were all mentioned. Making better use of resources is interlinked with the challenge of effective programme design.

>>

Figure 27: Graduatesperstaffmemberresponsiblefor graduate development – 112 employers with 12,627 graduate hires. Note: refers to graduate employees currently on graduate development programmes, and full-time equivalent staff.

• What is the ideal structure

of roles within a graduate

developmentteam?

• What is the best way to grow

adevelopmentteamwhen

scaling up a programme?

• In your organisation, how can

you identify ways to make

better use of your existing

resources?


?

34

Chapter 3

Team structuresRecruitment and development functions are commonly combined in the same team. 51% of employers adopt this structure. Fewer organisations appear to doing this though, as 57% of employers adopted this structure in 2016. This year is the first year that AGR has reported on hybrid team structures – some staff in separate teams, some staff in the same team –and 24% of employers adopt this format.

Separated teams and hybrid teams are more likely in larger intakes. 69% of employers with 1-15 graduates have recruitment and development in the same team, but this drops to 21% of employers for those who recruit between 101-250 graduates.

Responsibility for skills training for graduates is typically combined in the same team as responsibility for skills training for all staff. However, this is more common in small organisations than larger ones. 32% of employers adopt a hybrid team for skills training.

>>

Figure 28: Responsibility for graduate recruitment/graduate development – 153 employers with 15,903 graduate hires.

Figure 29: Responsibilityforskillstrainingforgraduatescomparedwithskillstrainingforallstaff– 152 employers with 14,357 graduate hires.

• What are the pros and cons

of using hybrid teams?

• What lessons from graduate

skills training can be applied

toskillstrainingforallstaff,

andviceversa?

• How might team structures

change as graduate

developmentchanges?


?

35

Chapter 3

36

Chapter 3

Timeframes for planningEmployers typically start planning their development programmes 9-12 months before new starters join. 61% of employers start planning between September and January. However, a share of employers start planning every month and some are planning on an ongoing basis.

Figure 30: When employers start planning future development programmes – 133 employers with 12,777 graduate hires.

• When is the best time to

engage internal stakeholders

in the planning process?

• How can employers engage

current graduates and

managers to support the

planning process?

• Whatisthemosteffective

way for employers to share

expertise on planning?


?

37

Chapter 3

>> Measuring ROIMeasuring return on investment (ROI) is rare in graduate development. Employers typically do not measure the ROI of their individual graduates, training courses, or their development programmes. This is a barrier to identifying what works and to making improvements.

Only 41% of employers calculate the financial value of individual graduates, which is similar to last year. While the most common method for doing this is billing hours to clients, not all sectors use this business model: 49% of the organisations who use this option are law firms. Other qualitative or indirect measures of ROI include retention rates, individual performance scores, and the comparative costs of graduates compared to hiring an experienced recruit. 4% of employers have graduates self-assess their value.

34% of employers measure the impact of their graduate training courses. While this share is low, it also represents an increase from 28% of employers last year. Different training courses may require different approaches e.g. “some courses [we] can measure impact, such as our safety courses, others are a bit harder and [we use our] annual employee survey”. Use of efficiency-based measures is increasing faster than productivity-based measures.

Employers indicated that this type of measurement is often done informally. Comments included “we aren’t assessing the financial benefit but we are getting feedback on the training courses and carrying out follow up sessions with Line Managers.”, “measure trainee self-

Figure 31: Howemployerscalculatethefinancialvalueofindividualgraduates– 140 employers with 13,133 graduate hires (2017), 166 employers with 19,230 graduate hires (2016). Source of 2016 data is the AGR 2015 Annual Survey.

reported scores on skills”, “supervisor feedback on trainee performance”, and “look at feedback but don’t assess long term value”. There is scope for employers to be more rigorous about these measurements.

of employers calculate the financial value of individual

graduates

41%

38

Chapter 3

Only 40% of employers calculate the ROI of their development programmes. Use of indirect measures of success is far more common: 72% of employers use retention metrics and 42% use engagement. With regards to ROI, 27% of employers compare the performance of graduate hires relative to non-graduate hires, including “overall ‘value’ delivered back to the business”. Other business metrics include “busyness and charge out rates as well as partnerships and high performance of individuals”, “promotion rates, potential Identified, succession pools they are in”, “career progression of those that came through to graduate programmes i.e. time in which it’s taken to reach Business Leader level” and “examination success rates”.

Employers also indicated an appetite to measure more often. Comments included “this will be reviewed and introduced next year”, “this is something that we are just about to introduce”, “we in the process of developing this and being more clear on how this

Figure 32: Methodsofassessingthefinancialimpactoftrainingcourses– 80 employers with 5,700 graduate hires. Note: only employers who answered the 2016 Development Survey.

Figure 33: Methodsofcalculatingthefinancialvalueofgraduatedevelopmentprogrammes– 146 employers with 15,802 graduate hires.

is tracked” and “we are putting in place appropriate metrics, but nothing in place at the moment”. Measuring ROI is expected to become more common in graduate development in future.


might “best practice” look

like for measuring ROI?

• What resources are needed

toachievethis,andover

what timeframe?

• How can all stakeholders

worktogethertodevelop

best practice sooner?


?

39

Chapter 3

40

Chapter 3

Improving ROI measurementEmployers see more than one way to simplify the process of measuring ROI. Comments on what would help fit broadly into six categories, as shown below. The top three things are seen as better systems for data analysis, better data on where graduates go post-programme, and templates or guides for how to do the calculations themselves.

