Arctic Circle

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Antarctic Circle

Spain

Norway

Portugal

Ireland

Greenland

Iceland

United States

Canada

Mexico

The Bahamas

Cuba

Panama

El Salvador Guatemala

Belize Honduras

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

Jamaica Haiti

Dominican Republic

Argentina

Bolivia

Colombia

Venezuela

Peru Brazil

French Guiana Suriname

Guyana

Chile

Ecuador

Paraguay

Uruguay

Mauritania

Mali

Algeria

Morocco

Ivory Coast

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Guinea

Gambia

Western Sahara

Senegal

Guinea Bissau

United Kingdom

Canary Islands

Cape Verde Islands

Azores Islands

France

Russia

Puerto Rico

A T L A N T I C

P A C I F I C

A R C T I C O C E A N

O C E A N

O C E A N

Beaufor t Sea

Car ibbean S ea

Hudson Bay

Gul f of Alask a

Baffin Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Nor wegian Sea

Togo

Russia

Finland

Spain

Sweden

Norway

Germany

France

Portugal

Romania

Turkey

Denmark

Poland

Belarus

Ukraine

Greece

Cyprus

Neth. Ireland

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Greenland

Iceland

United States

Canada

Brazil

Kenya

Ethiopia

Eritrea

Sudan

Egypt

Niger

Mauritania

Mali

Nigeria

Somalia

Namibia

Libya

Chad

South Africa

Tanzania

Dem. Rep. Of Congo

Angola

Algeria

Madagascar

Mozambique

Botswana

Zambia

Gabon

Central African Republic

Tunisia

Morocco

Uganda

Burundi Rwanda

Benin

Ghana

Cote D'Ivoire

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Guinea Burkina Faso

Gambia

Cameroon

Sao Tome & Principe

Zimbabwe

Congo

Equatorial Guinea

Western Sahara

Senegal

Guinea Bissau

Canary Islands Jordan

Israel

Lebanon

Azerbaijan Georgia

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Kuwait

U. A. E.

Yemen

Syria Iraq

Iran

Oman

Saudi Arabia

Afghanistan

Pakistan India

China

Kazakhstan

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Myanmar

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Mongolia

United Kingdom

Italy

Cape Verde Islands

Azores Islands

Puerto Rico

Venezuela

Guyana

Suriname

French Guyana

Austria Hungary

Bulgaria

Czech Rep. Slovakia

Bel.

Albania

Mold.

Bosnia & Herz.

Croatia Slovenia

Switz.

Mac.

Qatar

Mont. Serbia

Arctic Circle

Tropic of Cancer

Equator

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

A T L A N T I C

I N D I A N O C E A N

O C E A N

A R C T I C O C E A N

Chukchi Sea Beaufort Sea

Hudson Bay Baffin

Bay

Norwegian Sea

Greenland Sea

North Sea

Mediterranean Sea

Baltic Sea

Black Sea

Aral Sea

Arabian Sea

Bay of

Bengal

Sea of Okhotsk

Barents Sea

Kara Sea

Leptev Sea

Red Sea

Caspian Sea

Russia

India

China

Burma

Thailand

Cambodia

Nepal

Bhutan

Vietnam

Sri Lanka

Laos Bangladesh

Malaysia

Papua New Guinea

East Timor

Brunei

Sing.

Philippines

Malaysia

I n d o n e s i a

Japan

Mongolia

South Korea North Korea

Australia

New Zealand

New Caledonia

Fiji

Antarctica

Vanuatu

Solomon Islands

Madagascar

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Antarctic Circle

P A C I F I C

I N D I A N O C E A N

O C E A N

Bay of

Bengal

South China

Sea

Sea of Japan

East China Sea

Yellow Sea

Sea of Okhotsk

Tasman Sea

Great Australian

Bight

Ross Sea

Mapping Global TalentEssays and Insights

Developed in co-operation with

Arctic Circle

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Antarctic Circle

Spain

Norway

Portugal

Ireland

Greenland

Iceland

United States

Canada

Mexico

The Bahamas

Cuba

Panama

El Salvador Guatemala

Belize Honduras

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

Jamaica Haiti

Dominican Republic

Argentina

Bolivia

Colombia

Venezuela

Peru Brazil

French Guiana Suriname

Guyana

Chile

Ecuador

Paraguay

Uruguay

Mauritania

Mali

Algeria

Morocco

Ivory Coast

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Guinea

Gambia

Western Sahara

Senegal

Guinea Bissau

United Kingdom

Canary Islands

Cape Verde Islands

Azores Islands

France

Russia

Puerto Rico

A T L A N T I C

P A C I F I C

A R C T I C O C E A N

O C E A N

O C E A N

Beaufor t Sea

Car ibbean S ea

Hudson Bay

Gul f of Alask a

Baffin Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Nor wegian Sea

Copyright © 2007 The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd and Heidrick & Struggles International Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction without permission is prohibited. Trademarks and logos are copyrights of their respective owners.

Printed in the USA.

Printed on recycled paper made from 100% consumer waste.

Mapping Global Talent Essays and Insights

contentsExecutive summary, 2

Essays and Insights, 4

Leadership Consulting – How to attract, develop

and retain talent in a shifting global landscape, 4

Consumer – I shop therefore I am, 6

Professional services – Rising temperatures, 8

Technology – A future imperative, 10

Industrial – The tale of two worlds, 12

Life Sciences – A healthy future? 14

Financial Services – Accounting for talent, 16

Appendices, 18

Methodology, 19

Global Talent Index maps, 20

Global Talent Index weighting, 22

Overall GTI rankings, 23

Demographics, 24

Quality of compulsory education, 25

Quality of universities and business schools, 26

Quality of the environment to nurture talent, 27

Mobility and relative openness of the labor market, 28

Stock and flow of foreign direct investment, 29

Proclivity to attracting talent, 30

Further reading, 31

Economist Intelligence Unit, 32

Welcome to the Global Talent Index, a unique research study designed to identify where talent is located in the world today and where it will be located five years from now.

The wall map demonstrates talent’s distribution in 202, while this booklet of

short essays examines the challenges and opportunities opening up in different

industries. The theme that recurs repeatedly is that the successful organizations

of the future will be those able not just to attract the brightest global talent, but

nurture, develop and retain it by offering a compelling work environment and

sophisticated succession strategies.

I believe it will be the provision of a learning environment that will determine

the iconic market leading companies in years to come. We already know that

Generation Y – those born between 977 and 2005 – will have had an average of

fourteen jobs by the time they are 38. The next generation is more demanding,

fickle and sophisticated than any other. Sophisticated talent demands

sophisticated talent management.

I hope the Global Talent Index reveals a lot more about the future we face and

how we can best prepare for it. Ignorance is bliss? Not in the world of talent.

L Kevin Kelly

CEO, Heidrick & Struggles, September 2007

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights2

Executive summary Talent is the new oil and just like oil, demand far outstrips supply

In early 2007 Heidrick & Struggles, in partnership

with the Economist Intelligence Unit, undertook a

study to encapsulate the current state of global talent

and its future configuration around the planet. Which

countries have the strongest pipeline? Where will talent

thrive over the next five years? What will change? And

what impact should that have on how companies plan

strategically for the medium term?

The resulting research, incorporating the data analysis

of thirty countries, shows subtle shifts and changes

as it measures global talent in 2007 and anticipates

future realities in 202. Using a unique and proprietary

algorithm, the Heidrick & Struggles Global Talent

Index (GTI) uses quantitative and qualitative data to

measure the economic indicators, cultural contexts,

trends in education, foreign direct investment (FDI),

mortality, health and market fluidity that will impact

the ability of talent to thrive within these countries.

This combination of objective data and local

knowledge proved particularly helpful in enabling the

Economist Intelligence Unit to assess the more data-

poor economies: allowing us to tell a talent story that

would otherwise have remained hidden.

Money talks The findings confirm a basic suspicion – talent follows

where money leads. As a consequence, perhaps

unsurprisingly, talent is most likely to be found in

developed, wealthy economies, led by the US (which

tops the table in 2007 and 202), followed by the UK

and Canada and the two smaller, but open economies of

Sweden and the Netherlands. The inclusion of Sweden

and the Netherlands, along with Australia, in the Top

0 talent rankings shows that this trend is consistent

even in countries where demographic factors are weak.

Specifically: it is not just the size of the potential talent

pool that matters, but how it is nurtured.

Political structure influences talent growth

The results in the lower half of the rankings are more

ambiguous. Not all countries in the bottom ten

are equal: they range from Greece to Iran, through

Brazil and Saudi Arabia. In part this comes down to

the number of countries selected – analysis of thirty

economies cannot fully reflect the different levels of

development across the world. Nevertheless, certain

themes emerge, particularly from the bottom five.

A common trend is that several of the least promising

performers do not currently boast fully-functioning

democracies. This opens up an interesting avenue for

further research into the links between an open society

and the development of talent.

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 3

BRIC is IC

A key finding revealed by this research, and supported

by prior academic studies conducted by the Economist

Intelligence Unit, is that the often repeated, media

friendly ‘BRIC’ story – the inexorable rise of Brazil,

Russia, India and China – is more accurately expressed

as an ‘IC’ story.

