Is "Talent Management" Really Managing The Talent?

"Organisations can talk about talent management until they are blue in the face, but fewer than a third of American companies are actually any good at it."   Source: Management-Issues, 20 July 2007 .

What is your experience with Talent Management? And is there actually a War for Talent other than the one being waged by those who might benefit in some way from a war for talent?

Talent Management Defined

Google "Talent Management Defined" and you'll get more than 2,000,000 results. 

That tells us there are a lot of people who are at least exploring the idea. But what is it really about?

This definition from bNet is about as exciting as a corporate mission statement but works prettty well:

Talent management is the integrated process of ensuring that an organization has a continuous supply of highly productive individuals in the right job, at the right time. Rather than a one-time event, talent management is a continuous process that plans talent needs, builds an image to attract the very best, ensures that new hires are immediately productive, helps to retain the very best, and facilitates the continuous movement of talent to where it can have the most impact within the organization.

Maybe I'm getting a bit jaundiced, but isn't this what organizations have been doing for years?

Which brings me to what I think I've been seeing in the workplace: The notion of "talent management" is a natural, managerial function that has been made into a movement (not unlike "leadership") whose proponents have marketed it well. It plays on the best positive psychology (come on, who is going to argue about the need for talent?) and combines it with the best negative psychology (the WAR for talent!).

How Does It Really Work?

I consult and help develop Talent Management processes alongside executives and others who are expected to "make it happen." 

If you are at all involved in that process, here are a few things I've learned that I hope will prove helpful:

1. Start by dealing with the real issue.

If you are thinking about designing a Talent Management program, ask "Why?"

Really. Then listen closely to the answers. You may have a recruiting problem, an orientation problem,  an image problem, or a development problem. If you have all of them you're probably not financially solvent.

By isolating the issue (if there is one), you can focus your efforts on those areas that will give you a real payoff.

2. Managers manage talent.

Teach managers how to interview, hire, manage performance, and develop people. Programs don't manage talent. People do.

3. Managing Talent is a management activity, not an HR initiative.

Everything you do with people touches, and is touched by, HR. This is not a swipe at HR. They have an important support role to play. But unless your HR people are as strong in organizational development(OD) as they are in compensation & benefits, don't expect them to offer the kind of expertise needed in leading an initiative. Managers need to do that. But if they are strong in OD, they can be a big help in supporting your efforts and being intimately involved in planning, explaining what's happening and why, and follow-through.

4. "High-Potential" labels can be counter-productive and just plain useless.

I've been waiting a long time to put that into print. When I'm not writing here at ATW, I spend about 40% of my time working in companies assessing individual strengths and designing developmental activities. Those activities range from full-blown corporate leadership programs to developmental work assignments. This is what I believe I've learned and continue to track closely for accuracy:

• The term "high-potential" is tough to define. Get a group together at work and try it out in earnest today. You'll see what I mean.

• When you do define it, it can only be in terms of what you think the organization will need in the next x years. While you are in committees defining "high-potential", your dorganizational needs are changing because the world around you is changing.
  
  That doesn't mean you shouldn't define how a really good manager or executive should look and act. But your company's future is situational. So is managing. If you start isolating people now and referring to them as "high potential" you raise their expectations, diminish others, and do both using a word (potential) that, by definition, refers to an as-yet-unrealized state.
• Put people into increasingly responsible situations early in their employment.
  
  Why ruminate about potential when you can start building people and see the actual results straight away? Let people manage a project, a committee, an office picnic--anything to help them try stretching and learn from the experience. If you watch what they do and how they do it, you can help them manage their personal development. Likewise, if you see a glaring gap in large numbers of peoples' abilities, you'll know what kind of training and development to provide. That means you can stop some of the training that is costing you money now but not necessary.
  
  Factoid: I've noted this in previous posts. Whenever we ask the direct question of leadership program participants, "What has been most helpful to your managerial growth?", the answer is always--overwhelmingly--"on-the-job assignments."

More to  Come. . .

Wow. This post is getting long and I've only done some stream-of-consciousness, albeit based on first-hand experience. I think throughout the week we'll delve into other aspects of talent management activities and how to view them accurately and productively.

What is your experience with a Talent Management program? There are a lot of organizational managers who visit All Things Workplace each day and can benefit from your thinking. So take time to comment; you'll help someone as a result.