36% of employers mentioned data analytics or systems. Comments included “easier access to data for analysis - new IT system!”, “having data centrally”, and “a dedicated analyst and more effective systems for tracking”. Other employers mentioned “post programme plan and care - once roll off programme no longer tracked” and “better business data- to compare grads directly to non-grads in performance and retention etc”. Investments in these areas could help.

Other comments highlighted the need for broader changes within and across organisations. These included “role framework levelling across all of the organisation - to be able to compare grads across the org” and “greater visibility of longer term investments in projects the graduates have worked on”. Consistency in development was seen as helpful for making comparisons: for example, “all streams to have the same aim for their grads” and “clear purpose of the scheme”. Information sharing will also be important e.g. “information about how other organisations (in legal sector and other industries) measure their ROI” and

“tools to provide business to measure this qualitatively (as part of appraisal)”. These suggestions represent areas of focus for organisations which want to measure ROI more effectively.

>>

Figure 34: Things which would make it easier to measure ROI – 39 employers with 6,865 graduate hires. Note: Asked as an open-ended question with responses grouped by common themes. • In your organisation, are

there ‘quick wins’ which

would help in measuring ROI?

• How can suppliers support

employers in measuring ROI?

• How can you gain buy-in

from senior stakeholders

to support this type of

measurement?


?

of employers state that better analytics or IT systems would

help them track ROI

36%

42

This chapter is an overview of the content of development programmes. Topics include common activities during programmes, the use of rotations, support for professional qualifications, changes in the use of psychometric tests, the duration and methods of soft skills and technical skills training, support for diversity and effective actions for helping graduates to enjoy their experience.

Programme design

Common activitiesGraduate programmes typically include a wide variety of activities, some of which are outsourced. All companies run training for graduates during a group orientation or induction. 63% of companies partially or completely outsource their training on soft skills. 76% of employers now run end-of-programme events, up from 56% last year.

Chapter 4

Figure 35: Activities and outsourcing in graduate development programmes – 174 employers with 18,227 graduate hires in 2016.

of firms outsource some of their induction training

41%

43

Individual companies are also changing the way they deliver skills training. In a sample of employers who also answered the 2016 AGR Development Survey, partially outsourced inductions are on the rise. More employers also appear to be switching to doing skills training in-house. These changes suggest an increasing focus on effectiveness; as one employer put it: “we run all of our graduate training internally rather than using a third party as we’ve had feedback from graduates that it provides a better experience.”

>>

Chapter 4

Figure 36: Changesininduction,softskillsandtechnicalskillstrainingrespectively–126 employers with 15,266 graduate hires. Note: only those employers who carried out these activities in 2016 and answered the 2016 Development Survey.

• In your organisation, how

do you measure if your

inductioniseffective?


of outsourcing skills training?

• How can employers

strengthen existing

partnerships with external

providers?


?

“we run all of our graduate training

internally rather than using a third party as we’ve had feedback from graduates that it provides a better

experience.” of employers run end-of-programme

events

76%

44

RotationsRotations are a central feature of graduate development programmes. Use of these has remained relatively constant over the last ten years, and rotations themselves are typically six months long. Employer comments included “our graduates have to rotate every 6 months (nationally or internationally)”, “our graduates have 3/4 secondments over the 2 years” and “all graduates rotate on either a 6 month basis or a 9 month basis (dependent on scheme)”. Some employers also move their graduates around informally e.g. “projects take place across the UK so everyone in the graduate programme is in scope for working in all regions across the UK and overseas”.

Employers provide different forms of rotations. Excluding law firms, 68% of employers provide rotations in the same UK region and 42% provide rotations between different UK regions. When these are provided, an average of 70% and 57% of graduate intakes take part respectively. Some graduates undertake a mixture of different types of rotations e.g. “generally, our graduates complete three placements in their ‘base’ region and one in another UK region, 10% of those also complete an international placement.”

>>

Chapter 4

Figure 37: Share of employers incorporating rotations in their development programme, over time – varying numbers of employers. Source: AGR Summer/Annual Surveys.

Figure 38: Use of rotations on development programmes – 113 employers with 12,985 graduate hires (excludes law firms).

45

Law firms are more likely to use rotations than other sectors. 88% provide rotations in the same UK region and half of law firms offer international rotation. On average, 92% of graduates go on rotations in the same UK region and an average of 38% of graduates take part in rotations overseas.

Professional qualifications88% of employers have at least some graduates studying for professional qualifications. On average, 74% of graduates in these organisations are undertaking this. The need to study for professional qualifications is often driven by regulatory requirements; for example “the training period is currently by default a preparation for qualification into the law profession.”

The most common type of support for professional qualifications is full support. 90% of employers pay for the full costs of sitting for exams and 75% pay for membership of the qualifying institution. Only 49% of employers pay for the cost of study materials and 29% pay for resits of failed exams.

>>

Chapter 4

Figure 39: Useofrotationsbylawfirmsondevelopment programmes – 26 legal employers with 1,005 trainee hires.


of changing the length of

rotations?

• What resources are needed

to support rotations and how

canfirmsmakethemost

efficientuseofthese?

• How might the use of

rotationschangeoverthe

next 2-5 years?


?