India and China sit in the top ten (0th and 6th

respectively in 202) whereas Russia occupies 8th

place both now and in 202, and Brazil falls from 23rd

place now to 25th place in five years time. The fact that

Russia stays stable overall masks a gradual erosion in

the quality of its compulsory education system, which

has been steadily falling since the collapse of the Soviet

Union in 99. In spite of the increased investment in

higher education, weaknesses in primary and secondary

education provision are likely to have an adverse impact

on the country’s ability to develop its talent resources

over the longer term – a waste of Russia’s undoubted

natural potential. China and India do benefit from their

large populations but China also performs relatively

well in terms of its educational infrastructure and its

ability to attract foreign investment. Meanwhile India

out-performs China on several measures related to

the labor force – widespread knowledge of English

throughout the general population being an

obvious example.

Foreign direct investment remains a key catalyst for the development of talentMalaysia exemplifies the power of foreign direct

investment (FDI) and achieves its 2th place position

(in both 2007 and 202) largely because of the amount

of foreign investment flowing across its borders. FDI

is at a premium within the talent index since it is

normally accompanied by imports of technological

and managerial best practice. In addition, as foreign

companies become established they often seek to replace

expatriates with local employees, creating demand for

new jobs and new skills. Mexico is another example of

the potential power of FDI, rising two places (from 2st

place to 9th place) because of a strong rise in the stock

of FDI over the forecast period. Mexico’s proximity

to the US and its entry into the North American Free

Trade Organization (NAFTA) in 994 has given it the

edge over other Latin American countries (for example

Brazil), boosting annual FDI inflows to

around US$20bn.

Black and white and shades of grey The GTI concentrates on seven focus areas (see

Methodology on page 9). The Index is a subtle tool,

but in certain cases the brushstrokes are too broad,

making changes in the rankings appear more dramatic

than they are. Two slightly weakening performers would

seem to be Germany and Australia, but their fall in the

rankings by one place (from 6th to 7th for Germany,

and 7th to 8th for Australia) is more the result of

China’s advance rather than any intrinsic deterioration

of their talent pools – indeed, Germany’s overall score

actually improves by one point in the five year period

analyzed by this study. This note of caution should

be borne in mind when examining any index as small

changes in score can combine to result in significant

alterations in rank. A case in point is Argentina, which

falls by four places on the back of a score that falls by

only two points.

Today’s leading pools of talent may not be under pressure just yet but companies who want to flourish in the future must adopt a global view of recruitment. China and India are emerging as significant players and cannot be ignored. All over the world employees are behaving as consumers, able to pick and choose the companies they wish to work for: employers must to do everything they can to cultivate a powerful, persuasive reputation for talent management if they are to safeguard their long-term talent resources.

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights4

Leadership Consulting

How to attract, develop and retain talent in a shifting global landscape

The implications of the Global Talent Index

(GTI) for identifying, developing and retaining

the best executive talent are four-fold:

• The search map – the area in which talent

can be found – has changed.

• New global leaders must have very

specific competencies.

• Development opportunities need to be

much more targeted.

• Retention should start on the first day

of employment.

The search mapOur research shows a significant expansion in the area

of the search map. Most searches for large companies

are now global, targeting executives in Asia, Europe and

the US for key positions in international companies

all over the world. This new class of global executive

has common features: they have an MBA from a top

business school; they have several years of international

experience and are typically fluent in several languages.

My own research revealed that in 996, only 42% of

top CEOs in the United Kingdom had international

experience but by 2005, this figure had nearly

doubled with 79% of chief executives boasting

experience abroad.

Executives are also expected to have far more cross-

sector experience than before with a track record of

making lateral moves during their careers. In response

to the ‘War for Talent’, search firms are now tracking

international high-fliers proactively and for the long

term. For example, Heidrick & Struggles’ China

initiative specifically tracks Chinese nationals with

international backgrounds who want to return home.

Search firms need to continue to work much more

strategically with companies; the ad-hoc filling of empty

posts as they arise needs to be replaced by a holistic,

focused and flexible approach which incorporates

the assessment, development and training of existing

executives alongside the recruitment of new talent.

The new global leadersThe complexity, pace and global platform of today’s

business environment demands a special set of

characteristics. Apart from heightened requirements

in terms of background and experience, the leadership

criteria have changed dramatically over the last 0

years: there is now no substitute for global leadership

experience. However, when looking at the GTI and

the concentration of talent across the globe, one key

question emerges: how can we better assess the global

leadership capabilities of the various talent pools?

Dr Elisabeth Marx

Leadership Consulting

emarx@heidrick.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 5

From a search consultant’s point of view these are

the essential characteristics to look for in the new

global leader.

International literacy

• Operating in different geographic regions.

• Understanding the cultural differences of employees

and customers.

• Dealing with ambiguity – those executives who

demand an excessive amount of certainty and rigid

frameworks do not generally adapt well to the

complex cultural patterns of working in foreign

countries and with different sensibilities.

• Enjoying diversity in a psychological sense.

Managing paradoxes

• Taking a helicopter-view and think strategically

whilst keeping the focus on operational results.

• Switching easily between different modes: from

long-term thinking to short-term, and from cost-

saving to expansion and growth.

• The flexibility to handle these potential paradoxes is

the key characteristic of future top executives.

The ability to build successful teams

The emphasis on the CEO as the ‘hero’ is waning.

Business success at the top (and farther down the

organization) depends on the leader pulling effective

teams together. Our research shows that very few

companies have highly effective teams at the top and a

common complaint is that while there are individual

strengths, “the team is not working together”.

Companies are already beginning to address this issue,

and we are seeing much more active intervention at the

top level as CEOs engage external help in aligning the

team with business strategy.

The new development programLarge companies are increasingly creating their own

universities to train staff from around the world.

There has also been a rise in the provision of in-house

and bespoke programs from international business

schools. Samsung, for example, has created its own

talent pipeline by first recruiting people of different

nationalities from leading business schools and

universities around the world, and then putting them

through its in-house training and development center.

The coaching industry, a largely unregulated area,

is also exploding, answering a growing demand for

the development of ‘softer’ skills such as teaching,

negotiating and listening. In the future, to give

executives the support they require, we would expect

the provision of such skills to be provided by business

school programmes and follow-up coaching.

Retention and career management of the best

The best are constantly offered jobs by your competitors

– how can you retain them over longer periods of

time? The answer is a better analysis and understanding

of their motivational make-up so that you can offer

productive career support and development.

Employer anxiety about top executives leaving can

prevent sensible career discussions from taking place.

Bosses often completely avoid the subject with their

employees, leaving the employee feeling under-valued

and unfulfilled, resulting in turnover at the most senior

level. Having an internal or external career development

function helps executives clarify what they want and

what they would like the next step of their career to be.

The company is then able to construct a scenario where

this can be achieved. The companies that will grow

in this new talent geography are those which coach,

motivate and develop their own talent in tandem with

an inclusive, global recruitment process.

“The answer is a better analysis and understanding of their motivational make-up …”

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights6

Consumer

I shop therefore I am

How do you cater to a fickle global consumer who wants the latest and greatest product for half the price? That is the question troubling the consumer industry. Higher levels of discretionary income with the rise of the middle classes in India and China, combined with ever more sophisticated consumer tastes, have created a world where the customer is king (but always on the look out for a bigger, better value crown!)

The growing spending power of the developing world

is startling. Today in China the middle class numbers

over 300 million people – that is the same figure as the

current population of the USA. Meanwhile, assuming

steady growth over two decades, India is poised to

overtake Germany as the world’s fifth-biggest consumer

market by 2025.

The developed world cannot match this aggressive

consumerism, but the next five years will see a rise in

tempo as key retail giants fight over a population that is

developing ever more precise ideas of what they want to

spend their money on. The pressures this consumerism

puts on product development, supply chain and price

has resulted in strong retail concentration

– for example, in the US, Home Depot and Sears

hold sway in the homeware arena, in the UK grocery

store Tesco is the leader, while Carrefour dominates in

France.

These giants expect the very latest in product

development, durability, design and price and

small scale suppliers – finding it hard to keep up

– are increasingly being incorporated into larger

conglomerates with only the Nestlés, the PepsiCos and

the Krafts able to square up to the big retail firms.

In talent terms this never-ending drive for innovation

will see an exponential increase in the value of R&D

expertise. The pipeline must be primed to produce a

constant stream of new products that will impress the

consumer. Throwing money at innovation isn’t the

solution – many large companies have been tripped up

by this in the past and have in turn been outsmarted

by smaller, more nimble competitors. Outsourcing will

become an important pressure valve, as some companies

are already finding to their advantage. At Procter &

Gamble, 35% of all its new products have elements that

originate from outside the company, up from about 5%

in 2000. They say this kind of collaboration has seen

R&D productivity increase by nearly 60%, while R&D

investment as a percentage of sales has fallen from 4.8%

in 2000 to 3.4% today.

Torrey Foster

Consumer practice

tfoster@heidrick.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 7

The case of Procter & Gamble highlights the fact that

survival in the consumer industry will come to rely

not just on investment of resources but also on good

management. Their R&D operation is working because

it is being well-directed with a clear strategy. This has

important implications for managerial talent in the

sector. Those individuals who will perform best in 202

and beyond will be those who are able to manage the

R&D function in a global context. These managers will

be skilled at forecasting customer and supplier behavior

and trends, and they will have an extremely detailed

understanding of supply chain vagaries and imperatives.