Photo Source Attribution: www.nataliedee.com

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the left. You'll always get the newest post!

   

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

As a two-man/woman-band we hardly ever have to deal with these kind of issues, but as an 'entrepreneur' and learner I'm definitely always interested in these items.
Meaning, I cannot speak from experience as manager, only as observer.

My thoughts on this post are: managing talents when hardly anyone (or just a few) of the employees know their own talents is difficult and I think the managing of talent should start there: helping the workers to find/explore/utilize their own unique and individual talents. Then, take it from there.

(Can you tell I'm a big fan of "Go put your strengths to work" by Marcus Buckingham? ;-))

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[Scott M]

I will say also that I can only speak as an observer. But here are my observations.

I agree that this needs to be a continuous process. And how do we ensure a continuous process in most companies? We have rules and procedures that must be followed and incentives (sticks and carrots) for following them. So make sure you put into place some kind of structure, rather than expressing some vague desire to develop your employees.

If you need a starting point, I would recommend the annual performance review. Turn it into a year-long examination of goals, achievements, encouragement, self-examination, and development. Set up short term goals and revisit them every 3 months. Set up a training plan to accomplish those goals. Set up metrics to measure the progress towards the goals.

Then you'll not only have a performance review that actually accomplishes something, you'll also have a powerful talent management tool.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Karin,

That's a worthwhile starting point whether you are a 2-person shop or a 100,000-person global corporation. The Strengths tool that you mentioned is one that I've used frequently in conjunction with other assessments.

Interestingly, a fairly significant number of clients become enthusiastic when they see the description of their strengths. It then takes a while to do some soul-searching and job-description searching to pinpoint how best to find a match.

Some managers don't like it because it doesn't list "competencies" that are quickly equated with job duties. It forces a deeper thought process and a real conversation. That's not always welcome in a "let's tick this off the list" atmosphere.

The result: the process goes full circle to where you started: individuals have to reflect and sort out what it means and how best to view those strengths in light of their own careers.

Thanks for adding the KISS touch to a complex task!

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Scott,

As always, I can rely on you to jump in with a pragmatic, real-world approach.

The idea of being structured and purposeful vs. vague and fuzzy would certainly be the intent here. Your description of "how to do it" highlights a worthwhile way to go about that part of the talent process (performance management/development). If everyone did what you suggested--and did it pretty well--the people and organizations involved would probably be pleased with the outcome.

Now, here's a question for you (and everyone): If your company has that kind of intended structure in place, how often do people really get the scheduled review, feedback, development, and follow up?

The answer to that question will tell a lot about how the organization is actually managing it's talent.

Thanks again, Scott.

[Wally Bock]

Tried to post this yesterday with no success.

I agree with Scott but I think he's not fine-grained enough. Performance management is something that every manager should be doing e very day with everyone who works for him or her. If you want to have a semi-annual or annual recap, great, but the performance management is what happens every day.

I get nervous when the basic work of managers is programmized or passed on to HR. Managers need to be selected for their ability to do management work, given the resources necessary, encouraged, coached, evaluated and held accountable for the way they accomplish the mission through the group and care for their people.

I get REALLY nervous when the term "talent management" is a practical surrogate for "high potential program." I'm with Steve on this. If you give people opportunities to shine, the high potential people will make themselves known through their performance.

"High potential" programs can suck up valuable resources and spend them on people who may not need them or who may be just stopping by on a multi-company career path. If the money being spent on "high potential" programs is diverted from supervisory skills training for front line supervisors and managers, it's a very bad trade indeed.

[Steve Roesler]

Your concerns reflects your years of first-hand experience, Wally.

I can say that what I am seeing "out there" is not making a difference. The emphasis on building managers seems to have changed to an emphasis on high-level, philosophical debate about "What is a leader?" followed by more philosophy and conceptual activities.

Talking about Leader-ship is a far cry from doing the work of building people once they come on board.

The high-potential issue plays into that as you astutely mentioned. Once the conversation focuses on defining a "high-potential," that's now a signal to me that nothing of significance is about to happen.

If I appear jaded it is because I have to finally admit that I am.

It is absolutely possible to build managers and management teams. And managers and management teams are the ones to make it happen.

Thinking back on successful programs in which I've been involved, there is one common thread: they were all sponsored by a manager (at some level) who figured out what needed to happen, got some design and instructional/coaching expertise, and was personally involved in the execution of the related activities.