Figure 40: Supportforprofessionalqualifications–136 employers with 15,176 graduate hires. Note: only for those employers whose graduates undertake professional qualifications.

46

Chapter 4

• What is the link between the

levelofsupportprovidedand

how graduates perform in

exams?

• Howdoesprovisionofthis

supportaffectresourcing

forgraduatedevelopmentin

general?

• How can employers

effectivelyengagetheir

stakeholders to make it

easiertoprovidepaidstudy

time?


?

47

Use of psychometric testsPsychometric tests appear to less common in development programmes this year. 58% of employers use these tests, down from 64% in 2016. Use of well-established tests like MBTI and Belbin are significantly down, while the use of newer tests has risen. 10% more employers are using the Occupational Personality Questionnaire developed by SHL.

A wide range of other tests and providers were also listed by respondents. These included Capp, Korn Ferry, Talent Q, Cut-e, Strengths Deployment Inventory (SDI), Psytech and Dove Nest. Employers who wish to include psychometric tests have a wide variety of options to choose from. The four main tests are explained below.

>>Chapter 4

Figure 41: Types of psychometric/behavioural tests included as part of programmes – 108 employers with 12,163 graduate hires. Note: only those employers who also answered the AGR Development Survey 2016.

Sources: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/ http://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles/https://www.insights.com/564/insights-discovery.htmlhttps://www.cebglobal.com/talent-management/talent-assessment/assessments/shl-opq.html

Table 3: Explanations of the main psychometric tests used in development programmes

Myers-BriggsTypeIndicator(MBTI)

Belbin team roles

Insights Discovery

Occupational Personality Questionnaire(fromSHL)

Usesaself-reportedquestionnairetocategorisepeopleinto sixteen personality types based on how they perceive the world and make decisions.

Uses individual and team reports to identify nine differentteamrolesandtheirrelativestrengthsandweaknesses.

Uses a four colour model to understand an individual’s uniquepreferences.A20pagepersonalityprofilealsoidentifiesstrengthsandareasfordevelopment.

Measures 32 personality traits that are relevant to occupational settings to determine behavioural styles at work.

Test Overview of test

48

Employers typically do not use psychometric tests to inform graduate development. Only 13% of the firms who use psychometric tests in their assessment process also use these tests to inform their overall development programme. What’s more, despite 42% of employers comparing psychometric tests scores from their selection process against on-the-job performance, as indicated in the AGR Annual Survey 2016, only 26% of employers use these tests to inform individual development plans.

Employers indicated that this may change in future. Comments included “plan to use other assessment data for graduate development purposes in near future”, “we may change this this year” and “looking to introduce 15FQ+ [from Psytech] and learning style as part of onboarding to influence programme”. Given that tailored and structured development is listed as a key challenge in the year ahead, there is scope for employers to use psychometric tests more strategically.

Chapter 4

Figure 42: Use of psychometric tests in assessment to inform development programmes – 100 employers with 8,889 graduate hires. Note: only those employers who used psychometric tests in their assessment. • In your organisation, what

are the barriers to using

psychometric tests to inform

graduatedevelopment?

• How can the results of these

tests be used to increase the

productivityofjuniorhires?

• What might “best practice”

look like?


?

49

Soft/technical skills trainingUse of formal skills training varies by sector. Employers typically offer a week-long induction, 10 days of soft skills training (up from 8 last year), and 18 days of technical training across their graduate development programmes. An average of 5 days of soft skills training is provided in the first year.

The duration of skills training varies by size of intake. Larger intakes typically receive more training overall. However, the level of soft skills training remains relatively constant.

>>

Chapter 4

Sector Induction Softskills Softskills Technical %outsourcing %outsourcing (firstyear) (across skills someskills sometechnical programme) training skillstraining

Overall 6 5 10 18 63% 64%

Banking/financial services 5 4 8 20 72% 77%

Construction 4 3 6 11 77% 31%

Energy, water or utilities 6 11 17 21 64% 55%

Engineering or industrial 4 6 9 29 70% 59%

FMCG 4 8 16 12 57% 57%

IT & Telecommunications 5 6 9 15 43% 57%

Law 7 3 6 17 67% 72%

Public sector 12 6 12 18 58% 75%

Retail 8 5 12 11 33% 33%

Table 4: Days of skills training and outsourcing of skills training in graduate development programmesBased on 148 employers with 15,727 graduate hires (skills training), 174 employers with 18,227 graduate hires (outsourcing)

Figure 43: Daysofskillstrainingofferedtograduates,splitbyintakesize – 133 employers with 12, 717 graduate hires (soft skills training), 118 employers with 12,281 graduate hires (technical skills training).

50

The most common method of skills training is classroom learning. Methods of soft skills and technical skills training are similar except that experiential learning is much more common for soft skills. Blended learning is also becoming more popular, with 53% of employers now using this method compared to 42% last year (as indicated in the AGR Development Survey 2016).

Employers can be more strategic in how they identify their skills training needs. There is a high reliance on manager and graduate feedback, with over half of firms surveying employees during their programme. However, only 62% of employers have an HR strategy to help them identify soft skills and only 25% use external research on skills.

>>

Chapter 4

Figure 44: Methodsofskillstrainingofferedtograduates–152 employers with 16,028 graduate hires.

Figure 45: Methodsofsoftskillstrainingused for graduates – 141 employers with 15,223 graduate hires.