They will also need to be media-savvy. The single biggest

challenge in the consumer sector over the next five years

will be the increasing difficulty of communicating to

consumers and potential employees. An astonishing

range of media channels compete for the consumer’s

attention, and the industry’s dilemma will be how to

ensure their brand message – be it about online stores,

green policies or the latest new products, is actually

seen by their customers (before they see what the

competition has on offer).

So where will this talent be found? The educational

ranking of the Global Talent Index indicates that

unsurprisingly, over the next five years the US, Canada

and Europe will be the predominant suppliers of top

quality graduates. What is surprising and perhaps the

consequence of heightened visa restrictions is that

the United States registers a low score for mobility of

labor and relative openness of its labor market. This

measure records the language skills of the population,

the number of international students studying in the

country and the number of nationals studying in

foreign universities. The USA scores 9th place in 2007,

and falls to 0th place in 202, overtaken by India.

This is not the case in Canada, the UK or Germany,

which score st, 2nd and 3rd place respectively in this

particular ranking, both today and in 202. This would

suggest that, if it is to realize its full educational and

demographic potential, the US must encourage greater

immigration and emigration, helping future American

managers gain the international experience which will

allow them to compete in (and fully understand) the

global consumer market.

American companies in the consumer sector have not

traditionally had a reputation for nurturing their own

talent, innovation being the key concern. However,

there is evidence that the giants in the industry are

realizing the value of managing and developing the

talent they have – Wal-Mart for example, has ongoing

initiatives to develop its own talent, including a

leadership-in-training program and a leader-to-leader

project for managers, aiming to push decision-making

power down the management ladder. They have

also introduced a new pilot program through which

employees can alert the company of their talents and

ambitions and, once assessed, managers recommend

ways for them to pursue their skills, through

secondments, evening classes, language lessons etc.

This idea of temporary foreign work placements recalls

that key talent trend – to be fully successful in the

world of tomorrow, international experience will

be indispensable.

“to realize its full educational

and demographic potential the

US must encourage greater

immigration and emigration,

helping future American

managers gain the international

experience which will allow

them to compete in (and

fully understand) the global

consumer market”

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights8

Professional Services

Rising temperatures

The professional services sector is developing a split personality. On the one hand, it is made up of internationally-known US and European firms with thousands of employees and years of experience, ready to perform almost any task for a corporate client. On the other, it incorporates a myriad of young firms, from call-centers in Croatia to large, fast-growing Indian outfits, all of which are low-cost and, in most cases, highly competitive in terms of basic skills and business processes.

Historically, the two sides have co-existed fairly

peacefully: increasingly over the next five years, the

competition will start to heighten. With the outlook

for global economic growth slightly less buoyant, the

traditional professional services industry will find quick

wins harder to come by. Clients will increasingly pick

and choose services by price and value, as opposed to

reputation, depth of experience and international reach.

At the same time, the young offshoring companies

will continue to migrate into higher-end services,

encroaching on more of the core activities of their well-

established competitors.

As a result, offshoring – “hiring” another company’s

talent to cut costs – is expected to show compound

annual growth rates of more than 5%. By contrast the

traditional professional services sector, will grow at

around half that rate.

Given this, both sides of the sector will need to make

the procurement of talent a top priority in the next five

years. Both will depend on similar methods for finding

their new hires – vigorous recruiting at the university

level and strong networking skills for identifying

managers from other professions who might be

persuaded to change careers. Both sides of the business

will also need to develop strong internal recruiters who

know how to promote the firm and who are adept

at building networks of qualified candidates in the

communities where their companies operate.

The first stop will be universities. Both at home and

abroad, the reputation and quality of a country’s

universities will be a key measurement for recruiters.

The Global Talent Index’s ranking of the quality of

universities and business schools – which assesses the

number of universities ranked globally among the top

five-hundred, the number of business schools ranking

in the world’s top one-hundred and the spending per

student on higher education as a percentage of GDP

per capita – shows a number of important developments

in this regard.

In 202, for example, the GTI score shows that the

top five countries measured by the quality of their

Krishnan Rajagopalan

Business & Professional Services practice

krajagopalan@heidrick.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 9

universities and business schools will be unchanged

from 2007 with the US, the UK, Sweden, South Korea

and Australia scoring 78, 44, 38, 37, and 36 in 202

respectively (out of a possible 00 points). However,

there will be significant movement below these top-

ranked countries, with Germany, France, Russia, Japan

and Poland all moving up two places to 6th, 7th, th

2th and 6th respectively (out of the ranking of thirty

countries). Russia’s advance stands in stark contrast to

the lower quality of its compulsory education, where it

ranks 22nd in the 202 ranking, down two places from

20th in 2007. The two measurements underline Russia’s

growing commitment to higher education, with junior

and high-school facilities receiving a lower priority.

Given the advances of both Germany and France,

Canada and Saudi Arabia will both drop two places

to 8th and 9th on the 202 ranking of the quality of

universities and business schools. Lower down the

ranking, China will hold steady at 2st place with India

moving up one level to 25th; these figures are naturally

distorted due to the size of the population and the

method of assessment, which is spread per capita. While

both of these countries will continue to support high-

quality higher education over the next five years and

will have tremendous talent pools, the sheer number

of their populations pulls down their ranking in the

expenditure per student measurement.

As the developing world continues to pile into the

offshoring business, the range of industries “hiring”

capital will continue to grow over the next five years.

Even the most conservative, security-conscious sectors

will be seeking to reduce costs by moving their more

routine businesses to offshore facilities. In the legal

profession, for example, more highly skilled work

such as litigation research, traditionally carried out by

paralegals in-house, and intellectual property work

involving patent research, analysis, and drafting

of patent applications, is expected to move to

offshoring facilities.

Given the continued need for versatile, talented staff for

both sides of the professional services sector – offshore

and onshore – firms will need to do the following:

Think globally regarding talent pools and talent competitionThey will need to source globally for roles that they

have previously looked to fill locally and they will need

to keep in mind that the talent competition is leveling

out with the traditional competitor and the offshore

company looking for exactly the same talent but with a

different value proposition.

Think creatively on channels for talent acquisitionOne of the key resources in the years ahead will be

the industry’s own employees. In particular, employee

referral programs will become more popular. These

generally offer cash rewards and prizes to employees for

successfully referred candidates. For KPMG, nearly 39%

of the firm’s experienced hires came through employee

referrals. For smaller firms the percentage will be less

but just as valuable, particularly considering the low

cost of acquiring talent in this manner.

Innovate the HR function With talent in short supply, organizations should elevate

HR to the highest levels, acknowledging that talent is

the only competitive advantage. Leading companies

need to customize their HR processes to align with

business objectives and create a results-oriented,

performance culture. Be ready – the global talent war in

professional services is just beginning to heat up.

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights10

Technology

A future imperative

After years of hype, the technological future is almost here. The networked home, the truly portable office, easy-to-use video conferencing and collaborative, online project management all promise to become realities over the next five years. This will have one effect – the search for talent in the IT and telecoms sectors will intensify as corporate and consumer spending outpaces global economic growth.

Even the most traditional non-technical companies

will need to upgrade to Web 2.0 online environments

and the latest hi-tech equipment in order to maintain

productivity and competitiveness. At the same time,

consumers will continue to demand the latest electronic

gadgets complete with internet access, such as designer

smartphones, portable gaming consoles, and networked

appliances for the home.

In the telecoms sector, sales of the ubiquitous mobile

phone will continue to grow, even as world penetration

levels rise to over 50%. In addition to buoyant sales

in emerging markets, demand will be sustained by

upgrades to web-enabled handsets, which will be used

to pay for purchases, to check e-mails, download music,

watch TV and make and receive texts and calls. Fixed-

line telecom companies will need to meet the challenge

of web-based telephony and converged networks,

providing their customers with much more than plain

vanilla voice services.

Given these trends, a flexible, collaborative, global

workforce will be a top priority for virtually all

multinationals in the IT and telecoms sectors. In order

to retain top-flight people around the world, companies

are already developing techniques for plugging their

people into closed system internal corporate recruiting

networks using the latest technology. For example,

IBM now manages its workforce globally using a

system called Professional Marketplace, which provides

rapid online access to the HR profiles of over 70,000

employees. These profiles are updated regularly in

order to reflect work experiences and skills. Using this

system, managers can quickly identify suitably-skilled

employees from around the world to meet the needs of

each project. Microsoft uses something similar, called

distributed engineering, where engineers around the

world can collaborate online.

With the best IT and telecom companies experiencing

turnover rates as high as 5%, retaining talent will

become an even greater concern in the years ahead.

As a result, non-compensation based benefits – such

as childcare and flexible working hours – will rise in

importance. SAS Institute, the world’s largest privately

held software and related services provider, has a 4%

Daniel Cheng

Technology practice

dcheng@heidrick.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 11

employee turnover, which it attributes in part to its on-

site day care center. The company also has around five

employees who focus full-time on helping employees

deal with the needs of their ageing parents.

The Global Talent Index reveals that the tech sector

will continue to recruit primarily from the US over the

next several years as it retains its dominance in terms

of the quality of universities and business schools –

the key factor in developing new talent in these fields.

The US will be followed by the UK and Sweden in

Europe. Saudi Arabia will hold a similar position in

the Middle East.

The countries to watch in terms of an improving

overall quality for nurturing talent are Australia and

South Korea, as well as China, which will leap eight

places to rank 4th by 202. A declining country in this

category is Russia, which is predicted to sink from 6th

place to th over the next five years primarily due to

the gradual erosion of its education system since the

collapse of the Soviet Union in 99. This trend will not

be countered significantly by the rising investment the

Russian government is putting into higher education as

it will take more than five years for these improvements

to have a significant effect on the Russian ability to

nurture talent.

The ten countries with the greatest proclivity for

attracting talent (assessing the technical skills of the

work force, personal disposable income, employment

growth and GDP data) will remain largely unchanged

over the next five years, with North America and

Europe retaining their overall dominance. France

will take over the number two spot currently held by

Sweden, which will slip to 7th place. This leap can be

attributed in part to Nicolas Sarkozy’s new government

and his modernising of France’s traditional working

practice restrictions.

On demographics, China and India rank first and

second place respectively. We can predict that these

two countries will yield an increasing number of

talented graduates in the hi-tech sector given their

strong tradition of engineering and science at the

university level. This, plus the increased presence of

foreign multinationals in China, has helped boost the

country up the overall ranking from 8th place in 2007

to 6th place in 202. India holds firm at 0th overall,

aided by its gradual improvement in the quality of its

environment to nurture talent, the mobility of its labor

and relative openness of its labor market.

“Even the most traditional non-technical companies will need to upgrade to Web 2.0 online environments and the latest hi-tech equipment in order to maintain productivity and competitiveness.”

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights12

Industrial

The tale of two worlds

Top-flight graduates will be harder to lure into the industrial manufacturing sector over the next five years. Recruiters who understand this fact will be at an advantage.

The reasons are simple – the global manufacturing

sector will grow at a relatively slow pace over the next

few years, led by strength in emerging markets. Global

passenger car sales, for example, will rise by an average

of only 3.5% per year until 202 and the increase will

be driven by demand in China and India. Sales in the

developed world will remain disappointing; with the US

market set to stagnate and those in western Europe and

Japan expected to grow by a modest 2 to 4%.

The energy sector will exhibit similarly low-key

growth with global energy demand per head expected

to average 2.4% per year over the next few years.

Slower demand will be the result of high prices and

an increased move toward energy conservation in the

developed world. There will be a similar story in other

major industrial sectors.

Given this trend, traditional manufacturing industries

and energy companies will need to tackle their less

than sparkling growth profile head on and wring as

much talent as possible out of emerging markets. One

tactic will be the establishment of local training units

in the fast growing markets. In China, for example, the

logistics firm DHL has already set up its own

Logistics Management University, which teaches

new recruits everything from courier business to

supply chain management.

The downside, however, will be losing staff almost as

quickly as they are trained. “Multinational operations

in China must contend with a 20 to 30% annual

staff turnover rate and recruit ,000 plus employees

annually,” says Indranil Sen, a Vice President for

strategic intelligence at DHL. “With two years’

experience in logistics, many employees will job-hop

and start work for another firm, the incentive being a

50% pay increase.”

In the developed world, manufacturing companies

can retain trained staff if they are willing to give

international opportunities to their top performers. And

this trend will be seen all the way up the management

structure. In a recent survey of US and European CEOs

by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 60% of respondents

said their senior management teams will become more

international over the next three years. Opportunities

for senior management in the emerging markets look

set to grow – Chinese automakers, for example, will be

keen to hire Western managers over the next five years

as they begin to expand into foreign markets.

Dale Visokey

Industry practice

dvisokey@heidrick.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 13

In the US and European aerospace and defense

industries, the major talent challenge over the next five

years will be a greying workforce. According to the

Aerospace Industries Association, the average aerospace/

defense engineer in the US is currently nearly sixty

years old. By 2008, approximately 27% of employed

engineers will be eligible for retirement, and during the

next decade, the number of employees with science and

engineering degrees reaching traditional retirement

age will triple.

In the developing world, the exact opposite is true, with

science and engineering degrees becoming increasingly

popular as a means to move up the income ladder.

However, visa restrictions in the US and Europe,

limiting the immigration of foreign professionals, will

remain tough. As a result, the growing ranks of Asian

graduates will be increasingly absorbed on their home

ground by native firms and the US and European

companies locating new manufacturing facilities in

these faster growing emerging economies.

Given this imbalance, the aerospace and engineering

industries will need to make a big effort to attract

and retain new graduates, through the establishment

of programs that support research, pre-graduation

internships, and mentoring activities once a new recruit

signs on. Retention will be a major problem; in the

aerospace industry, the attrition rate in the one to six

year range will be approximately two times greater than

in the overall new graduate population.

The manufacturing sector also demands blue-collar

talent – those steady workers who contribute to the

success of a business through a commitment to quality

and productivity. Several fast growing developing

markets – China in particular – will be an increasingly

attractive source of these skills. The Global Talent

Index’s ‘flow of foreign direct investment’ (FDI)

measurement reveals that some other countries are likely

to become more important in this regard. South Africa

will rise seven places to rank fifth on the FDI ranking

by 202, a movement that reflects the country’s growing

role as a supplier of goods and services to the rest of the

African continent as well as overseas. Other countries

which will rise up the FDI ranking include Mexico (up

five places to th) Egypt, Ukraine, and France.

“In a recent survey of US and European CEOs by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 60% of respondents said their senior management teams will become more international over the next three years.”

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights14

Life Sciences

A healthy future?

The life sciences sector, in many ways, is a victim of its own success. The medical and public health advances of the last several decades have translated into healthier people, longer lifespans, reduced infant mortality and an expanding global population. It seems demand for healthcare services and products can only continue to increase globally.

The prevalence of ‘lifestyle’ diseases – such as obesity

and alcoholism – are already causing increased alarm

in the developed world, leading to a greater focus on

disease prevention and education in those economies.

Meanwhile concern over infectious diseases, particularly

Avian Flu and HIV/AIDS, will facilitate greater

government cooperation with industry in both the

emerging markets and the developed world, increasing

the demand for multi-lingual healthcare policy experts

with a global perspective in both the public and

private sector.

The global pharmaceutical business will see continued

growth, but at a slower rate, as more low-cost generics

become available, government pricing pressures

continue, and truly innovative drugs come to market

at a slower pace. This steady growth will be sustained

by increasing knowledge about DNA and molecular

science, which promise more personalized drugs able

to target niche markets with greater efficacy. This

should deliver greater pricing power to the industry

but may require the sale of larger numbers of lower

revenue drugs rather than reliance upon the traditional

blockbuster model of selling a few key drugs to large

segments of the global population.

Whether due to costs, restructuring, mergers, a

reluctance to hire from outside the industry, the rapid

growth of emerging markets or a combination of all

five, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries

have historically failed to invest sufficient resources in

building their internal teams. The biotech companies

have tended to rely on a pretty hand-to-mouth existence

while the more established firms in pharma have often

operated as exclusive US/European clubs, increasingly

leaning on staffing organizations to fill their talent

gaps in the short term, rather than applying long-term

succession planning. As the influence of China and

India continue to rise over the next five years this trend

cannot continue; already there is growing evidence of

the gradual move to outsourcing selected functions, an

option the industry had previously been slow to accept.

When assessing a move to outsourcing, biotech

companies will need to ensure they are able to access

similar talent pools and resources to those they have

in their current locations. Existing biotech clusters

Jeff W Dodson

Life Sciences practice

jdodson@heidrick.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 15

have the competitive advantage of being located close

to many highly respected universities – for example

the cluster in Northern California which has twelve

major research universities and laboratories in the

region helping to drive innovation. The proliferation

of collaborative working and knowledge sharing tools

and technologies should help break down geographic

barriers over the next five years, allowing for an

increasing level of outsourcing to countries in Asia and

Eastern Europe.

In cases where medicines need to be developed for

large regional markets, it will make sense for companies

to locate their facilities closer to the population in

question, where the demand is higher and where these

companies can access the local skilled talent pool.

Multinationals in this sector will invest in global regions

where there is a high supply of technical and scientific

professionals, such as China, India and Brazil, which

rank st, 2nd and 5th, respectively, in the demographics

category of the Global Talent Index both in 2007 and

202. To build the scale of talent needed in markets

like China and India to better serve large local markets,

pharmaceutical multinationals will need to play an

active role in recruiting and developing people at junior,

middle and senior levels in their organizations.

Globally, the life sciences sector will need to keep

working hard to attract the most skilled and committed

scientists and researchers, in addition to top-quality

senior general management executives capable of

leading and driving change across complex global

organizations. This will necessitate a global talent

search; for graduate level personnel this search will

be centered mainly on the top universities. For more

experienced individuals the hunt will be among the

world’s fast-growing biotech firms and university labs.