• How might the methods of skills training change

overthenexttwotofiveyears?

• What support would help graduates to better

self-assess their own skills needs?

• Howdotechnicalskillsneedsvaryacrosssectors?

Questions to explore:?

51

Diversity in developmentDiversity is already seen as important in graduate recruitment. Based on the AGR Diversity & Inclusion Survey 2016, 73% of employers have a diversity strategy for graduates, 60% place gender diversity as a high priority within their organisation, and use of budgets for specific diversity & inclusion activities is on the rise. There was an increase in monitoring of diversity in 2016 and diversity is currently one of recruiters’ top five challenges.

Diversity receives less attention in graduate development. In-house support networks are the most common type of support, with 49% of employers having these for women and 50% having these for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) hires. However, these networks are usually not graduate-specific. Employers mentioned that “we have separate initiatives and programmes for these groups in place, but they are separate from our graduate programme” and “We have an Inclusion Team internally who run “networks” for different groups of people. Participation is voluntary”.

Offering tailored development or access to coaching is also rare. For example, only 11% of firms provide coaching for female hires and only 9% provide tailored development for disabled hires. The extent to which groups with different characteristics vary in their development needs is still unclear due to a lack of industry-wide

attention on this issue. As one employer stated “a better understanding of what BAME and social mobility candidates expect from their future employer in terms of culture would improve diversity initiatives in this area”. More data is needed to drive better decision-making on this topic in future.

>>

Chapter 4

Figure 46: Priority of diversity within organisations – 168 employers with 22,037 graduate hires in 2015Source: AGR Diversity & Inclusion Survey 2016.

of employers have in-house support networks available for female

graduates

49%

52

Chapter 4

Figure 47: Shareofemployersofferingspecificsupport to graduates with these characteristics – 140 employers with 14,244 graduate hires.

Overall, males and females appear to have similar retention rates after three years of employment. Comparing a sample of employers tracking this type of retention data, construction and energy firms appear to be marginally more successful at retaining females while engineering or industrial companies and law firms appear to be marginally more successful at retaining males. However, it is too early to draw firm conclusions from this data other than to suggest that better monitoring across more sectors will help to establish a wider trend. This, in turn, can be used to help establish if male and female graduates have different development needs.

Figure 48: Retentionratesthreeyearsafterjoining,bygender–54 employers with 4,387 graduate hires.

• Howdogroupswithdifferent

characteristicsvaryintheir

developmentneeds?

• How can employers measure

the impact of in-house

support networks?

• In your organisation, what are

theprosandconsofoffering

tailoreddevelopmentto

differentgroups?


?

53

Helping graduates enjoy itThere are many ways to help graduates to enjoy their development and enjoy their programmes. While only 22% of employers run development programmes specifically to improve the experience of junior hires, organisations are currently taking a lot of actions to ensure that this happens. 47% of employers referred to social events/communities for graduates and a wide range of other effective actions are listed below.

There are many specific ways to strengthen a sense of graduate community. Some employers referred to events and processes, such as “[a] social budget” and “put together a peer support network”. Others mentioned “quarterly networking events”, “bi-monthly Connect sessions as a whole cohort”, “have an annual trainee conference” and “ensure they participate to some extent in non-work activities/social events”. Formal structures were also mentioned including “Early Careers Society who act similarly to University Students Union Officers” and “Graduate Committees and Working parties give ownership and help enhance the programmes”.

33% of employers list the importance of listening to and acting on graduate feedback. Some employers maintain ongoing contact: “regular feedback sessions - you said, we did”, and “open feedback sessions throughout the programme”. Others gather feedback

on future programme changes: “enable them to input into certain aspects of the scheme and develop it with us” and “allow them to shape the programme for future cohorts.” Feedback can also be used to enhance current development choices e.g. “[graduates] choose their own placements”. Regular engagement is key to ensuring that graduates keep enjoying their experience.

Other options vary widely. Employers mentioned “researching/collecting data on graduate expectations and aligning this to what is provided”, “support with health & wellbeing”, “seeing the relevance of [their] development and impact and value on the business of the programme” and “introduction of flexi-time working”. Employers are doing a lot to help graduates enjoy their experience.

>>

Chapter 4

Figure 49: Effectiveactionstohelpgraduatesenjoytheir development programme – 107 employers with 12,659 graduate hires. Note: Asked as an open-ended question with responses grouped by common themes.

of employers think that creating a sense of graduate community

helps graduates to enjoy Their programme

47%

54

Chapter 4

• What is the appropriate

balance to strike between

challenging graduates and

helpingthemtoenjoytheir

programme?

• Whattypeofinvolvement

from internal stakeholders

is needed for the listed

initiativestobesuccessful?

• What are potential downsides

ofthemeasuresaboveand

how can these downsides be

avoided?


?

56

This chapter provides benchmarks for assessing and improving the performance of graduates. Topics include methods of assessing performance and potential and a wide range of effective actions for improving the performance of graduates whilst they are on programmes.

Graduate performance

Assessing performance99% of employers assess the performance of their graduates during development programmes. The most common method for doing this is to hold performance reviews every six months. 48% of firms have regular meetings between HR and managers. It is not yet possible to state a year-on-year trend, as this is the first year that the AGR has captured these statistics.