As with other high-growth sectors, not just the

recruitment but the retention of talent will be a major

headache for the life sciences sector over the next

five years. To address this problem, pharmaceutical

companies will need to start looking at recruiting

outside of their traditional hiring range. For example,

companies will need to be more involved at high

school and college level to generate interest and educate

students on the skills needed for the industry. In

addition, these companies will need to begin targeting

the 60+ market, which is looking increasingly likely to

seek supplemental income after retirement age and may

continue to work in the field through reduced work

programs.

The Global Talent Index’s measurement of the quality

of the environment to nurture talent – which puts

a strong weighting on the percentage of university

students in the sciences, numbers of R&D researchers

and meritocratic remuneration – reflects one of the

biggest changes ahead for talent trends in the life science

sector over the next five years. China, which advances

two places on the overall Global Talent Index for 202,

jumps eight places to 4th in this category between

2007 and 202, its biggest advance among all seven

measurements used to make up the GTI. The increase

reflects the Chinese government’s determination to

improve the quality of life for its population and

develop the life sciences sector into one of its global

competencies.

Another strong performer in this category is South

Korea, which advances four places to 0th place in the

rank in its ability to nurture talent. Unsurprisingly, the

US ranks top in this category, given its long history

of innovation in the sector, followed closely by the

Netherlands, Canada, Japan and Australia.

Developing an awareness of these emerging trends and

making the recruitment, development and retention of

top talent a strategic imperative is critically important

for every life sciences company competing in the

global market. Equally important is the establishment

of strong partnerships with world class agencies

capable of recruiting the best talent in key functions

in all established and emerging regions. The most

proactive industry players have already made significant

investments in talent, and these are the companies that

are best positioned for the future.

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights16

Financial Services

Accounting for talent

Over the past two decades young graduates have been attracted to the challenge and wealth creation opportunities that have resulted from an evolving global financial services sector. The US has been a dominant source of talent, but several factors have resulted in an increasing demand for fresh skill sets and talent from different countries. These factors include the continued growth of European markets, a rise in opportunities across Asia and other emerging markets, and the growth of a new group of top financial service firms not domiciled in the US.

In the future, a number of market risks will rebalance

the opportunities that have existed in this sector. Slower

global economic growth and rising interest rates, credit

defaults and issues stemming from a lack of market

liquidity – following the sub-prime mortgage collapse

– will, in the short-term lead firms to reevaluate their

portfolios, product mix and pace of expansion. A

slowdown in the global property market, particularly

in developed economies, will put financial pressure

on banks that have enjoyed strong returns from real

estate lending. As the economy slows and the debt

markets become less attractive, M&A activities, led

in part by private equity funds, will lessen, causing

investment banks to rethink their ongoing growth plans

in investment banking and capital markets. The sharp

rise in debt associated with leveraged buyouts by private

equity firms will increasingly become a source of risk

to lenders.

To combat this, many banks will continue to diversify

their businesses, strengthen reserves and improve the

quality of loan recipients. A high premium will be

placed on new product development, emerging markets,

and increasingly sophisticated risk management and

transfer techniques. The appetite will be for multi-

lingual candidates with international experience who

possess a strong combination of technical experience

and education.

The Global Talent Index (GTI) shows that the historic

dominance of US talent will continue but also reveals

the rise of several European countries as European

financial services firms emerge as dominant global

players. Over the next five years, it is predicted that

France will leap three places to rank 2nd behind the

US in the proclivity to attracting talent measurement

– this vital indicator assesses the technical skills of the

workforce, personal disposable income, employment

growth and GDP data. Canada, Germany, Australia

and the UK follow in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th places,

respectively. Japan will also gain competitive advantage,

Valerie Germain

Financial Services practice

vgermain@heidrick.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 17

jumping from 4th to th place in its proclivity to

attract talent over the next five years.

There will also be significant demand for talent

originating in the high growth areas of Asia and the

other emerging markets. The demand for this talent

may outpace the supply. Despite the vast numbers of

graduates entering the workforce every year in these

countries, a relatively low proportion will have the skills

required by global financial service firms. Those that do

will be highly sought after and firms will need to offer

top compensation and career growth opportunities to

attract and secure their loyalty.

Interestingly, India, which earns its overall 0th place

ranking in the GTI primarily because of the talent pool

created by its huge population, will jump four places,

from 7th to 3th, in its proclivity to attract talent in

202. This is the country’s single biggest improvement

among all seven indices, reflecting a continued emphasis

on technical training at the secondary and tertiary levels

of education as well as a rapidly expanding middle-class.

The orientation of graduates is far more sophisticated

today because of their access to information from the

internet. ‘Generation Y’, those born between 977 and

2005, have grown up with computers, show no fear of

technology, take risks and are media-savvy and brand

conscious. They are an online generation whose new

social spheres are networking sites such as MySpace and

FaceBook. Within a few years, job podcasts by even the

most conservative of companies will become a reality.

The firms that understand this and position themselves

accordingly will reap the benefits.

One of the ongoing challenges in financial services

has been the thoughtfulness with which firms have

approached succession planning. This has been true

in some parts of the sector more than others but, as

the sources of talent change it will be increasingly

incumbent on all firms to mature the processes around

the development and retention of their next generation

of leadership talent.

‘Generation Y’, those born between 1977 and 2005, have grown up with computers, show no fear of technology, take risks and are media-savvy and brand conscious. They are an online generation whose new social spheres are networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook. Within a few years, job podcasts by even the most conservative of companies will become a reality.

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights18

Togo

Russia

Finland

Spain

Sweden

Norway

Germany

France

Portugal

Romania

Turkey

Denmark

Poland

Belarus

Ukraine

Greece

Cyprus

Neth. Ireland

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Greenland

Iceland

United States

Canada

Brazil

Kenya

Ethiopia

Eritrea

Sudan

Egypt

Niger

Mauritania

Mali

Nigeria

Somalia

Namibia

Libya

Chad

South Africa

Tanzania

Dem. Rep. Of Congo

Angola

Algeria

Madagascar

Mozambique

Botswana

Zambia

Gabon

Central African Republic

Tunisia

Morocco

Uganda

Burundi Rwanda

Benin

Ghana

Cote D'Ivoire

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Guinea Burkina Faso

Gambia

Cameroon

Sao Tome & Principe

Zimbabwe

Congo

Equatorial Guinea

Western Sahara

Senegal

Guinea Bissau

Canary Islands Jordan

Israel

Lebanon

Azerbaijan Georgia

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Kuwait

U. A. E.

Yemen

Syria Iraq

Iran

Oman

Saudi Arabia

Afghanistan

Pakistan India

China

Kazakhstan

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Myanmar

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Mongolia

United Kingdom

Italy

Cape Verde Islands

Azores Islands

Puerto Rico

Venezuela

Guyana

Suriname

French Guyana

Austria Hungary

Bulgaria

Czech Rep. Slovakia

Bel.

Albania

Mold.

Bosnia & Herz.

Croatia Slovenia

Switz.

Mac.

Qatar

Mont. Serbia

Arctic Circle

Tropic of Cancer

Equator

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

A T L A N T I C

I N D I A N O C E A N

O C E A N

A R C T I C O C E A N

Chukchi Sea Beaufort Sea

Hudson Bay Baffin

Bay

Norwegian Sea

Greenland Sea

North Sea

Mediterranean Sea

Baltic Sea

Black Sea

Aral Sea

Arabian Sea

Bay of

Bengal

Sea of Okhotsk

Barents Sea

Kara Sea

Leptev Sea

Red Sea

Caspian Sea

AppendicesAppendix A Methodology, 19

Appendix B Global Talent Index maps, 20

Appendix C Global Talent Index weighting, 22

Appendix D Overall GTI ranking, 23

Appendix E Demographics, 24

Appendix F Quality of compulsory education, 25

Appendix G Quality of universities and business schools, 26

Appendix H Quality of the environment to nurture talent, 27

Appendix I Mobility and relative openness of the labor market, 28

Appendix J Stock and flow of foreign direct investment, 29

Appendix K Proclivity to attracting talent, 30

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 19

Appendix A

Methodology

The Global Talent Index is the result of a collaboration between Heidrick & Struggles and the Economist Intelligence Unit; the vision of the former was matched by the research expertise of the latter. The Index measures not only a country’s natural potential for producing talent in socio-demographic terms, but also the conditions necessary to realize this potential. A country may exhibit heady population growth but without a supporting infrastructure and the right cultural contexts, the talent margin will not be able to fully develop.

To reflect this multi-layered analysis seven major

areas were determined to be of importance:

• demographics

• quality of compulsory education systems

• quality of universities and business schools

• quality of the environment to nurture talent

• mobility and relative openness of the labour market

• trends in foreign direct investment

• proclivity to attracting talent

Applying their respective areas of expertise in talent

assessment and data gathering, the project team from

both organizations drew up a list of variables with

which to measure the seven areas of interest. These

variables combine quantitative measures drawn from

a variety of local and international data sources,

with qualitative assessments from the Economist

Intelligence Unit’s network of country analysts and local

contributors. Forecasts were based on the Economist

Intelligence Unit’s macroeconomic model and country

analysts’ projections for qualitative variables. Some

variables, particularly for education, had to be assumed

to remain equal in five years, owing to the lack of

time on which to base projections. The data was then

normalized in order to obtain scores from to 00

(where higher scores meant better performances on the

talent measures).

Finally, the project team set the weights of the different

variables in the overall Index by assigning scores from

to 5 for each variable (where = less important and

5 = of critical importance).

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights20

Appendix B

Global Talent Index maps the world at 202

Arctic Circle

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Antarctic Circle

Spain

Norway

Portugal

Ireland

Greenland

Iceland

United States

Canada

Mexico

The Bahamas

Cuba

Panama

El Salvador Guatemala

Belize Honduras

Nicaragua

Costa Rica

Jamaica Haiti

Dominican Republic

Argentina

Bolivia

Colombia

Venezuela

Peru Brazil

French Guiana Suriname

Guyana

Chile

Ecuador

Paraguay

Uruguay

Mauritania

Mali

Algeria

Morocco

Ivory Coast

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Guinea

Gambia

Western Sahara

Senegal

Guinea Bissau

United Kingdom

Canary Islands

Cape Verde Islands

Azores Islands

France

Russia

Puerto Rico

A T L A N T I C

P A C I F I C

A R C T I C O C E A N

O C E A N

O C E A N

Beaufor t Sea

Car ibbean S ea

Hudson Bay

Gul f of Alask a

Baffin Bay

Gulf of Mexico

Nor wegian Sea

2012 rank country

rank change

GTI 2012

GTI 2007

1 United States 0 53 52

2 United Kingdom + 2 48 46

3 Canada - 1 47 47

4 Netherlands - 1 46 46

5 Sweden 0 45 45

6 China + 2 44 42

Global Talent Indexranking in 202

The map uses color to represent thirty countries’ overall talent

ranking at 202, indicating at a glance how countries score at

nurturing talent, from red-hot beds to blue cooler climates.

Global Talent Index scores in 2012 – numbers represent how countries score at nurturing talent

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 21

Togo

Russia

Finland

Spain

Sweden

Norway

Germany

France

Portugal

Romania

Turkey

Denmark

Poland

Belarus

Ukraine

Greece

Cyprus

Neth. Ireland

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Greenland

Iceland

United States

Canada

Brazil

Kenya

Ethiopia

Eritrea

Sudan

Egypt

Niger

Mauritania

Mali

Nigeria

Somalia

Namibia

Libya

Chad

South Africa

Tanzania

Dem. Rep. Of Congo

Angola

Algeria

Madagascar

Mozambique

Botswana

Zambia

Gabon

Central African Republic

Tunisia

Morocco

Uganda

Burundi Rwanda

Benin

Ghana

Cote D'Ivoire

Liberia

Sierra Leone

Guinea Burkina Faso

Gambia

Cameroon

Sao Tome & Principe

Zimbabwe

Congo

Equatorial Guinea

Western Sahara

Senegal

Guinea Bissau

Canary Islands Jordan

Israel

Lebanon

Azerbaijan Georgia

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Kuwait

U. A. E.

Yemen

Syria Iraq

Iran

Oman

Saudi Arabia

Afghanistan

Pakistan India

China

Kazakhstan

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Myanmar

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Mongolia

United Kingdom

Italy

Cape Verde Islands

Azores Islands

Puerto Rico

Venezuela

Guyana

Suriname

French Guyana

Austria Hungary

Bulgaria

Czech Rep. Slovakia

Bel.

Albania

Mold.

Bosnia & Herz.

Croatia Slovenia

Switz.

Mac.

Qatar

Mont. Serbia

Arctic Circle

Tropic of Cancer

Equator

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

A T L A N T I C

I N D I A N O C E A N

O C E A N

A R C T I C O C E A N

Chukchi Sea Beaufort Sea

Hudson Bay Baffin

Bay

Norwegian Sea

Greenland Sea

North Sea

Mediterranean Sea

Baltic Sea

Black Sea

Aral Sea

Arabian Sea

Bay of

Bengal

Sea of Okhotsk

Barents Sea

Kara Sea

Leptev Sea

Red Sea

Caspian Sea

Russia

India

China

Burma

Thailand

Cambodia

Nepal

Bhutan

Vietnam

Sri Lanka

Laos Bangladesh

Malaysia

Papua New Guinea

East Timor

Brunei

Sing.

Philippines

Malaysia

I n d o n e s i a

Japan

Mongolia

South Korea North Korea

Australia

New Zealand

New Caledonia

Fiji

Antarctica

Vanuatu

Solomon Islands

Madagascar

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Antarctic Circle

P A C I F I C

I N D I A N O C E A N

O C E A N

Bay of

Bengal

South China

Sea

Sea of Japan

East China Sea

Yellow Sea

Sea of Okhotsk

Tasman Sea

Great Australian

Bight

Ross Sea

2012 rank

countryrank

changeGTI

2012GTI

2007

7 Germany - 1 44 43

8 Australia - 1 43 43

9 France 0 43 41

10 India 0 41 39

11 Spain 0 37 37

12 Malaysia 0 37 37

2012 rank

countryrank

changeGTI

2012GTI

2007

13 South Korea + 2 37 34

14 Japan + 2 36 34

15 Poland - 2 35 35

16 Italy - 2 34 34

17 Ukraine + 2 34 33

18 Russia 0 34 33

2012 rank

countryrank

changeGTI

2012GTI

2007

19 Mexico + 2 33 31

20 Greece 0 32 32

21 Argentina - 4 32 34

22 Thailand 0 30 31

23 South Africa + 1 30 29

24 Egypt + 1 29 29

2012 rank

countryrank

changeGTI

2012GTI

2007

25 Brazil - 2 29 30

26 Turkey 0 29 27

27 Saudi Arabia + 1 26 23

28 Nigeria - 1 23 25

29 Indonesia 0 22 23

30 Iran 0 21 21

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights22

indicator weight: 1 to 5

Demographics

Population aged 20-59 5

CAGR Population aged 20-59 (%) 0

Quality of compulsory education sectors

Duration of compulsory education 4

Starting age of compulsory education 1

Current education spending (% of GDP) 2

Current education spending per pupil as a % of GDP per capita

4

Primary school enrollment ratio (%) 2

Secondary school enrollment ratio (%) 4

Mean years of schooling 4

Adult literacy rate (% of pop over 15) 5

Pupil/Teacher ratio, primary 2

Pupil/Teacher ratio, lower secondary 2

Pupil/Teacher ratio, upper secondary 2

Quality of universities and business schools

Gross enrollment ratio ISCED 5 & 6 Total 4

Number of business schools ranked in world’s top 100

2

Number of universities ranked in world’s top 500

3

Expenditure per student for higher education (as % of GDP per capita)

3

Quality of the environment to nurture talent

Share of the population aged 25-64 with tertiary level education

3

Percentage of higher education graduates in the Social Sciences, Business and Law

2

Percentage of tertiary graduates in the Sciences

4

Researchers in R&D (per m pop) 4

Technicians in R&D (per m pop) 1

indicator weight: 1 to 5

R&D as % of GDP 5

Cost of living 3

Degree of restrictiveness of labor laws 4

Wage regulation 1

Quality of workforce 4

Local managers 4

Protection of intellectual property rights 1

Protection of private property 3

Meritocratic remuneration 4

Mobility and relative openness of the labor market

Number of students studying overseas 2

Number of overseas students studying in country as a % of tertiary enrollment

4

Language skills of the labor force 5

Hiring of foreign nationals 4

Openness of trade (exports + imports % of GDP)

3

Stock and flow of foreign direct investment

Average flow of FDI in previous five years (% of GDP)

0

Average stock of FDI in previous five years (% of GDP)

2

Proclivity to attracting talent

Technical skills of the workforce 4

Personal disposable income per capita (US$ bn)

4

Employment growth 3

GDP per capita 0

GDP per capita (PPP) 4

Nominal USD GDP 3

PPP GDP 3

Real GDP growth (%) 3

Appendix C

Global Talent Index weighting

Seven major areas were determined to be of importance

in researching and analysing the factors that determine

a country’s potential for producing talent. These are

listed here in the tables on the right. As the final step

in the data analysis, the project team from Heidrick &

Struggles and The Economist Intelligence Unit applied

their judgement to set the weights of the different

variables in the overall ranking by assigning scores from

to 5 for each variable (where = unimportant and 5

= critical importance). For example, in assessing the

quality of compulsory education, the starting age of a

country’s compulsory education was judged to be much

less significant than its adult literacy rate which were

weighted and 5 respectively. This process ensures that

the final scores include a degree of insight from the

project team based on its specialist knowledge of

the subject.

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 23

Appendix D

Overall GTI rankings

The two tables on the right show the ranking that each

of the thirty countries achieved in the study in 2007 and

the projection forward five years to 202. The arrows

between the columns show movement in rank over the

five-year period. Red arrows show warming talent, blue

shows where talent is cooling and green indicates where

no change has occurred.