These forms of assessment often involve multiple stakeholders. Employer comments included “formal assessment at the end of each placement with line manager, Talent Board + Graduate Team”, “Regular one to one meetings with manager - alternate ones aligning to professional development and performance against individual plans. Also regular meetings with mentor to ensure performing to plan”, “1, 3 and 6 month reviews which are attended by the graduate, placement manager, myself and the graduate mentor” and “every graduate has a counsellor, monthly counselling meetings”. A well-rounded view of how graduates perform is seen as useful.

Peer review was also highlighted by employers even though only 18% are currently doing this. Employers mentioned “We are looking at starting a formal peer review and would be interested to know what

others think of this. Graduates currently do peer review but it is not something we instruct them to do”, “peer review does not cover all aspects of performance, but for example, they feedback on each other’s presentation style, and personal brand” and “peer review to be introduced from mid of this year”. This form of assessment could become more common in future.

Chapter 5

Figure 50: Methods of assessing graduate performance on programme – 149 employers with 14,511 graduate hires. • What are the most common issues that

arise six months into a role,and how can

your organisation prepare for these?

• Whataretheprosandconsofremoving

formal performance assessments for

graduates?

• Whatinterventionscanhelpgraduates

become more self-aware of their

performance?


?

57

Chapter 5

Assessing future potential97% of employers assess the future potential of graduates on development programmes. Potential and performance are sometimes assessed together; for example, “annual performance review…measures the “what” and the “how” accompanied by 9 box grid matrix to assess potential”. 94% of employers use appraisals or performance reviews to assess potential and 55% use talent or succession planning processes. These findings suggest an increasing reliance on appraisals as opposed to other forms of assessment.

There are also some signs that these methods will keep changing in future. Comments by employers included “no talent/succession planning in place at present however there are plans to put this in place”, “looking to introduce psychometric tests/profiling for 2017/18”, and “currently looking to use talent and succession planning tools to do this”. There is scope for employers to be more effective at predicting future potential.

>>

Figure 51: Methods of assessing future potential – 96 employers with 8,818 graduate hires.Note: only employers who also answered the AGR Development Survey 2016. Note: “360 feedback” was not a question option in 2016 hence the “n/a”.

• How can performance data

beusedtoevaluatethe

effectivenessofeachmethod?

• When is the best time during

a graduate programme to

assess future potential?

• What resources or guidance

do managers need to assess

potential?


?

of employers assess the future potential of graduates on development programmes

97%

58

Chapter 5

>> Improving performanceEmployers see many ways to improve the performance of graduates on development programmes. Impactful training and a structured programme are seen as the most effective actions. A wide range of other actions were provided and these are listed below.

Impactful training can mean many things in practice. These include updating training content and methods e.g. “training on resilience”, “introduce a bespoke digital platform for their development”, “using a combination of methods to deliver development (digital & face to face)” and “changed to mandatory and elective development modules”. It also includes better alignment of training to business needs, such as ensuring “suite of internal training courses [is] aligned to their development programme competencies” and “structured training plans within the departments”. There is plenty of scope to make training more effective.

34% of employers see structured and tailored development as key. Specific comments included “clarity on processes & expectations”, “structured, business leader led, development curriculum”, and “personalised performance development plans - increased engagement from trainee, supervisor & HR”. Other comments included “early career objectives for a consistent

approach” and “quarterly graduate talent forums and clear graduate standards and expectations”. A focus on better programme design can deliver results.

Other actions varied widely. Some employers mentioned changes to graduates’ work, such as “business sponsored projects”, and “entrepreneurial charitable fund raising project”. Other employers listed actions to improve resourcing and support e.g. “centralised coordinator”, “set up participant representatives and open forums to encourage a culture of feedback”, “salary increases related to performance” and “conduit between the supervisor and the graduate”. Wider changes can also make an impact, such as “redesign of recruitment assessment centres to match skills and role” and “enhanced requirements to host a graduate on rotation (i.e. assessment of work quality)”.

Figure 52: Effectiveactionstoimprovegraduateperformance on development programmes – 119 employers with 11,682 graduates. Note: Asked as an open-ended question with responses grouped by common themes.

of employers see impactful training as an effective way to improve

graduate performance

42%

59

Chapter 5

• How can organisations

create long-lasting rather

than temporary increases in

graduate performance?

• Whatlevelofresourcingand

planning is needed for each

specificintervention?

• How many ways are there to

measuretheimpactofspecific

interventions?


?

61

This chapter provides an overview of retention and progression rates for graduates. Topics include how companies capture the reasons for attrition, changes in retention rates, and employer tips for how to reduce attrition. Methods of salary progression on programmes and rates of salary progression after programmes are also included.

Retention & Progression

Capturing reasons for attrition94% of employers state that they capture the reasons why graduates leave. Exit interviews with HR are the most common approach, although these are sometimes online rather than face-to-face. Only 4% of employers determine the reasons for attrition from a database of alumni and only 2% conduct exit interviews using an external organisation.

Chapter 6

Figure 53: How employers capture the reasons that graduates leave – 146 employers with 15,652 graduate hires.

62

Chapter 6

?>> Good communication with stakeholders is seen as vital. Employers mentioned the importance of personal relationships with graduates: “we hire a small amount of graduates and we have a close relationship with them, hence we tend to now understand why they leave” and “alumni for us is very very key”. Others mentioned the importance of communication with the central development team, with comments including “the central development team don’t always get this information passed over, not logged anywhere” and “Line Managers conduct exit interviews. Often the Graduate programme finds out too late”. There is scope to improve exit interviews and internal communication.