2007

rank country GTI score

1 US 52

2 Canada 47

3 Netherlands 46

4 UK 46

5 Sweden 45

6 Germany 43

7 Australia 43

8 China 42

9 France 41

10 India 39

11 Spain 37

12 Malaysia 37

13 Poland 35

14 Italy 34

15 South Korea 34

16 Japan 34

17 Argentina 34

18 Russia 33

19 Ukraine 33

20 Greece 32

21 Mexico 31

22 Thailand 31

23 Brazil 30

24 South Africa 29

25 Egypt 29

26 Turkey 27

27 Nigeria 25

28 Saudi Arabia 23

29 Indonesia 23

30 Iran 21

2012

rank country GTI score

1 US 53

2 UK 48

3 Canada 47

4 Netherlands 46

5 Sweden 45

6 China 44

7 Germany 44

8 Australia 43

9 France 43

10 India 41

11 Spain 37

12 Malaysia 37

13 South Korea 37

14 Japan 36

15 Poland 35

16 Italy 34

17 Ukraine 34

18 Russia 34

19 Mexico 33

20 Greece 32

21 Argentina 32

22 Thailand 30

23 South Africa 30

24 Egypt 29

25 Brazil 29

26 Turkey 29

27 Saudi Arabia 26

28 Nigeria 23

29 Indonesia 22

30 Iran 21

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights24

Appendix E

DemographicsIn assessing the demographic factors that affect

talent, the team analysed how many people of

working age, 20-59 years old, there were in each

of the thirty countries.

2007

rank country score

1 China 100

2 India 73

3 US 21

4 Indonesia 17

5 Brazil 13

6 Russia 10

7 Japan 8

8 Nigeria 7

9 Mexico 7

10 Germany 5

11 Turkey 5

12 Iran 5

13 Egypt 4

14 Thailand 4

15 UK 4

16 France 4

17 Italy 4

18 South Korea 3

19 Ukraine 3

20 Spain 3

21 Poland 2

22 South Africa 2

23 Argentina 2

24 Canada 2

25 Malaysia 1

26 Saudi Arabia 1

27 Australia 1

28 Netherlands 1

29 Greece 0

30 Sweden 0

2012

rank country score

1 China 100

2 India 76

3 US 20

4 Indonesia 17

5 Brazil 14

6 Russia 10

7 Nigeria 8

8 Japan 7

9 Mexico 7

10 Germany 5

11 Turkey 5

12 Iran 5

13 Egypt 5

14 Thailand 4

15 UK 4

16 France 3

17 Italy 3

18 South Korea 3

19 Ukraine 3

20 Spain 3

21 Poland 2

22 Argentina 2

23 South Africa 2

24 Canada 2

25 Malaysia 1

26 Saudi Arabia 1

27 Australia 1

28 Netherlands 1

29 Greece 0

30 Sweden 0

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 25

Appendix F

Quality of compulsory educationIn assessing the quality of compulsory education,

the team looked at eleven variables which impact the

effectiveness of schooling as follows:

• duration of compulsory education

• starting age of compulsory education

• current education spending (% of GDP)

• current education spending per pupil as

a % of GDP per capita

• primary school enrolment ratio (%)

• secondary school enrolment ratio (%)

• mean years of schooling

• adult literacy rate (% of pop over 5)

• pupil/teacher ratio, primary

• pupil/teacher ratio, lower secondary

• pupil/teacher ratio, upper secondary

2007

rank country score

1 UK 74

2 Canada 73

3 Germany 72

4 Sweden 71

5 France 70

6 Netherlands 70

7 Australia 70

8 US 70

9 Spain 66

10 Japan 66

11 South Korea 66

12 Italy 64

13 Poland 64

14 Ukraine 63

15 Argentina 62

16 South Africa 59

17 Malaysia 59

18 Mexico 58

19 Thailand 57

20 Russia 56

21 Greece 55

22 Turkey 51

23 Brazil 50

24 India 44

25 Iran 42

26 China 41

27 Egypt 39

28 Indonesia 37

29 Nigeria 35

30 Saudi Arabia 33

2012

rank country score

1 UK 75

2 France 72

3 Netherlands 71

4 Canada 71

5 Germany 71

6 US 70

7 Sweden 69

8 Australia 68

9 Japan 66

10 South Korea 66

11 Spain 66

12 Ukraine 65

13 Italy 64

14 Poland 63

15 Argentina 60

16 Mexico 58

17 Thailand 58

18 South Africa 57

19 Greece 57

20 Malaysia 57

21 Turkey 54

22 Russia 53

23 Brazil 48

24 China 46

25 India 42

26 Iran 40

27 Egypt 39

28 Indonesia 38

29 Saudi Arabia 35

30 Nigeria 30

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights26

Appendix G

Quality of universities and business schoolsThe following variables were used as a measure of

both the reputation and resources of the business

schools and universities in each country as well as

their enrolment records:

• gross enrollment ratio ISCED 5 & 6 total

• number of business schools ranked in

world’s top 00

• number of universities ranked in world’s top 500

• expenditure per student for higher education

(as % of GDP per capita)

2007

rank country score

1 US 76

2 UK 43

3 Sweden 37

4 South Korea 35

5 Australia 35

6 Canada 33

7 Saudi Arabia 33

8 Germany 32

9 France 32

10 Netherlands 30

11 Greece 30

12 Spain 29

13 Russia 28

14 Japan 28

15 Egypt 28

16 Ukraine 26

17 Italy 26

18 Poland 25

19 Malaysia 22

20 Argentina 21

21 China 19

22 Thailand 16

23 Turkey 14

24 Mexico 12

25 Brazil 12

26 India 11

27 South Africa 9

28 Iran 8

29 Nigeria 6

30 Indonesia 5

2012

rank country score

1 US 78

2 UK 44

3 Sweden 38

4 South Korea 37

5 Australia 36

6 Germany 34

7 France 34

8 Canada 33

9 Saudi Arabia 33

10 Greece 30

11 Russia 30

12 Japan 30

13 Spain 30

14 Egypt 28

15 Ukraine 27

16 Poland 27

17 Italy 27

18 Netherlands 25

19 Malaysia 23

20 Argentina 22

21 China 20

22 Thailand 17

23 Mexico 15

24 Turkey 15

25 India 12

26 Brazil 10

27 South Africa 10

28 Iran 9

29 Nigeria 7

30 Indonesia 6

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 27

Appendix H

Quality of the environment to nurture talentAssessing the quality of the environment involved

analysis of the following factors:

• share of the population aged 25-84 with

higher education

• percentage of higher education graduates in

the Social Sciences, Business and Law

• percentage of tertiary graduates in the Sciences

• researchers in R&D (per m pop)

• technicians in R&D (per m pop)

• R&D as % of GDP

• cost of living

• degree of restrictiveness of labor laws

• wage regulation

• quality of work force

• local managers

• protection of intellectual property rights

• protection of private property

• meritocratic remuneration

2007

rank country score

1 US 64

2 Netherlands 60

3 Canada 57

4 Japan 56

5 Sweden 53

6 Russia 52

7 Australia 52

8 Germany 52

9 France 49

10 UK 49

11 India 48

12 Spain 48

13 Ukraine 47

14 South Korea 46

15 Malaysia 45

16 Argentina 44

17 Mexico 44

18 Brazil 43

19 Italy 43

20 Poland 41

21 Thailand 41

22 China 41

23 Greece 41

24 South Africa 39

25 Iran 38

26 Nigeria 35

27 Egypt 35

28 Indonesia 35

29 Turkey 33

30 Saudi Arabia 28

2012

rank country score

1 US 64

2 Netherlands 60

3 Canada 58

4 Japan 56

5 Australia 55

6 Sweden 53

7 Germany 53

8 UK 53

9 France 52

10 South Korea 51

11 Russia 50

12 Spain 49

13 India 48

14 China 47

15 Mexico 46

16 Malaysia 43

17 Ukraine 43

18 Poland 43

19 Brazil 41

20 Greece 41

21 Italy 41

22 South Africa 39

23 Argentina 39

24 Thailand 39

25 Iran 36

26 Egypt 35

27 Turkey 34

28 Indonesia 32

29 Saudi Arabia 32

30 Nigeria 29

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights28

Appendix I

Mobility and relative openness of the labor market

The variables used to measure the mobility and relative

openness of the labor market focus not only on the

number of people studying outside of their home

country and their language skills, but also on a country’s

tendency to hire foreign nationals to add diversity to its

workforce. These characteristics along with openness to

other cultures are crucial to creating and maintaining

talent flow:

• number of students studying overseas

• number of overseas students studying in country as a

% of enrollment in higher education

• language skills of the labor force

• hiring of foreign nationals

• openness of trade (exports + imports % of GDP)

2007

rank country score

1 Canada 73

2 UK 62

3 Germany 59

4 Netherlands 58

5 Australia 58

6 Sweden 54

7 Malaysia 52

8 France 51

9 US 49

10 India 47

11 China 46

12 South Africa 43

13 Thailand 41

14 Greece 41

15 Poland 41

16 Nigeria 40

17 Turkey 40

18 Italy 39

19 Spain 38

20 Argentina 38

21 Mexico 38

22 Ukraine 38

23 Brazil 37

24 Egypt 36

25 Russia 34

26 South Korea 34

27 Indonesia 30

28 Japan 30

29 Saudi Arabia 27

30 Iran 20

2012

rank country score

1 Canada 74

2 UK 64

3 Germany 61

4 Netherlands 60

5 Australia 59

6 Sweden 57

7 Malaysia 56

8 France 53

9 India 53

10 US 51

11 China 48

12 South Africa 46

13 Poland 43

14 Greece 42

15 Ukraine 42

16 Mexico 41

17 Italy 41

18 Turkey 40

19 South Korea 40

20 Spain 40

21 Russia 40

22 Argentina 39

23 Brazil 39

24 Egypt 39

25 Nigeria 37

26 Thailand 36

27 Japan 35

28 Saudi Arabia 32

29 Indonesia 29

30 Iran 20

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 29

Appendix J

Stock and flow of foreign direct investmentTo determine the scores for this pillar of the research,

the project team looked at the average stock and at the

average flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) for

each country in the previous five years as a percentage

of GDP. However, it only used the figures for each

country’s average stock of FDI when calculating

this index.