Employers also face a range of challenges when collecting retention data. Specific barriers include “we have only formally started capturing this data this year”, “we don’t always get to see exit data ...as it sits with the HR Partner of the function” and “we are a devolved organisation so from a central perspective I am unaware of the reasons they leave as there is no

Why graduates leaveThis year marks the first time that AGR can report on the share of graduates who leave for different reasons. These are listed below, based on employer data, and for graduates who leave during the first three years of employment. On average, the employers capturing at least some of the reasons for retention know the reasons why 86% of their leavers have gone.

knowledge feedback loop, only anecdotal stuff”. More frequent data collection will be an important next step in terms of capturing more accurate reasons for leaving.

• Whichexitinterview

questions draw the most

insightful responses?

• What systems need to be in

place to ensure that feedback

fromleaversisactedon?

• How can suppliers work with

employers to make these

processes easier?


Figure 54: Shareofgraduateswholeaveforvariousreasonsintheirfirstthreeyears– 69 employers with 5,959 graduate hires. Note: employers were asked to specify the share of graduates who left for each reason. Options were mutually exclusive so that total percentages added to 100%.

63

Chapter 6

The most common reasons are connected to each other. On average, 24% of leavers primarily go to change career, 19% primarily leave for better pay, and 14% leave due to dissatisfaction with their career progression. 57% of graduate leavers go for these three reasons. Employers mentioned that “graduates start looking when they are dissatisfied due to a combination of perceived lack of career progression and dissatisfaction with pay” and “a mix of career change and career progression”.

Graduates also leave for a varied range of other reasons. Employers listed issues with managers, leaving to become a fulltime parent/carer, being overwhelmed with the nature of everyday work, mutual agreement due to underperformance, health reasons, dissatisfaction with hours, business instability and company culture. To improve retention rates, there are many potential areas that employers can look to change.

>>• What is the impact of

careerdevelopment

workshops on graduate

retention rates?

• What share of your

graduateleaversstay

within your sector?


would be an acceptable

share of graduates who

leaveforeachreason?


?

Retention ratesGraduate retention rates are lower this year. Employers typically lost 16% of graduates during development programmes which finished in 2016, compared to 9% last year. The retention rate on two-year development programmes specifically is currently 84%, compared to 88% last year. Retention rates vary by sector as shown in Chapter 1.

Figure 55: Retention rates for graduates – 119 employers with 9,727 graduate hires. Source of previous data: AGR Development Survey 2016, AGR 2015 Annual Survey.

of graduates are retained at the end of programmes, on average

84%

64

Chapter 6

>> This trend of lower retention appears to be consistent across different sectors. Analysing a sample of employers who also answered the AGR Development Survey 2016, the average retention rate on development programmes has declined for four out of five sectors. This suggests a systemic change in graduate behaviour which employers will need to respond to.

This also appears to be a recent trend. Going back a decade, the share of graduates leaving after three and five years of employment has remained relatively stable. Trends for three-year retention rates are complicated by the fact that different employers have programmes of different lengths, and the sample of respondents varies year-on-year. However, over the last two years the five-yearly retention rate appears to have kept declining.

Figure 56: Retention rates for graduates on programme – 66 employers with 5,893 graduate hires.Source of previous data: AGR Development Survey 2016.

Figure 57: Retention rates for graduates over time – varying numbers of employers.Note: the three-year retention rate is based on all lengths of programme.Source: AGR Annual/Summer Surveys.

?• In your organisation, how does graduate retention

compare to new hire retention in general?

• What is the maximum and minimum share of

graduates that your organisation wants to retain?

• Whichfactorsinfluenceretentioninthelongterm?


65

Chapter 6

Improving retention ratesA small group of employers were able to provide qualitative feedback about how to improve retention rates for graduates. Their comments reflect a range of ideas for organisations to try in order to keep more graduates. Three key themes emerged.

The first relates to better programme design. Employers mentioned “more effective development programme - more budget allocated”, “secondments to other organisations” and “we give graduates real responsibilities early on – they get involved in recruiting new graduates at assessment centres, and promoting our graduate schemes at career fairs, and networking sessions”. Engaging key stakeholders was also seen as a key element of this, with organisations mentioning “offering regular trainee supervisor training to ensure that the trainees are getting the best quality experience and to let them know what the trainees expect in the way of feedback/development” and “developed the curriculum for training to include emotional wellbeing and resilience”.

The second theme relates to a good transition following the programme. One employer was able to successfully address the reasons why graduates had left: “in the last couple of years have addressed the dissatisfaction with pay and have seen a change in trend.” Others talked about “highlighting post programme

progression opportunities”, “increase visibility of internal opportunities different to their current roles”, “building a robust transition process” and “talent reviews for Grad Alumni, ensuring they are in roles which challenge them and are keeping them engaged”. These are in line with the suggestions for post-programme support mentioned in Chapter 2.

The third theme relates to tracking and internal processes. “Exit interviews”, “started tracking it on an annual basis” and “improved appraisal system” were identified as helpful. A more holistic approach was another strand of this with employers mentioning “long term resource planning” and even “improve selection process”.

Even though attrition appears to be getting worse, employers have many ways to address this.

>>

• In your organisation, which of

these actions might represent

quick wins?

• What feedback loops or

governancewillneedtoexist

to track the impact of any

changes?

• How can employers work

in partnership to address

retention challenges?


of leavers go to change career

24%

One employer was able to successfully address the reasons why

graduates had left: “in the last couple of years have

addressed the dissatisfaction with pay and have seen

a change in trend.”

66

Chapter 6

Salary increases on programmes93% of employers offer salary increases during or at the end of development programmes. 30% offer an automatic salary increase on completion, and 48% offer a step increase in salary during the programme. Graduates receive a median pay rise of 12% if they only receive a salary increase during their programme, 15% if they only receive a salary increase on completion, and 21% if their employer offers both options.

There are nuances to these arrangements as well. Some employers carry out a salary review each year which does not result in automatic uplift e.g: “a step up every year, but within a band based on a 9-box model” and “only happens if salary of other staff is reviewed or if individuals performance merits it”. The review period itself can also vary: “bonus payment upon completion of each rotation - performance related” and “at the end of each 12 month period a salary review is done which results in an increase.” The most suitable approach appears vary by employer.

>>

Figure 58: Typeofsalaryincreasesofferedongraduatedevelopmentprogrammes–150 employers with 14,924 graduate hires. Note: employers could select more than one option.

Figure 59: Median rates of salary increase on graduate development programmes, by type of increase – 106 employers with 9,711 graduate hires.


ofofferingsalaryincreases

duringdevelopment

programmes?

• How do your criteria for salary

increases compare with others

in your sector?


67

Chapter 6

Salary progressionOverall, graduates receive a median salary increase of 25% over their first three years of employment (excluding law firms). Most of this increase comes at or by the end of structured development programmes. Graduates on the shortest development programmes typically have the highest rates of salary progression over a three year period.

Median salary increases vary by sector. Law firms have the highest rates of salary progression overall at 65%. Relatively speaking, energy firms have the highest increases following the end of development programmes.

>>

Figure 60: Median rates of salary progression – 116 employers with 10,100 graduate hires.

Table 5 Median rates of salary progression – 81 employers with 5,691 graduate hires. 1: Only employers with 24-month programmes. 2: AGR Summer Survey 2013. Note: gaps indicate not enough responses to report on a trend. Salaries rounded to nearest £100

Sector Increase at end Increase three Starting salary Estimated of programme1 yearsafterjoining in20132 salary in 2016

Overall(excludingLaw) 15% 25% £26,500 £33,100

Banking or financial services 18% 30% £29,750 £38,700

Construction 20% 25% - -

Energy, water or utilities 6% 31% £25,500 £33,400

Engineering or industrial 12% 20% £25,000 £30,000

FMCG - 25% £27,000 £33,800

IT & Telecommunications 28% 35% £26,250 £35,400

Law 37% 65% £37,000 £61,100

Public sector 10% 21% £22,500 £27,200

Retail 17% 25% £25,000 £31,300

68

Chapter 6

Other factors affect rates of salary progression too. Some employers highlighted graduate transitions: “varies depending on which position they are substantively appointed into” and “once graduates apply for their first position their salary increase is dependent on the level of the job they secure – it’s not centrally controlled”. Other employers mentioned the role of different business areas: “if they get promoted each year will depend on the overall promotion budget of their specific team and it’s not guaranteed” and “finance graduates end on much higher salary”. Performance

was also seen as important “salary increases vary based upon business area and performance” and “it is very dependent on each individual and how they perform”. Variation in rates of salary progression is to be expected.

>>

• Whatistheeffectofsalary

increases on graduate retention

and performance?

• How are salary increases for

graduates connected with salary

increasesforotherstaff?


70

This chapter provides the survey methodology as well as details of the sectors, firm sizes and graduate intake sizes of the responding organisations.

Appendix

Methodology This is the second year that AGR has run a standalone, annual Development Survey. Employers were emailed a link to complete the survey online over a period of four weeks in December 2016, and additional responses were gathered in January 2017. Of the 309 AGR members who were sent invitations, 174 responses were received, representing a 56% response rate. These findings predominantly refer to graduates who started employment in 2016 and are undergoing development throughout 2017 and beyond.

Responses were analysed via a mixture of statistical and manual methods. Individual responses were checked for errors e.g. “25” rather than “25%” and in some cases re-confirmed with employers and updated. Statistical software was used to generate key statistics including frequencies, means and medians. Wherever possible, specific values perceived to be outliers (e.g. 100% above the next highest value in a particular sector) were also checked with responding employers and updated or excluded from the analysis. To ensure reliability of the trends and to maintain the anonymity of respondents, the minimum threshold for reporting on a sector is five employer responses. The number of employers who responded to each question is listed below each graph.

This report also includes references to previous AGR reports. Key reports are listed below and are available for AGR members on request.

Chapter 7

Survey

AGR Annual Survey 2016

AGR Diversity & Inclusion Survey 2016

AGR Development Survey 2016

AGR Annual Survey 2015

Timing of survey

Published in September 2016

Published in June 2016

Published in March 2016

Published in September 2015

Table 6: AGR surveys referenced in this report.

71

Chapter 7

Profile of respondentsAs in previous years, survey respondents represent a wide variety of organisations and are a robust proxy to the wider market of graduate employers. The 174 responding employers hired a total of 18,227 graduates in 2016 and have an estimated 2.8 million employees in their respective companies, meaning that they collectively represent around 10% of the UK workforce.