2007

rank country score

1 Netherlands 100

2 Malaysia 73

3 Sweden 69

4 UK 50

5 Nigeria 47

6 Spain 45

7 Argentina 42

8 Australia 42

9 Canada 41

10 Thailand 40

11 Egypt 39

12 South Africa 39

13 Poland 38

14 France 36

15 China 36

16 Mexico 35

17 Germany 30

18 Brazil 29

19 Ukraine 23

20 US 15

21 Italy 14

22 Turkey 13

23 Saudi Arabia 12

24 South Korea 12

25 Greece 10

26 Russia 10

27 India 7

28 Indonesia 5

29 Iran 0

30 Japan 0

2012

rank country GTI score

1 Netherlands 100

2 Sweden 71

3 UK 56

4 Malaysia 53

5 South Africa 47

6 Canada 45

7 Egypt 42

8 France 41

9 Australia 40

10 Spain 38

11 Mexico 37

12 Poland 37

13 Thailand 31

14 Nigeria 30

15 Argentina 30

16 Ukraine 28

17 Germany 28

18 Brazil 26

19 China 25

20 Turkey 22

21 US 18

22 Italy 16

23 Russia 13

24 Indonesia 9

25 South Korea 9

26 India 9

27 Greece 8

28 Saudi Arabia 8

29 Japan 0

30 Iran 0

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights30

Appendix K

Proclivity to attracting talent

Perhaps the most difficult area to define because of

its cultural nuance, is a country’s proclivity to attract

talent. In other words, why would anyone want to work

there? In assessing this final pillar of the research, the

project team looked at the following variables:

• technical skills of the workforce

• personal disposable income per capita (US$ bn)

• employment growth

• GDP per capita (PPP)

• nominal USD GDP

• PPP GDP

• real GDP growth (%)

2007

rank country score

1 US 39

2 Sweden 37

3 Canada 36

4 Germany 35

5 France 35

6 Australia 34

7 UK 33

8 Spain 31

9 Netherlands 31

10 Italy 30

11 Poland 29

12 Greece 26

13 Argentina 25

14 Japan 25

15 South Korea 23

16 Malaysia 23

17 India 23

18 Egypt 23

19 Russia 20

20 Mexico 20

21 Brazil 19

22 Iran 19

23 Saudi Arabia 19

24 Turkey 17

25 Nigeria 16

26 China 16

27 Ukraine 15

28 Indonesia 15

29 Thailand 14

30 South Africa 11

2012

rank country score

1 US 41

2 France 35

3 Canada 35

4 Germany 34

5 Australia 33

6 UK 33

7 Sweden 32

8 Spain 31

9 Italy 30

10 Netherlands 29

11 Japan 28

12 Malaysia 27

13 India 27

14 South Korea 27

15 Greece 26

16 Poland 24

17 Argentina 24

18 Mexico 24

19 Russia 23

20 Saudi Arabia 22

21 Turkey 22

22 Egypt 22

23 Ukraine 21

24 Brazil 20

25 Thailand 18

26 China 18

27 Iran 17

28 Nigeria 17

29 Indonesia 14

30 South Africa 11

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 31

Further reading available on www.heidrick.com ‘The Leadership Team: Complementary Strengths or Conflicting Agendas’, Stephen A Miles and Michael D Watkins, Harvard Business Review, April 2007

‘Roller Coaster Leadership’, Kevin Kelly, Business Strategy Review, Spring 2007

Getting Results in China: How China’s Tech Executives are Molding a New Generation of Leaders, (A joint research project between Heidrick & Struggles and The Stanford Project on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship)

Route to the Top, Dr Elisabeth Marx, Heidrick & Struggles, 2006

Executive Leadership in China, (A joint study between Heidrick & Struggles and the Economist Intelligence Unit)

Benchmarking Corporate Governance in China, (A joint research project carried out by Heidrick & Struggles and the School of Management, Fudan University)

Heidrick & Struggles Mapping Global Talent: Essays and Insights32

The Economist Intelligence Unit is the world’s foremost provider of country, industry and management analysis. Founded in 946 when a director of intelligence was appointed to serve The Economist, the Economist Intelligence Unit is now a leading research and advisory firm with more than forty offices worldwide.

For nearly sixty years, the Economist Intelligence Unit

has delivered vital business intelligence to influential

decision-makers around the world. Its extensive

international reach and unfettered independence

makes it the most trusted and valuable resource

for international companies, financial institutions,

universities and government agencies.

The mission of the Economist Intelligence Unit is

to provide executives with authoritative analysis and

forecasts to make informed global decisions. It offers

three kinds of business intelligence: country analysis

on more than 200 markets, industry trends in eight

key sectors and latest management strategies and

best practices.

The nature of the operation and client base of the

Economist Intelligence Unit demands a global presence.

The head office is in London with major regional

centres in Hong Kong, Vienna and New York.

www.eiu.com

Global Talent Index, developed in co-operation with the Economist Intelligence Unit 33

Russia

India

China

Burma

Thailand

Cambodia

Nepal

Bhutan

Vietnam

Sri Lanka

Laos Bangladesh

Malaysia

Papua New Guinea

East Timor

Brunei

Sing.

Philippines

Malaysia

I n d o n e s i a

Japan

Mongolia

South Korea North Korea

Australia

New Zealand

New Caledonia

Fiji

Antarctica

Vanuatu

Solomon Islands

Madagascar

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Antarctic Circle

P A C I F I C

I N D I A N O C E A N

O C E A N

Bay of

Bengal

South China

Sea

Sea of Japan

East China Sea

Yellow Sea

Sea of Okhotsk

Tasman Sea

Great Australian

Bight

Ross Sea

Amsterdam +31 (0)20 462 77 77

Atlanta +1 404 577 2410

Auckland +64 (0)9 3066630

Barcelona +34 (0)93 225 7300

Beijing +86 (0)10 65988288

Boston +1 617 737 6300

Brussels +32 (0)2 5420750

Buenos Aires +54 (0)11 43209950

Chicago +1 312 496 1000

Chongqing +86 (0)23 63001588

Cleveland +1 216 241 7410

Copenhagen +45 33 377 600

Dallas +1 214 706 7700

Denver +1 720 932 3839

Dusseldorf +49 (0)211 82820

El Segundo +1 310 321 3220

Encino +1 818 905 6010

Frankfurt +49 (0)69 697 0020

Hamburg +49 (0)40 3405770

Helsinki +358 9 2511250

Hong Kong +852 21039300

Houston +1 713 237 9000

Istanbul +90 (0)212 3510904

Johannesburg +27 (0)11 6856910

Lisbon +351 21 3514530

London +44 (0)20 7075 4000

Los Angeles +1 213 625 8811

Madrid +34 (0)91 391 5256

Melbourne +61 (0)3 90123000

Menlo Park +1 650 234 1500

Mexico City +52 (01)55 91380370

Miami +1 305 262 2606

Milan +39 02 762521

Minneapolis +1 612 215 6913

Moscow +7 495 225 9367

Mumbai +91 (0)22 66663021

Munich: Keplerstrasse +49 (0)89 998110

Munich: Sophienstrasse +49 (0)89 255477

New Delhi +91 (0)11 26451010

New York, Park Avenue +1 212 867 9876

New York, Wall Street +1 212 699 3000

Paris +33 (0)1 4434 1700

Philadelphia +1 215 988 1000

Rome +39 06 8537 5801

San Francisco +1 415 981 2854

Santiago +56 (0)2 2033660

Sao Paulo +55 11 550 44000

Seoul +82 (0)2 34306000

Shanghai +86 (0)21 61361988

Singapore +65 63325001

Stamford +1 203 252 2900

Stockholm +46 (0)8 4067100

Sydney +61 (0)2 8205 2000

Taipei +886 (0)2 27576123

Tokyo +81 (0)3 55106800

Toronto +1 416 361 4700

Tysons Corner +1 703 848 2500

Vienna +43 (0)1 53310070

Warsaw +48 (0)22 5849898

Washington DC +1 202 331 4900

Zurich +41 (0)44 4881313

Heidrick & Struggles our global capability

Connecting leaders around the globe is

what Heidrick & Struggles does best.

For over fifty years we have been building

deep relationships with the world’s

most talented individuals on behalf of

the world’s most successful companies.

Through the strategic acquisition,

development and retention of talent

we help our clients – from the most

established market giants to the

newest market disruptors – build

winning leadership teams.

www.heidrick.com

For general enquiries about the Heidrick & Struggles

Global Talent Index or to order more copies of the wall map

and booklet please email talentmap@heidrick.com

For press inquiries please contact Narda Shirley at

narda@gongcommunications.com