Respondents come from over 18 sectors. Law firms and engineering firms are the best represented sectors, contributing 19% and 16% of respondents respectively. The composition of sectors is broadly similar to last year’s AGR Development Survey.

93% of respondents come from organisations with more than 250 staff. 16% of respondents have between 251-1000 employees, and 16% have more than 20,000 employees. The share of respondents from different organisational sizes is broadly similar to last year, although there is a greater share of respondents with between 1,001-5,000 staff.

>>

Figure 61: Business sector of responding organisations – 174 employers with 18,227 graduate hires.Source of 2016 data: AGR Development Survey 2016.

Figure 62: Business size of responding organisations – 174 employers with 18,227 graduate hires.Source of 2016 data: AGR Development Survey 2016.

72

Chapter 7

A wide range of sizes of graduate intake are also represented. 22% of respondents hired between 1-15 graduates, and 9% of respondents hired over 250 graduates. Smaller intakes are better represented than larger ones with more employers in the 26-100 graduates category than in last year’s survey.

>>

Figure 63: Size of graduate intake of responding organisations – 174 employers with 18,227 graduate hires. Source of data: AGR Development Survey 2016.

• Accenture

• Addleshaw Goddard

• AECOM

• AIG

• Alfa

• Allen & Overy

• American Express

• Amey

• Aon

• Arcadis

• Arup

• Associated British Foods

• Aviva

• Babcock International Group

• BAE Systems

• Baillie Gifford

• Baker McKenzie

• Bank of England

• Barratt Developments

• BDO

• Bentley Motors

• Berkeley Group

• Berwin Leighton Paisner

• Blake Morgan

• Bloomberg

• BNP Paribas

• BNP Paribas Real Estate

• Bond Dickinson

• Boots UK

• Bristows

• British Council

• BT

• Burges Salmon

• Burness Paull

• Capgemini

• Centrica

• CH2M

• Charles Russell Speechlys

• Citi

• Civil Service

• Clifford Chance

Survey respondents are listed below in alphabetical order.

• Clyde & Co

• Costain

• Cummins

• Danone

• Dechert

• Deloitte

• DHL

• Diageo

• DLA Piper

• DNV GL

• Domestic and General

• Dstl

• DWF

• Dyson

• E.ON

• EDF Energy

• Edwards

• Energus (nucleargraduates)

• Enterprise Holdings

• Essentra

• EU Institutions

• Eversheds

• EY

• FactSet

• FDM Group

• First Group

• Firstco

• Fujitsu

• Gardiner & Theobald

• Government Legal Service

• Grant Thornton UK

• G-Research

• GSK

• Herbert Smith Freehills

• Highways England

• Hilton Worldwide

• Hogan Lovells International

• Howard Kennedy

• IBM UK

• ICAP

• IMI

>> Responding organisations

73

Responding organisations

Responding organisations

74

• Imperial Tobacco

• Jacobs UK

• Jaguar Land Rover

• JLL

• Johnson Matthey

• Kennedys Law

• Kent County Council

• Kingfisher

• KPMG

• Kuehne + Nagel

• Leonardo

• Lidl UK

• Linklaters

• Lloyds Banking Group

• Lloyd’s Register

• Local Government Association

• Lockheed Martin UK

• LV=

• M&G Investments

• Mace

• Macfarlanes

• Majestic Wine

• Marks & Spencer

• Mayer Brown International

• Mazars

• MBDA UK

• McDonald’s Restaurants

• Merlin Entertainment

• Metaswitch Networks

• Michelmores

• Microsoft

• Mills & Reeve

• Morgan Sindall

• Mott MacDonald

• National Audit Office

• National Grid

• National Instruments

• Nestlé

• Network Rail

• NFU Mutual

• NHS Leadership Academy

• Nomura

• Norges Bank Investment Management

• Osborne Clarke

• Pinsent Masons

• Police Now

• QinetiQ

• RBS

• Redrow Homes

• Rendall and Rittner

• RM

• Rolls-Royce

• RPC

• RWE Group

• Sainsbury’s

• Santander UK

• Schroders

• Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

• Scottish Power

• Scottish Water

• Sellafield

• Severn Trent Water

• Shell

• Siemens

• SIG

• Simmons & Simmons

• Slaughter and May

• SSE

• St. James’s Place Wealth Management

• Standard Chartered

• Standard Life

• Tata Steel

• Taylor Vinters

• Teach First

• Telefonica UK/ O2

• Tesco

• Thales

• Thames Water

• The Whitehall & Industry Group

• Think Ahead

• TLT

• Transport for London

• Travis Perkins

• UBS

• United Biscuits

• Virgin Media

• Vmware

• Wates Group Services

• Weil, Gotshal & Manges

• Wellcome Trust

• Wood Group

>>

Founded in 1968, the Association of Graduate Recruiters is an independent, not-for-profit organisation dedicated to supporting employers in all aspects of graduate recruitment and development.

Our aim is to set the agenda for change in graduate recruitment and development and our unrivalled knowledge and experience in this field gives employers the edge.

www.agr.org.uk

The Association of Graduate Recruiters6BathPlace,RivingtonStreet,London,EC2A3JE

Documents

The AGR Development Survey 2017